Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-08 Packet r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 6:00 p.m. 17 CALL TO ORDER LA Roll Call LII. SET AGENDA IL le: HEARING (S) to j UB Northern Forest Products Tax Abatement / e Delinquent Utilities for 2001 Certification I�i APPEARANCES /AWARDS V / V.� COONSIDERATION OF MINUTES I October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes 4 . PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Vl 7 The City of Centerville October 26, through November 8, 2000 l Centennial Fire District Expenses . Pay Estimate #1 — Lift Station #2 II. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1.1 Resolution 00 -30 Cable Franchise Extension • Resolution 00 -31 — Awarding Sale of $650,000 G.O. Improvement Bond (Hunter's Crossing) Ira Lawn Care Services - Bids X. BUSINESS 7 Resolution 00 -32 - Delinquent Utilities Election Canvassing Joint Law Enforcement Council Amendment /Reports 1 Woiak Sewer Repair /Servicing Reimbursement City Hall Updating ▪ Ground Development — Pheasant Marsh PUD .,/ itv- 1.w, ..... t- .41-L f r it -' 1 ,,,,. ,.., I..P.i c.l.d..i d 4 ..' a,'i .'t:. t 4 • y!/ Appraisals — Turcotte Property vg Notice of Sub - Standard Building — 7121 Centerville Road 4, - 3, L,X. CONSENT AGENDA 14I. COMMITTEE REPORTS i. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 002„„_ 44,0 04 die- S nle Sir /1 XIII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S $32,250 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 1995A AND ITS $114,051.19 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 1995B AND APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council "Council" of the City of Centerville, y ("Council") y Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City approved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 (the "TIF District ") within Development District No. 1 ( "Project ") by resolution approved June 28, 1995. To facilitate development of a manufacturing facility in the TIF District, the City entered into a Contract for Private Development between the City and the Northern Forest Products, L.L.C. (the "Developer ") dated October 24, 1995 (the "Agreement "). The Contract required the Developer to construct a 14,500 square -foot facility on certain property defined in the Agreement (the "Property "), in exchange for issuance of two tax increment revenue notes as further described in this resolution. 1.02. Under Resolution No. 95 -20 approved October 25, 1995, the City issued its $32,250 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995A dated as of October 26, 1995 ( "Note 1 "), with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, maturing on August 1, 1998, and payable solely from Available Tax Increment as defined in the Agreement. Note 1 was issued to the Developer and assigned to Glenn R. Rehbein and Myrna L. Rehbein ( "Rehbein "), sellers of the Property, as part of the purchase price for acquisition of the of the Property by the Developer. 1.03. Under Resolution No 95 -21 approved October 25, 1995, the City also issued its $114,051.19 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995B dated November 1, 1995 ( "Note 2 "), with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, maturing on February 1, 2006, and payable solely from Available Tax Increment remaining after Note 1 is paid in full or terminated in accordance with its terms. Note 2 was issued to and remains held by the Developer, as reimbursement for certain Site Improvement costs incurred by the Developer along with the balance of the cost of acquisition of the Property. 1.04. The Available Tax Increment pledged to both Note 1 Note 2 (together, the "Notes ") has been insufficient to pay when due the scheduled payments on the Notes. The City, the Developer and Rehbein have determined to modify the terms of the Notes in order to remedy, in part, the insufficiency in pledged revenues. 1.05. In order to induce the Developer to construct an expansion of his manufacturing SJB- 184817v2 CE155 -7 1 facility on the Property and to help remedy the insufficiency in Available Tax Increment pledged to Note 2, the City has determined to grant a property tax abatement for the City's share of the property taxes on the Property after termination of the TIF District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Abatement Act "), subject to the terms and conditions of this resolution. Section 2. Revision of Note 1. 2.01. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Resolution No. 95 -20 or the terms of Note 1, the City will pay the outstanding principal and accrued interest on Note 1 to Rehbein, which payment will be made from the total Tax Increment generated from the Property as of the date of payment. The payment will be made on September November 15, 2000. 2.02. Upon payment of Note 1 in full, the City will execute and deliver to Developer a release, in recordable form, of the Assessment Agreement between the City and the Developer dated October 24, 1995. Section 3. Revision of Note 2. 3.01. Upon making the final payment on Note 1 as described in Section 2 hereof, the City will deliver to the Developer an Amended and Restated $114,051.19 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995B fAinendestAmended Note 23 2 ") in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. In exchange for Amended Note 2, Developer shall deliver to the City the original Note 2 for cancellation, as well as an investment letter from Developer in a form acceptable to the City. 3.02. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Resolution No. 95 -21 or the terms of original Note 2, Amended Note 2 is payable solely from and in the amount of "Available Tax Increment," which means (a) on the September November 15, 2000 Payment Date, 100 percent of the Tax Increment generated from the Property that was received by the it City as of that Payment Date and not applied to any prior payment of Note 1 or original Note 2, and (b) on each Payment Date thereafter, 95 percent of the Tax Increment generated from the Property that was received by the City as of each Payment Date and not applied to any prior payment of Note I, original Note 2 or Amended Note 2. 3.03. The payment due on Septerebee Natember 15, 2000 on the Amended Note 2 will be further adjusted as follows: (a) The Developer agreed under the Assessment Agreement that the Property would have an estimated market value of $527,700 as of January 2, 1996 for taxes payable in 1997. However, the actual estimated market value on the County records for January 2, 1996 was $327,700, which resulted in a reduction in property taxes paid by Developer (and Tax Increment received by the City) in the amount of $17,225.72. The City will deduct that amount from the payment otherwise due under Amended Note 2 on September November 15, 2000. • (b) Prior to the date of this resolution, the City has paid to the Developer a total of . $24,165.09 toward the original Note 1. The City will also deduct that amount from the payment otherwise due under the Amended Note 2 on September November 15, 2000. S18- 184817v2 CE 155 -7 2 3.04. The City will decertify the TIF District as soon as reasonably practicable after the earliest of (a) the date Amended Note 2 is paid in full or defeased, or (b) December 31, 2005. The City acknowledges that any payment under Amended Note 2 on February 1, 2006 is payable from Available Tax Increment received in calendar year 2005, and the intent of this Section is to provide that the Property will not be included in the TIF District for property taxes payable in 2006. Section 4. Property Tax Abatement Findings. 4.01. On September3 November 8, 2000 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding abatement of the City's share of property taxes on the Property as described in this Section, at which the views of all interested persons were heard. 4.02. It is hereby found and determined that the benefits to the City from the Abatement (as hereafter defined) will be at least equal to the costs to the City of the Abatement, because it will induce Developer to add significant improvements to its existing facility and produce long- term property tax benefits that exceed the amount of the Abatement. 4.03. It is hereby found and determined that the Abatement is in the public interest because it will increase the tax base of the City and increase employment opportunities. 4.04. It is further specifically found and determined that the Abatement is expected to result in the following public benefits: (a) Create an estimated X000 $900,000 increase in estimated market value for property tax purposes, which will be available to all taxing jurisdictions after expiration of the Abatement. (b) Improve the economic vitality of the community through creation of additional manufacturing- related jobs and a further beneficial economic impact in connection therewith. (c) Increase living wage jobs in the City. Stat, Section 1161993 to 116.1995 because the amount of assistance is less than $25,000. Section 5. Abatement Approved. 5.01. The Abatement is hereby approved and adopted subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) The term "Abatement" means the real property taxes generated by extending the City's total tax rate for that year against the tax capacity of the Property and all improvements constructed addition to the existing facility on the Property (the "Additional Improvements ") as of that tax - payable year, s1a- 184817v2 Ceiss -7 3 including the tax capacity of thc land and any portion of the awl, tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 473F, except in J p no event will the Abatement = - - ... ' •' = - . . . - • • .. - . . be paid with respect to the lan•_or to f1 (b) The Abatement will be paid for property taxes payable five years. beeginninn, in the first tax- payable year after the Property is not included in the TIF District, as described in Section 3.04 hereof. Therefore, the Abatement will be paid in 2006 unless the TIF District is decertified at an artier date. In no event • - : ' :. - •- - - . • :: - : - - ... The pyeret�ate • , t&ment over �tteJ've -year peyjodwill not exceed $123.000juhject tq_a y additional limit described in clause (d) below. (c) The City will pay the Abatement to the Developer in according to the County's procedures. semi - annual installments on each February 1 and August 1, commencing Auguust 1 of the first year the Abatement is in effect, as described in clause (b). (d) In accordance with Section 469A813, subdivision 8 of the Act, in no case shall the Abatement exceed the greater of 5% of the City's levy for the year in which the Abatement is paid or $100,000 (the "Volume Cap "). If the total abatements payable by the City under the Abatement Act in the year in which the Abatement is paid exceed the Volume Cap, the City will allocate the Volume Cap to abatements in the order in which they were approved. (e) The City Administrator is authorized and directed to include in the levy for the each year in which the Abatement will be paid an amount equal to the estimated Abatement payable in that year. (f} The City will have no obligation to pay the an installment of Abatement if, as of thc first any date when an installment due of Abatement is payable, property taxes on the Property (including any installments of special assessments) are delinquent for that year or any prior year. If Developer does not timely pay all property taxes and installments of special assessments due on the Property by October 15 in the any year in which the an Abatement is payable, the City's obligation to pay any the Abatement for that year terminates, whether or not the delinquency is cured after October 15 or in a subsequent year. (g) The Abatement is subject to modification in accordance with the Act, but only upon the mutual written agreement of the City and the Developer. h1 PPavment of any Abatement is subject to all terms and conditions of • the Abatement Agreement (as hereinafter defined). 5.02. City staff and officials are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent of this Section. SJ8- 184817v2 CELS5 -7 4 Section 6. t ! • r 's s RC 1 4_0 _L1 • 6 e ,.' 1 e t kit • a' -'L•.- I 'd e•u r • .si • d I. .11! I • 1J•L ••lr•t ' 1 I `i -..1 • _ Itii •'I Hall. 6.02. The Mavor and Cit 'Sdminjsiratnr Are aut and directed to execute the Abatement Aureement, subiect to modifications that do not alter the Substance of the transaction: provided that execution by those officials is conclusive evidence of thei approval. Section 7. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon approval by the City Council. Approved by the City Council of the City of Centerville this day of September November, 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator • SJ8- 184817v2 CE 155 -7 5 EXHIBIT A FORM OF AMENDED NOTE 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA No. R -1 $114,051.19 AMENDED AND RESTATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE SERIES 1995B Date Rate of Original Issue 8.50% November 1, 1995 The City of Centerville, Minnesota (the "City "), for value received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Northern Forest Products, L.L.C., or registered assigns (the "Owner "), the principal sum of $114,051.19 and to pay interest thereon at the rate of 8.50% per annum, as and to the extent set forth herein. 1. Payments. Principal and interest shall be paid in installments on September November 15, 2000 and on each February 1 and August thereafter to and including February 1, 2006 ( "Payment Dates "), which payments will be made in the amount of and solely from Available Tax Increment as hereinafter defined. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the City. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of the United Sates of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. 2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal, commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid. Unpaid interest shall be added to principal semi - annually on each February 1 and August 1 through August I, 2000. 3. Available Tax Increment. Payments on this Note are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which means: • (a) on the September 15, 2000 Payment Date, 100 percent of the Tax Increment generated from the Property that was received by the City as of that Payment Date and not applied to any prior payment of this Note (before or after amendment thereof) or any prior payment of the City's $32,250 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995A ( "Note 1"); provided SJB- 184817v2 CE155 -7 A-1 that the payment on September November 15, 2000 is subject to the adjustment described in Section 3.03 of the City Council resolution approved September 13 November 8, 2000; and (b) on each Payment Date after September November 15, 2000, 95 percent of the Tax Increment generated from the Property that was received by the City as of each Payment Date and not applied to any prior payment of this Note (before or after amendment thereof) or Note 1. Available Tax Increment shall not include any Tax Increment generated with respect to the Property if, as of any Payment Date, there is an uncured Event of Default under the Agreement. The City shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment, and the failure of the City to pay any amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the City pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment. The City shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final payment on February 1, 2006. The City makes no warranty or representation that Available Tax Increment will be sufficient to pay the principal and accrued interest on this Note. 4. Optional Prepayment. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty. 5. Termination. At the City's option, this Note shall terminate and the City's obligation to make any payments under this Note shall be discharged upon the occurrence of an Event of Default on the part of the Developer as defined in Section 9.1 of the Agreement, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured in accordance with Section 9.2 of the Agreement. 6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $114,051.19, all issued to aid in financing certain costs of a Project undertaken by the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, and is issued pursuant to the Contract for Private Development dated as of October 24, 1995 (the "Agreement ") between the City and the Owner, and an authorizing resolution adopted by the City on October 25, 1995, as amended by a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 13 November 8, 2000 (together, the Resolutions), and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is a limited obligation of the City which is payable solely from and to the extent of Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolutions. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto. • 7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the City kept for that purpose at the principal SJB- 184817v2 cuss -7 A -2 office of the Assistant City Clerk, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the City with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates. This Note shall not be transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the City has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the City, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the City according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota has caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Administrator, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA Mayor City Administrator REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the Assistant City Clerk, in the name of the person last listed below. Signature of Date of City Administrator Registration Registered Owner Northern Forest Products, L.L.C. Federal Tax I.D. No. • S.113-134817 v2 CEissa A -3 This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J: \ DMS \ SJB \ 3YLT01!.DOC ii and revised document: J: \ DMS \ SJB \ 3YLT02!.DOC CompareRite found 39 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold +Dbl Underline text • SJB- 184817v2 CE 755 -7 A-4 ABATEMENT BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2000, by and between CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City ") and NORTHERN FOREST PRODUCTS, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer "). RECITALS A. The City and Developer previously entered into a Contract for Private Development dated October 25, 1995 (the "'TT Contract "), under which Developer constructed an approximately 14,500 square foot manufacturing facility (referred to as the "Minimum Improvements ") on property owned by the Developer and defined as Lot 5, Block 1, Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat thereof (the "Property "). B. Under the TIF Contract, the City provided certain tax increment financing assistance to the Developer through issuance of the City's $114,051.19 Tax Increment revenue Note, Series 1995B ( "TIF Note "). The TIF Note is payable solely from and to the extent of tax increments from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 (the "TIF District "). C. The Developer has proposed to construct an approximately 25,000 square foot addition to the existing manufacturing facility on the Property (referred to as the "Additional Improvements "), and in connection with that effort has requested that the City grant an abatement of property taxes under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Abatement Act "). D. After duly notice public hearing, the City Council approved an abatement of the City's share of taxes on the Additional Improvements, as described in Resolution No. approved November 8, 2000 (the "Abatement Resolution "). E. The proposed abatement represents a "business subsidy" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993 to 1161995 (the "Business Subsidy Act "). This Agreement constitutes the "business subsidy agreement" between the Developer and the City for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: 1. Additional Improvements. The Developer must substantially complete construction of the Additional Improvements on the Property by December 31, 2001. Construction will be considered substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City. 2. Abatement. (a) The City will pay the abatement payments to the Developer in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Abatement Resolution. The Abatement (as defined in the Abatement Resolution) will be paid for no more than five years, beginning in the first year after termination of the TIF District, and in the aggregate will not exceed $123,000. The Abatement will be derived solely from the City's share of taxes on the Additional Improvements, as more specifically defined in the Abatement Resolution. (b) The Developer understands and acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the amount of the Abatement or whether the Abatement will be in the amounts estimated as of the date of this Agreement. The amount of the Abatement may vary depending on the market value of the Additional Improvements, tax rates, changes in the property tax law, and other factors. Any estimates of the Abatement amount prepared by the City's financial advisor are solely for the benefit of the City, and Developer is not entitled to rely on such estimates. 3. Business Subsidy Act Provisions. For the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act: (a) The subsidy provided to the Developer by the City consists of the Abatement, which payments represent a forgivable loan that is repayable by the Developer in accordance with this Agreement. No assistance under this Agreement will be paid with tax increments. The City acknowledges that Developer has satisfied all job and wage requirements imposed under the TIF Contract. (b) The public purposes of the subsidy are to promote development of a manufacturing facility in the City, retain and increase jobs in the City and the State, and increase the tax base of the City and the State. (c) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Additional Improvements on the Property in accordance with Section 1 hereof; to maintain such improvements as a manufacturing facility for at least five years as described in clause (f) below; and to retain and create the jobs and wage levels described in Section 4 hereof. (d) If the goals described in clause (c) are not met, the Developer must make the payments to the City described in Section 5. (e) The subsidy is needed to induce Developer to expand its business in the City rather than relocate to a site elsewhere in Minnesota or another state. Without the Abatement assistance, Developer may be required to relocate a portion of its business elsewhere, resulting in loss of employment in the City (f) The Developer must continue operation of the Additional Improvements as a manufacturing facility for at least five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion, unless after a public hearing, the City Council approves Developer's request to move outside the City. (g) The Developer does not have a parent corporation. 4. Job and Wage Goals. Within two years after substantial completion of the Additional Improvements (the "Compliance Date "), the Developer shall (a) maintain at least _ full -time equivalent jobs existing on the Property as of the date of this Agreement, (b) cause to be created at least 1 new full -time equivalent job in addition to existing jobs, and (c) shall cause the wages for all employees on the Property (including those working in the existing facility and the • Additional Improvements) to be no less than $ hour, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Developer's continuing obligations under Sections 5 and 6. The City may, after a public hearing, S38- 187989v1 2 CE155 -7 r , extend the Compliance Date by up to one year, provided that nothing in this section will be construed to limit the City's legislative discretion regarding this matter. 5. Remedies. If the Developer fails to meet the goals described in Section 3(c) and 4, the Developer shall repay to the City upon written demand from the City (1) a "pro rata share" of the amount of any Abatement payments made to the Developer, together with (2) interest on the amount in clause (1) at the implicit price deflator as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.50, subd. 2, accrued from the date of substantial completion of the Additional Improvements to the date of payment. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required to be retained and created less the jobs retained and created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the Additional Improvements in accordance with Section 3(0, 60 Less the number of months of operation as a manufacturing facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the certificate of completion and ending with the date the facility ceases operation as determined by the City, divided by 60; and (iv) if more than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100 %. In addition to the remedy described in this Section, upon Developer's failure to meet the goals stated in Section 3(c) and 4, the City may suspend payment of further Abatements, terminate this Agreement and any obligation to pay future Abatements, or take any other actions available to the City under law or equity. Developer further agrees and understands that it may not a receive a business subsidy from the City or any grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Developer satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first. 6. Reports. The Developer must submit to the Authority a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March I of each year, commencing March 1, 2001 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section 3(c) and 4 are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five -year period described in Section 3(0; or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 5. The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The City will provide information to the Developer regarding the required forms. If the Developer fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the City will mail the Developer a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Developer fails to provide a report, the Developer must pay to the City a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000. • S19- 187989v1 3 CEI55 -7 7. Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrant to the other that: (a) It is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder. Performance of its obligations hereunder does not conflict with any of its contracts, enabling legislation or governing documents. (b) It will cooperate with the other party with respect to any litigation, other than litigation in which the parties are adversaries, commenced with respect to the Abatement, the Additional Improvement or the Property. 8. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that neither the City, nor its governing body members, officers, agents, servants, or employees shall be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Additional Improvements. (b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of the following named parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the City, and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees now or forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Additional Improvements. (c) The City, and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Developer or its officers, agents, servants, or employees, or any other person who may be about the Property or Additional Improvements, due to any act of negligence of any person. (d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and obligations of the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City, and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or employee of the City in the individual capacity thereof. 9. Assignment, The Developer may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any person or entity without prior written approval by the City. 10. Miscellaneous. (a) This Agreement may be amended by the parties only by written instrument approved and executed by the parties. (b) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. • (c) A notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by either part to the other will be sufficiently given or delivered if its sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally: SJB- 187989v1 4 CE/ 55-7 As to the City: City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55012 Attention: City Administrator As to the Developer: Northern Forest Products 2050 Main Street Centerville, Minnesota 55038 (d) No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to a party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. • SIB- 187989v1 5 CE155 -7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000, by and , the Mayor and the City Administrator of the for the City of Centerville, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public SIB-187989v! 6 CE155 -7 1 NORTHERN FOREST PRODUCTS, L.L.C. By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2000 by , the of Northern Forest Products, L.L.C. Notary Public SJB- 187989v1 7 CEI55 -7 RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT The City of Centerville ( "City") and Northern Forest Products, L.L.C. ( "Developer ") entered into an Assessment Agreement dated as of October 24, 1995 and filed of record with the Office of the County Recorder for Anoka County on October 25, 1995 as document No. 1188438 ( "Assessment Agreement "), with respect to the property in the City of Centerville, Minnesota described as Lot 5, Block 1, Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota ( "Property"). The undersigned hereby certifies that Note 1 (as described in Section 1 of the Assessment Agreement) has been paid in full, and accordingly the Assessment Agreement is hereby terminated and the minimum market value stated therein is of no further force or effect after the date hereof. Dated: September November 15, 2000 CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )} ss.: COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2000 by ___ the Mayor and , the City Administrator of the City of Centerville, Minnesota a Minnesota municipal corporation, by and on behalf of said City. Notary Public This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 SJB- 184866v2 CEI55 -7 This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J: \DMS \SJB \3YN601!.DOC and revised document: JADMS \SJB \3YN602!.DOC CompareRite found 1 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold +Dbl Underline text S1B- 184866v2 CE1 55-7 To the City Council of the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota Attention: City Administrator RE: Amended and Restated $114,051.19 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995B The undersigned as Owner of the above - captioned note (Amended Note) hereby represents to you as follows: 1. The City previously issued to us its $114,051.19 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995B dated as of November 1, 1995 (the "Original Note "). 2. Pursuant to a resolution of the City Council approved September 13 November 8, 2000 (the "Resolution "), the City has modified the terms of the Original Note, and to that end has on this date delivered to us the Amended Note in exchange for the Original Note. We understand that the terms of the Amended Note control, and that the Original Note is cancelled, null and void. 3. We understand that the Amended Note is payable solely from and to the extent of Available Tax Increment as defined in the Amended Note, and that the City has made no warranties or representations as to the amount of Available Tax Increment or that such revenue will be sufficient to pay in full the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Amended Note. 4 We acknowledge that no representations have been made by the City or its bond counsel, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as to the status of interest on the Amended Note or the Original Note for federal or state income tax purposes. 5. We have no present intent to transfer the Amended Note or any interest therein to any other party, except as collateral assignment for any loan in connection with existing or future improvements to the Property, and we acknowledge that any transfer is subject to the restrictions described in the Note. Dated: September November 15, 2000 NORTHERN FOREST PRODUCT, L.L.C. By Its S18- 184861v2 CEI55 -7 This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J: \DMS\SJB\3YN101!.DOC and revised document: J:\DMS \SJB \3YN102!.DOC CompareRite found 2 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold +Dbl Underline text SJB- 184861v2 CE155 -7 CONSENT TO AMENDED NOTE WHEREAS, the undersigned entered into an Assignment of TIF Agreement dated as of October 24, 1995 (the "Assignment ") between the City of Centerville, Minnesota ( "City "), Northem Forest Products, L.L.C. ( "Borrower ") and Norwest Bank Minnesota ( "Lender "); and WHEREAS, is the successor in interest to Lender; and WHEREAS, under the Assignment the Borrower collaterally assigned to Lender the Borrower's interest in the Contract for Private Development between the City and the Developer dated as of October 24, 1995 ( "TIF Agreement ") and the $114,051.19 Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995B (the "Original Note ") issued by the City to Borrower pursuant to the TIF Agreement; and WHEREAS, under the Assignment, the City agreed that no change to the TIF Agreement would be made without Lender consent; and WHEREAS, the City and Developer have agreed to modify the terms of the Original Note as described in the Amended and Restated Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 1995 (the "Amended Note ") delivered to the Developer pursuant to a resolution approved by the City on Soptombor 13 November 8, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, the Lender hereby represents to the Developer and the City that Lender consents to modification of the Original Note as evidenced by delivery of the Amended Note. DATED: , 2000 [NAME OF LENDER] By Its 5113- [84862v2 CE 155 -7 This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J:\DMS \SJB13YN201!.DOC and revised document: J:\DMS \SJB \3YN202!.DOC CompareRite found 1 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold +Dbl Underline text 516- 184862v2 CE 155 -7 .9 CITY OF CENTERVILLE ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING I OCTOBER 25, 2000 6:00 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly schak meeting on October 25, 2000, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Wilharber Council Member Dick Travis j 1 j Coun Council Member Terry Sweeney / 1 cil Member Linda Broussard Vickers r a i ABSENT: Council Member Mari Nelson STAFF: City Administrator, Jim March City Engineer, Tom '; terson ? - Public Works Dire to Paul Palzer t x {� Rr. ® �� ` k fr ' 4 r r 1 L CALL TOO' ; ER •' :; 8 ' 'P 1:I . Mayor Wilhar, 4 called t e c ober • , 400' 1 i @cunul I e`ting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ' I AGEN 1 • , 1 •, or h• . - added 4 Far• ia.n gAll epYS, Restoration of City Fire Truck, 1 '•0 • • . • as It• anti 3.T.. ui - e ti Rice Creek Watershed as Item 7 under S• r i : rt . 4 ncil I e m !,- r Tr it s c` I nded b Council Member Sweene to ''- Riti ?1 I9 nda : 7 ith :Ii. noted additions. All in favor. Motion , � i©Exea3! t�i l usi . v f iE }.' ul r xi I P ! G I; A. No I ' I' ` • ' • NCES /AWARDS o e. i CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Mayor Wilharber requested the following changes: Remove reference on Page 3 to Mrs. • Salazar as she was not present at the public hearing; indicate on page 6 that Mr. Peterson indicated the cost for the additional trailway could be born by the developer; on Page 7 correct the spelling of John to "Jon"; on Page 8 change the comment by Mayor Wilharber Page 1 of 8 4ti to indicate only two (2) police vehicles will be parked at the public works building; on page 13 to reference the Lion's storage building rather than the old, red, concession stand. Council Member Sweeney requested the following changes: On page 6 change Council Member Sweeney's comment regarding Parks & Recreation Committee to indicate Parks & Recreation was unaware of a width difference in the trailways when the trailway was approved; change the language of the paragraph concerning additional cost to maintain the wider trailway to specify that the City will not really incur any additional costs to widen the trailway as the trail will have to be maintained despite the width; on page 9 change the motion regarding Trio Inn to read as a "fine" not a "donation ". Also correct motion to read by Sweeney, seconded by Travis, with a friendly amendment by Mayor Wilharber, agreed to by Sweeney and Travis to draft a letter from the City to the State regarding the imposed fine; Page 13, in the motion by Sweeney, correct the motion to include the request for an appraisal of the entire block including all the houses on the block, the duplex and the church property. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis to approve the October 11, 2000, City Council Meeting Minutes with the noted changes. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously, VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS The City of Centerville October 12. through October 25, 2000 Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis to approve the expenditures for the City from October 12, 2000 through October 25, 2000. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Centennial Fire District Expenses Mayor Wilharber noted the equipment cost of $181,630.00 was for the purchase of the new fire engine tanker with a 65' ladder. Council Member Sweeney indicated a call was received for assistance with the Carlos Avery wildfire on Thursday afternoon. He indicated the main firefighting effort for the Centennial Lakes Fire District was from Thursday afternoon all through the night into the early morning hours of Friday. The tanker was then used Friday through Sunday to assist in fighting the fire. Mayor Wilharber thanked the firefighters for their efforts. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Broussard Vickers to approve the Centennial Fire District Expenditures in the amount of $185,094.44. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. • Page 2 of 8 r VII. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS Intihar Complaint — Center Street Driveways Heaving Y g Mr. March p e ented to Council pictures of the Intihar driveway showing, approximately a three by toot section at the end of the driveway that had heaved making the driveway almost unusable. Mayor Wilharber stated that he had spoken to the homeowner when he stopped to check on the driveway. The homeowner indicated to Mayor Wilharber it was his intent to replace the driveway, but wanted to be sure the problem at the end of the driveway was solved prior to doing so. Mr. Peterson questioned Mr. Palzer whether drain tile had been placed at the end of the Intihar driveway. Mr. Palzer stated that it was his belief there was drain tile in place and that it was three (3) or four (4) feet below grade. Mayor Wilharber questioned where the drain tile directed the water. Mr. Palzer stated that it is directed west to the drainage ditch and then to a catch basin. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned if the driveway had heaved due to the drain tile placement or if the drain tile was installed in an effort to keep the driveway from heaving. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned City requirements to repair the lower portion of the driveway. Mr. Palzer recommended replacing the lower portion with class five for winter and working jointly with the homeowner in the spring when they intend on replacing the entire driveway. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned if it was the City's responsibility to repair the driveway and whether or not the remaining portion of the driveway could also heave as a result of the base under the asphalt. Mr. March stated that the driveway has experienced heaving in the drain tile area only. Mr. Palzer stated that Center Street, in the area being discussed, rises approximately eight inches during winter. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned removal of the drain tile. Mr. Palzer stated that the same drain tile was located on neighboring properties as well. Mr. Peterson recommended using class five to seal the draintile to keep the water from flowing through. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned whether the repairs needed to be completed prior to winter or the possibility of waiting until spring. Mr. Palzer stated that he would speak with the homeowners. Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned whether other driveways in the area • would also need repairing. Page 3 of 8 Mayor Wilharber questioned whether the City had previously repaired other driveways in the area. Mr. Palzer stated that the City had replaced three out of four driveways. Council Member Travis questioned if Staff should consider receiving a quote to repair the three (3) foot by three (3) foot section and offer the funds to the homeowner. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis to direct staff to obtain a quote for repairs to the three (3) foot by three (3) foot section of the Intihar driveway and to inform the Intihars of the amount the City will reimburse them subsequent to the driveway being repaired. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Northern Forest Products — Tax Abatement Mr. March stated that no official action was needed on the Northern Forest Products Tax Abatement until the public hearing scheduled for November 8, 2000. IX. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution 00 -26 — Special Assessment Abatement It has been brought to the City's attention that Special Assessments for the Parkview Development were not removed from PIN #R23- 31 -22 -31 -0053 (6992 Meadow Circle) on Anoka County's records following Burnett Title's payment in March of 1999 and are showing on the property owner's statement of property tax payable in 2000. Resolution 00 -26 allows for the error to be corrected by Anoka County. Motion by Council Member Travis, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to approve Resolution 00 -26, as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Resolution 00 -28 — Electing to Continue Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to approve Resolution 00 -28 as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Resolution 00 -29 — Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Delinquent Sewer and Water Accounts and Other Outstanding Balances Owed to the City by Individual Property Owner(s) Mayor Wilharber stated that the list of homeowners with delinquent utilities appear to be the same, year, after year. He then questioned whether homeowners could attempt to • claim the assessment as property tax paid, on their income tax returns. Council Member Page 4 of 8 Broussard Vickers indicated that homeowners may claim the assessment as property taxes paid, but legally it is not allowed and would likely lead to an IRS audit. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis to Approve Resolution 00 -29. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Shoreview Good Neighbor Program Mayor Wilharber read a letter received from the Shoreview Community Center regarding their Good Neighbor Rate. Residents of the City of Centerville are entitled to receive a 15% discount on regular rates for seasonal or annual memberships. In return for the discount, Shoreview has requested that the City of Centerville publish a four (4) inch by four (4) inch advertisement provided by them in all City publications for one (1) year. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney, to participate in the Shoreview Good Neighbor Program by agreeing to publish their provided advertisement in all City publications for one (1) year. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Force Main Issue (Mill Road and Peltier Lake Drive) Mr. Peterson stated that there was a leak in the force main located at Mill Road and Peltier Lake Drive recently. Mr. Peterson indicated that it was determined that the cast iron pipe used for the main had pitted badly and was in need of repair. Mr. Peterson also stated that the entire length of pipe is deteriorating and in need of repair. Mr. Peterson stated he had received several quotes from contractors to repair the main by directional boring so the blacktop would not be disturbed. The lowest bid received for a directional bore with a 6" plastic pipe came from Penn Contracting. The bid was $58,752. Mr. Peterson stated that Penn Contracting had indicated they would be able to start construction the week of October 30, 2000. Mayor Wilharber questioned the amount of pipe being replaced. Mr. Palzer stated a 20- foot section and the section under the culvert would be replaced. Mayor Wilharber questioned whether the increased pressure created by the new pumps may have caused the pitting or deterioration of the pipe. Mr. Palzer stated that slight hammering on the pipe does occur when the pumps stop. Council Member Sweeney questioned where available funds would be expended from to repair same. Mr. March stated that same would be expended from sewer funds. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis, to accept the directional bore bid submitted by Penn Contracting in the amount of $58,752 and directed staff to determine whether additional pipe in the area needed • to be repaired or replaced. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Page 5 of 8 6. City Fire Truck de c Mayor Wilharber gave a brief history of the storage o f the 1950 Studebaker aker fir e truck and how it arrived on his mother's property. Mayor Wilharber stated that the truck had been stored on the property for five (5) years. Mayor Wilharber stated that he has attempted restoring the truck for inclusion in City functions and will also be attempting to restore a horse drawn fire wagon. Mayor Wilharber estimated the initial costs to restore the fire truck at $25, for primer and red spray paint. Future costs may include a brake repair kit, ignition switch, keys and restoration of the seats. Mayor Wilharber stated that he will report back to the Council engine operation, if any, or if addition ° monies need9tto be expending. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney, to authorize Mavor Wilharber to use one stall of the old Public Works building to store and repair the 1950 Studebaker tire truck; to provide keys to the building. heat to the building and the use of electricity for power tools; and to direct Mayor Wilharber to keep a running total of expenditures with a cap of $1,000. All in favor. Motion carried. Mavor Wilharber abstained. 7. Rice Creek Watershed District Appointment Mayor Wilharber read a letter informing Council of the need to publish a notice of the vacancy on the Board of Managers for the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City needs to provide its nominee by November 15, 2000. Mayor Wilharber noted Mr. Cardinal has served the Watershed District for many years and indicated it was his desire to nominate Mr. Cardinal. Consensus was to publish the notice of vacancy and determine whom to appoint to the Rice Creek Watershed District based on applications received at the November 8, 2000 City Council Meeting. X. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolution 00 -27 — Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 (Hunter's Crossing) Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Broussard Vickers, to Approve Resolution 00 -27. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. XI. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Wilharber reported that the Centennial Fire District Committee has obtained a new Polaris Ranger six (6) wheeled, all terrain vehicle with a 50- gallon water tank on the back. The District also recently obtained Engine 2lwhich is a fire engine tanker with a 65' ladder. • Page 6 of 8 Mayor Wilharber stated that the Centennial Fire District Committee is in the process of their year -end audit. Mayor Wilharber also stated that generators have been approved for Centerville, Lino Lakes and Circle Pines included their generator in the initial station. Mayor Wilharber stated that at least half of the funding for the new generators was received from charitable gambling and the Cities paid the other half. Centennial Fire District will be acquiring a Thermal Imaging Camera in the near future. The cost same is $18,000 and the camera will be purchased by the Relief Association through charitable gambling. It was noted that the proposed county-wide radio system is expected to cost between $12 and $14 million dollars to implement. Council Member Broussard Vickers reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission has begun workshop sessions to discuss modifications to Ordinance #4 and proposed Sign Ordinance. XII. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Mr. March stated that there was an article in the newsletter requesting applications from residents interested in serving on the official Fete des Lacs Committee and five (5) residents have responded. Mr. March stated that a total of seven (7) members are needed to meetin -Fete des Lacs by -law requirements and requested approval to extend the deadline for applications until November 15, 2000. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Travis to extend the deadline to accept applications to serve on the Fete de Lacs Committee until November 15, 2000. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. March stated the appraisal of 7071 and 7073 Centerville Road has begun and the appraiser would also begin the process for the church property and the agricultural property owned by the church. Mr. March stated that the appraisal of the entire block has been placed on hold until a specific plarfln place for the block. The City may be required to pay between $15,000 and $20,000 in relocatiopKfees to individual property owners if the City purchases the properties. Mr. March stated he would consult City Attorney, Jim Hoeft in regards to avoiding additional costs associated with same. Mr. March stated that the City has a Certificate of Deposit (CD) coming due shortly, in the amount of $200,000. Mr. March stated he will be meeting with representatives from County Bank to determine whether it would be in the City's financial interest to renew the CD with its current bank or invest same with County Bank. Mayor Wilharber stated that the ground breaking ceremony for County Bank would be held on November 6, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. Mayor Wilharber stated that the City would need to contact the Fire Chief regarding the • bonfire planned for October 28, 2000 due to the burning ban. Page 7 of 8 Mayor Wilharber noted there would be an informational Parks and Recreation meeting on October 26, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall to discuss the pros and cons of having a BMX Bike Park or Inline Skate Park in the City. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to adjourn the October 25, 2000 City Council Meeting at 7:18p.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Of Site Secretarial, Inc. • Page 8 of 8 Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 - Office (651) 784 -2427 - Fax November 2, 2000 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 #12409 — 12425, in the amount of $39,957.94 is hereby requested. 9 Centennial Fire District Page 1 of 1 Check Register DATE CHECK# NAME ACCOUNT AMOUNT 11/02/2000 12409 ANCOM Communications 42130 - Equipment Expense 163.01 11/02/2000 12410 Anoka- Technical College 42220 - Travel, Conference, School 88.00 11/02/2000 12411 Batteries Plus 42130 - Equipment Expense 52.99 11/02/2000 12412 Best Buy 42180 - Office Supplies 96.13 11/02/2000 12413 Capitol Communications 42130 - Equipment Expense 247.81 11/02/2000 12414 Centennial Utilities 42251 - Station 1 Gas 36.41 11102/2000 12415 City of Lino Lakes 41000 - Payroll Expenses 31,978.82 11/02/2000 12416 David Bruder 42220 - Travel, Conference, School 62.72 11/02/2000 12417 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 1,577.93 11/02/2000 12418 Image Printing & Graphics 42190 - Fire Prevention Supplies 740.87 11/02/2000 12419 Milo Bennett 42220 - Travel, Conference, School 544.94 11/02/2000 12420 MN Metro Fire Chief Officer's Assn. 42200 - Dues and Memberships 116.00 11/02/2000 12421 NFPA International 42190 - Fire Prevention Supplies 76.95 11/02/2000 12422 Randy Rolstad 42130 - Equipment Expense 27.27 11/02/2000 12423 Smith Micro Technologies, Inc. 42110 - Other Maintenance 1,414.15 11/02/2000 12424 Verizon Wireless 42240 - Telephone 183.94 11/02/2000 12425 Grafix Shoppe 42130 - Equipment Expense 7.550.00 Total $39,957.94 • r BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLZK3 , W 6516361311 11/01/00 10:24 CY :02/05 N0 :063 R + /^' �t Ratwgne, Nowt Atari* AM Amain, IAA if M eelwe APtlrM MIJM /SiuM Opportunity Banestroo Rm,Ioyer eM RIPPIOye. owNO a•,s PNMNMt • Om G. eonetlren, RS. • Mwut S. So ata P.E. • Glom R. Cast RE. • Rosette Prow G, lanunlcht, RR • wr ear A. Raurdon. Pt IICINI /1► lgIIk & E•nlet COR,QMMt Robin %t RoNN. PE • Jo Ito C AM.11Iq, Pe. • Rknard t Tuner, PE. • . suit, M IDeraA C.P.A. E. 11 Associates Auateete Rrinel paw Nowe+et A. sinter& RR • ROM A, OaNeM1 R.P. • OMER I. Nerterfe, PP. • . RknarO W Facer, RP. • Da•id O. Cotton PE, • Retort C. Runtt. A.I.A. • Mart A. Hanlon Pt • fell meets & Architects mewl t. Rmu % Nt R.P. • NW 'Pled. 1.1, • INTI M P. Anomie. P.P. • Mork R. Rats Ps. 9 Could A Rawnma, MIA • Sttywy P ■ntennan, Pi. is • Adns M. Ring, M.M. • Alien Rkk Schmidt, PS ' OPPIg•a M. Pam St, Clou& Rohete end Wil lmar, MW • Mllwaueee, WI ::1 Wblbr www. oneuroo.cone I November I, 2000 .ti • City ofCenterviile ;i 1880 Main Street .!j Centerville, MN 55038 ' Atm: Mr. lint March I; , i, • Re: Lift Station No, 2 r BRA File No. 616 -99 -112 . ii Dear Mr. March: ; Enclosed is Pay Request No. 1 from Pain Contracting for the Centerville Lift Station Renovation project. This pay request covers work completed at Lift Station No. 2 through October 27, 2000. tvtajor work items on this Inquest include the following: demolition and removal of the existing pumps and controls, installation of the valve vault, installation of the new pumps, all underground piping, and some of the site work. G; The forcemain replacement quotations were received and the work was awarded to Penn Contracting. The forcemain replacement work will be added to this project as a change order item .. nest month. ;5 i:: We recommend that the City accept this pay request and pay Penn Contracting the amount due. • Please call me at (651) 6044848 if you have any questions or comments about t project. Very truly Y Yours. R • BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK it ASSOCIATES. INC. -i • 04y I._ Daryl Kirschenman, P.E. .„ • Enclosures ' • 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 . 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651. 636•1311 I 1 50NESTR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK3 1r6516361311 11/01/00 10:24 C9 :03/05 NO:063 , f •‘ 1 • • • I . ■ El gonearCO Owner: Clbr of Centerville, 1860 Mein St, Centerville. MN 55038-9794 Date: October 31, 2000 i Rosen VI Anderlik 5 For Period'. Start to October 27, N(70 Ragan No: 1 Associates . ,,,, i avail ,,Contractor Penn Contracting, Inc., 13025 Central Avenue Ng, Maine, MN 55434 .. ... pipatserr FOR PAYMENT .,.. . : ... LIFT STATION NO. 2 RENOVATION i • BRA PILE NO. '61649-112 , • • . • SUMMARY 1 anginal Contract Amount $ 68,696.00 '. 2 Change Order • Addition 5 3 Change Order - Deduction 5 4 Revised Contract Amount $ 53,59100 5 Value Completed to Date $ 43,910.00 i . Ail 6 Material on 1and 3 7 Amount Earned $ 43 910.00 8 Less Retainage 5% 5 2,155.50 9 Subtotal . $ 41,714.50 so Less Amount Paid Previously $ a ...:, 11 AMOUNT Du E THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1 $ 41.714.50 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK ill ASSOCIATES, INC. .. i; . .: Approved by Contract ; Approved by Owner: !:! • NN CON CTI , INC. CITY OF CENTERVILLE ;■1 ,;:• • !.t.,.. . • ii! _ . . !.1 . ..,, Specified Contract Completlon Data: . Date: .,., , • .0, . , ' • 1:! . ., • 1 • ;l . , . .,. .• , . . 1%1011 • • • . • ;1 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK3 W 6516361311 11/01/00 10:24 5 :04/05 NO:063 PROJECT PAYMENTSTATUS I F OWNER CITY ENTERYILLE O C 0 BRA FILE NO. 816- 99.112 CONTRACTOR PENN CONTRACTING, INC. CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount L Ii Total Chops Orders S0.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From To Payment _ Retysps CompNtsd 1 Stan 10127100 41,714.50 2.16.50 43,910.00 t f _ Material on Hand $o x Total Payment to Date 341.714.60 _Org(nsl Contract S68,696,00 Retal n age Pay P No. 1 2,19.50 Cheer Orders 30.00 Setae eirlsed Gonad 543,91040 I Amount Earned � Total o • ' 1 430NESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK3 W 6516361311 11/01/00 10:24 5:05/05 N0:063 Contract Unit Quantity Amount No. Item Unit Quantity Price to Data to Data Pan 1 - Site work ; Remove ex.sang fence LS 1 5500.00 1 5600.00 2 Remove bituminous pavement SY 40 5300 40 5120.00 3 Sawing Bturr,nous Pavement LF 30 $3.00 $0.00 • • 4 Aggregate base TN 10 52500 50.00 5 Bituminous base course, Type 319 TN 3 580.00 $0.00 8 Bituminous wear courS., Type 418 TN 5 500.017 50.00 7 Granular borrow TN 39 516.00 50.00 8 Topsoil oorraw fLW CY 50 $14.00 50.00 9 4" concrete stiewalk SP 110 57.00 $0.00 10 Sodding, lawn type 5Y 190 35.00 $0.00 • 11 Silt fence, regular LP 50 $4.00 50 5200.00 12 Se;EIS demolition, remove ex. pumps, 1 $2.500.00 valves and controls LS 1 $2,800.00 13 addition . PEA 1 52,000.00 • 1 52,00050 , . Total Part 1 • site Work 58,320.00 Put 2 • Litt station Valve Vault and Controls • Option "A" 14 Valve vault and valves Le 1 59,000.00 1 58,000.00 15 Burled l hings LB 350 5400 350 11.400,00 16 a^ DIP forcemain LF 20 Si 1000 20 52,200.00 . 17 Connect to existing force main LS 1 52500.00 1 32000.00 ' 18 Connect to existing wit well l8 1 52,700.00 1 52,700.00 • 19 Subnersiblo pumps, base bend, guide tails, 1 518.2 &0.00 and accessories wnn by - pass pumps p l3 1 518,290.00 20 Lift station to slab with hatch LS 1 53,400.0 1 51400.00 c 21 Lift station controls - Option 'A• 15 1 520.900.00 50.00 Total Pan 2 . Lift Station Valve Vauh and COMMIS • OpttbnR: 536,590.00 Total Pan 1 • Site Work: 56.320.00 • Total Part 2 - Lift Station Valve Vault and . Controls - Option 'A': 535,590.00 Total Work Completed To 0eta 543'510.X0 • ` ;II 1l i' • ii i . • j : MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Resolution 00 -30 Included in your packet is a resolution to extend the current cable franchise. This is expected to be the last extension necessary, since the franchise is close to being fully negotiated. MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Resolution 00 -31 Included in your packet is a resolution to award the bond for the Hunter's Crossing subdivision. Also included in your packet is a copy of the official statement that was created in conjunction with this bond issuance. 1 k ? � 1 , n • JJte/ V i[tC� 1880 Main Street •Centerville, MT( 55038 Extract of Minutes of Meeting (651) 429 -3232 • Fax (651) 429 -8629 of the City Council of the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, commencing at 6:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals which had been received for the purchase of the City's $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000. The City Administrator presented a tabulation of the proposals that had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in Exhibit A attached. After due consideration of the proposals, Member then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 00-31 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $650,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 2000 FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT SJB- 185311v] CE155 -16 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Sale of Bonds. 1.01. The proposal of (Purchaser) to purchase $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 (Bonds) of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest as follows: Year of Interest Year of Interest Maturity Rate Maturity Rate 2002 2007 2003 2008 2004 2009 2005 2010 2006 2011 True interest cost: 1.02. The sum of $ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess of $640,250 will be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City Administrator is directed to deposit the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City Administrator are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City. 1.03. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (Act) in the total principal amount of $650,000, originally dated November 1, 2000, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R -1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: SJB- 185311v1 CE155 -16 Year Amoun t Year Amount 2002 $175,000 2007 $10,000 2003 175,000 2008 15,000 2004 200,000 2009 15,000 2005 10,000 2010 20,000 2006 10,000 2011 20,000 1.04. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1; 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. 1.05. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser. Section 2. Registration and Payment. 2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August I of each year, commencing February 1, 2001, to the registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day. 2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in SJB- 185311v1 CEI55 -16 form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes and payments so made to registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds, sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or Lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered 538- 185311v1 CE155 -16 to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints U.S. Bank Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Administrator must transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the direction of the City Administrator and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Administrator, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Administrator will deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. SJB- 185311v1 CE155 -16 2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled. Section 3. Form of Bond. 3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form: [Face of the Bond] No. R- $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF CENTERVILLE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND OF 2000 Date of Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP November 1, 2000 Registered Owner: Cede & Co. The City of Centerville, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Anoka County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2001, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. • The City may elect on February 1, 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds, Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such 578- )85311v1 CE155.16 manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company (DTC) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. The City Council has designated the issue of Bonds of which this Bond forms a part as "qualified tax exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions and within the $10 million limit allowed by the Code for the calendar year of issue. This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $650,000 all of like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 13, 2000 (the Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to defray the expenses incurred and to be incurred in making local improvements, pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable from special assessments against property specially benefited by local improvements and from ad valorem taxes for the City's share of the cost of the improvements, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in special assessments and taxes pledged, which additional taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary. • SJB- 185311v1 CE155 -16 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and City Administrator and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: • CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA (Facsimile) (Facsimile) City Administrator Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By Authorized Representative • SIB - 185311x1 CE1$S -16 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be constructed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or by entireties Transfers to Minors JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and Act not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ( "STAMP "), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program ( "SEMP "), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program ( "MSP ") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. SJB- 185311v1 CE1S5 -16 The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information provided. concerning the assignee requested below is pr 1 d Name and Address: (Include information for all joint- owners if this Bond is held by joint account.) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on P g the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below. g P Signature of Date of Registration Registered Owner Officer of Registrar Cede & Co. Federal ID #13- 2555119 3.02. The City Administrator is directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and to cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond. • SJB- 185311vI CE155.16 Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants. 4.01. (a) The Bonds are payable from the Improvement Bonds of 2000 Debt Service Fund (Debt Service Fund) hereby created, and the proceeds of general taxes hereinafter levied (Taxes), and special assessments (Assessments) levied or to be levied for the improvements described in the resolution authorizing the sale of the Bonds (Improvements) financed by the Bonds are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Administrator is directed to pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for the advances out of the proceeds of Assessments and Taxes when collected. There is appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any, (ii) any amount over the minimum purchase price paid by the Purchaser, and (iii) the accrued interest paid by the Purchaser upon closing and delivery of the Bonds. (b) The proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in paragraph (a), together with any other funds appropriated for the Improvements and Assessments and Taxes collected during the construction of the Improvements will be deposited in a separate construction fund (which may contain separate accounts for each Improvement) to be used solely to defray expenses of the Improvements and the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds prior to the completion and payment of all costs of the Improvement. Any balance remaining in the construction fund after completion of the Improvements may be used to pay the cost in whole or in part of any other improvement instituted under the Act. When the Improvements are completed and the cost thereof paid, the construction account is to be closed and subsequent collections of Assessments and Taxes for the Improvements are to be deposited in the Debt Service Fund. 4.02. It is hereby determined that the Improvements will directly and indirectly benefit abutting property, and the City hereby covenants with the holders from time to time of the Bonds as follows: (a) The City has caused or will cause the Assessments for the Improvements to be promptly levied so that the first installment will be collectible not later than 2001 and will take all steps necessary to assure prompt collection, and the levy of the Assessments is hereby authorized. The City Council will cause to be taken with due diligence all further actions that are required for the construction of each Improvement financed wholly or partly from the proceeds of the Bonds, and will take all further actions necessary for the final and valid levy of the Assessments and the appropriation of any other funds needed to pay the Bonds and interest thereon when due. (b) In the event of any current or anticipated deficiency in Assessments and Taxes, the City Council will levy additional ad valorem taxes in the amount of the current or anticipated deficiency. SJB- 185311v1 CEI55 -16 (c) The City will keep complete and accurate books and records showing: receipts and disbursements in connection with the Improvements, Assessments and Taxes P P levied therefor and other funds appropriated for their payment, collections thereof and disbursements therefrom, monies on hand and, the balance of unpaid Assessments. (d) The City will cause its books and records to be audited at least annually and will furnish copies of such audit reports to any interested person upon request. 4.03. It is determined that at least 20% of the cost of the Improvements will be specially assessed against benefited properties. For the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds, there is levied a direct annual irrepealable ad valorem tax (Taxes) upon all of the taxable property in the City, which will be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general taxes of the City. The taxes will be credited to the Debt Service Fund above provided and will be in the years and amounts as follows (year stated being year of levy for collection the following year): Year Levy (See Attachment A) 4.04. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of Assessments and the foregoing Taxes will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levy herein provided is irrepealable until all of the Bonds are paid, provided that at the time the City makes its annual tax levies the City Administrator may certify to the Manager of Property Records and Taxation of Anoka County the amount available in the Debt Service Fund to pay principal and interest due during the ensuing year, and the Manager of Property Records and Taxation will thereupon reduce the levy collectible during such year by the amount so certified. 4.05. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Manager of Property Records and Taxation of Anoka County and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. Section 5. Authentication of Transcript. 5.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. 5.02. The Mayor and City Administrator are authorized and directed to certify that they • have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is SIB- 1853/1vl CE155 -16 a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement. Section 6. Tax Covenant. 6.01. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Bonds. 6.02. (a) The City will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States if the Bonds (together with other obligations reasonably expected to be issued in calendar year 2000) exceed the small- issuer exception amount of $5,000,000. (b) For purposes of qualifying for the small- issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements, the City finds, determines and declares that the aggregate face amount of all tax- exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code. 6.03. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 6.04. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax - exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax - exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax- exempt obligations (other than • any private activity bonds that are not qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) which will be issued by 5113- 185311v1 CE155 -16 o the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during calendar year 2000 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (d) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar year 2000 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 6.05. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section. Section 7. Book -Entry System; Limited Obligation of City. 7.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. 7.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Administrator of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to such new nominee of • DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Administrator will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent. SIB-185311v] CE155.16 r 7.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govem payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. My Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times. 7.04. Transfers Outside Book -Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof. 7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter. Section 8. Continuing Disclosure. 8.01. Participating underwriters need not comply with the continuing disclosure requirements of Rule 15c2 -12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule "), because the offering is in a principal amount less than $1,000,000. Consequently, the City will not enter into any undertaking to provide continuing disclosure of any kind with respect to the Bonds. • SB- 185311v 1 CE155 -16 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: - whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 535d8531 Iv] CEI55 -16 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) SS. CITY OF CENTERVILLE ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator of the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on November 8, 2000 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 of the City. WITNESS My hand officially as such City Administrator and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 2000. City Administrator Centerville, Minnesota (SEAL) SJB -18531 Iv1 CE155 -16 STATE OF MINNESOTA MANAGER OF PROPERTY RECORDS AND TAXATION'S CERTIFICATE AS TO COUNTY OF ANOKA LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned Manager of Property Records and Taxation of Anoka County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Centerville, Minnesota, on November 8, 2000, levying taxes for the payment of $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000, of said municipality dated November 1, 2000, has been filed in my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as required by law. WITNESS My hand and official seal this day of , 2000. Manager of Property Records and Taxation Anoka County, Minnesota (SEAL) By Deputy SJB- 185311v1 CEISS -16 '000z LZl 30 Preliminary Official Statement (Dated October 23, 2000) City of Centerville Minnesota (Anoka Cry) M $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 Interest Payable•. 2-1-01 and semiannually thereaaer Call Option: 24-06 @ 100 REGISTRATION/BOOK ENTRY: This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds and, when isamd, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Tract Company, New York, New York, to which principal and interest payments on the Bonds will be made. - Individual purchases will be made in book -entry form only, in the principal amount of $5,000 or any whole multiple thereof Purchasers of Bonds will not receive physical delivery of bond certificates. Please saes " Book -Entry Only System" herein for additional information. DATE, TIME and DATE, TIME and PLACE of BID OPENING PLACE of AWARD Wednesday, ovember 8 2000 Wednesday, November 8 y ednesdtry, , 2000 11:00 a.m., Central Time 6:00 p.m., Central Time Juran & Moody, a division of City Hall Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Incorporated 1880 Main Street 1100 Minnesota World Trade Center Centerville, Minnesota 55038 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 hi the opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Band Counsel, based on present federal and Mnmesota laws, regulations, rulings and decisions, at the time of their issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, interest on Use bonds is excluded from gross income for purposes of United States income tax and is occluded, to the same extent in computing bot grog income and taxable net income for purposes of State of Min eaota income tax (other than Minnesota franchise taxes measue t by income and imposed on corporations and financial institution). Interest an the bonds is not an item of tax prefermee for;pmpoess of Use alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations; however, interest on the bonds is taken into account in determining ae(justed current earnings for purposes of courting the federal alternative minims tax imposed n earporatiaos. No opinion will be expressed by Bond Cassel regarding other state or federal tax consequances caused by the receipt or accrual of interest on the bonds or arising with respect to ownership of the bonds. See `Tor Exemption and Other Federal Tax Considerations" herein. th -00h R iga „, s Ll & MOODY main, JOHNSON & KUBHN, INCORPORATED IMVBSTMZNT SECVZITIn$ LrtNCS tats INVESTMENT SECURITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Offering 2 Principal City Officials 3 Issuer's Certificate 4 Terms of Proposal 5 - 9 Authority and Security for the Bonds 10 Purpose 10 • Statutory Debt Limit 11 No Continuing Disclosure 12 Estimated Source and Application of Funds 12 Future Financing 13 Bond Rating • 13 Litigation 13 Certification 13 Legality 13 Book -Entry Only System 14 Tax Exemption 15 Other Federal Tax Considerations 15 - 16 City of Centerville (General Information) 17 - 20 Minnesota Valuations, Tax Credits and Levy Limitations 21 - 23 City of Centerville (Economic and Financial Information) 24 - 32 Summary of Debt and Debt Statistics 33 • Worksheet 34 Proposal Form 35 Appendix A — Form of Legal Opinion Appendix B — City's Financial Statement SUMMARY OF OFFERING $650,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 2000 (Book -Entry Only) AMOUNT - $650,000. ISSUER - City of Centerville, Minnesota (The "City"). SALE DATE - Wednesday, November 8, 2000. OPENING - 11:00 A.M. Central Time, at Juran & Moody, a division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Incorporated, 1100 Minnesota World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -4901, telephone: (651) 224 -1500 or (800) 950 -4666. AWARD - 6:00 P.M., Central Time, at the Centerville City Hall, 1880 Main Street, Centerville, Minnesota 55038 -9794. TYPE OF ISSUE - General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 (the "Bonds "). See Authority and Security for the Bonds and Estimated Source and Application of Funds herein for additional information. ., SECURITY & PURPOSE - These Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475 and are payable primarily from special assessments against all benefited property. The full faith and credit of the City is pledged to their payment and the City has validly obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem taxes in the event of any deficiency in the Debt Service Account es- tablished for this issue. Taxes will be levied upon all of the taxable property within the City and without limitation of amount. Interest on the Bonds is not includable in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes or in tax- able net income for Minnesota income tax purposes, and is a preference item for purposes of the computation of the federal alternative minimum tax, or the computation of the Minnesota alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts and estates, but such interest is includable in the computation of" adjusted current earnings" used in the calculation of federal altemative minimum taxable income of corporations, and is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income and the alternative minimum tax base. Further, the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the financing of various assessable improvements within the City including but not limited to streets, sanitary sewer, water main & line extensions, storm sewer, sidewalks and curb & gutter. See Estimated Source and Application of Funds herein for additional information. DATE OF ISSUE - November 1, 2000. INTEREST PAYABLE DATES - February 1, 2001, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and February 1 and to registered owners of the Bonds ap- pearing of record in the bond register as of the close of business on the fifteenth (15") day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. DENOMINATIONS - $5,000. MATURITIES - 02/01/02 $175,000 02/01/04 $200,000 02/01/06 $10,000 02/01/08 $15,000 02/01/10 $20,000 02/01/03 175,000 02/01/05 10,000 02 /01 /07 10,000 02/01/09 15,000 02/01/11 20,000 AVERAGE MATURITY - 3.14231 years. REDEMPTION FEATURE - The City may elect on February 1, 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a ma- turity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. - BOOK -ENTRY SYSTEM - The Bonds will be issued as fully registered Bonds and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of the Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, to which principal and interest payments on the Bonds will be made. Individual purchases will be made in book -entry form only, in the principal amount of $5,000 or any whole multiple thereof. Purchasers of Bonds will not receive physical delivery of Bonds. REGISTRAR/PAYING AGENT - U.S. Bank Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota. METHOD OF SALE - Sealed proposals only, accompanied by a good faith check in the amount of $13,000 at a price of not less than $640,250 and accrued interest. See Terms of Proposal herein for additional information. TAX DESIGNATIONS - NOT Private Activity Bonds -These Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in §141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). Qualified Tax - Exempt Obligations - The City will designate these Bonds "qualified tax - exempt obligations" for purposes of §265(b)(3) of the Code. LEGAL OPINION - Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota (the "Bond Counsel "). RATING - The City currently does not have a general obligation bond rating assigned by Moody's Investors Service or Standard & Poor's Corporation. The City will not be applying for a rating on this issue. ESTIMATED CLOSING DATE - November 29, 2000. PRIMARY CONTACT - James March, City Administrator, (651) 429 -3232. Teresa Bender, City Clerk- Treasurer, (651) 429 -3232. George D. Eilertson, Vice President, Juran & Moody, (651) 224 -1500 or (800) 950 -4666. _2_ CITY OF CENTERVILLE PRINCIPAL CITY OFFICIALS Elected Officials City Council Name Position Term Expires Tom Wilharber Mayor 12/31/00 Mari Nelson Council Member 12/31/02 Terry Sweeney Council Member 12/31/00 Dick Travis Council Member 12/31/02 Linda Broussard Vickers Council Member 12/31/00 Appointed Officials James March City Administrator Teresa Bender City Clerk- Treasurer Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. — James D. Hoeft City - Consulting Attorney Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik City Engineer I Bond Counsel Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Minneapolis, Minnesota I Bond Consultant . Juran & Moody a division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Incorporated St. Paul, Minnesota -3- ISSUER'S CERTIFICATE The City of Centerville has retained the firm of Aran & Moody, St. Paul, Minnesota, to serve as bond consultant with respect to the securities being offered in this Official Statement. All statements con- tained herein, while not guaranteed, have been compiled from sources believed to be reliable in all material respects. Financial statements of the City are audited annually by an independent firm of certified public ac- countants. Excerpts from the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1999, along with comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1998, are included in this Official Statement and complete financial statements are available for inspection at the Centerville City Hall as well as at the St. Paul office of Juran & Moody. Centerville has always promptly met all payments of principal and interest on its indebtedness when due. NO FINAL. OFFICIAL STATEMENT WILL BE PREPARED. THE ISSUER WILL PROVIDE THE SUCCESSFUL. UNDERWRITER WITH AN ADDENDUM THAT TOGETHER WITH THIS PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT WILL BE DEEMED THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY THE ISSUER. THE DATE OF THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT IS OCTOBER 23, 2000. _q_ TERMS OF PROPOSAL 3650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 City of Centerville Anoka County, Minnesota (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN sealed proposals for the purchase of the above bonds will be received until 11 :00 o'clock A.M., C.T. on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, in the offices of Juran & Moody, a Division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, at which time the proposals will be opened and tabulated for consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 6:00 o'clock P.M. on the same day. The bonds are offered on the following terms. Purpose and Security The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the financing of assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments against benefited properties. Details of the Bonds The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated November 1, 2000, will be in denominations of integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2002 $175,000 2007 310,000 2003 175,000 2008 15,000 2004 200,000 2009 15,000 • 2005 10,000 2010 20,000 2006 10,000 2011 20,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption, so long as the amounts of principal maturing or subject to mandatory redemption in each year conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above. Book Entry System The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ( "DTC "), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof 8iB- 187824v1 CE15546 - 5 - of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. Optional Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds. Y Y azY Y Y P Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. Mandatory Redemption Any term bonds issued will be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in part prior to their scheduled maturity dates on February 1 of certain years, as more fully described in the Details of the Bonds section herein, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 2001, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. Bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 1/20 or 1/8 of 1 %. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. Registrar The City will name the Registrar which will be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the principal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City assumes no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSP numbers on the ry g g� P 8 bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed atthe expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. SJB-187824v1 CE155 -16 -6- Award The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will famish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City payable primarily from special assessments against benefited properties and that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Bond Insurance at Purchaser's Option If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment will be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance will be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay the rating fee. Any other rating agency fees will be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser will not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. SJB- 187824v1 CE155 -16 _7_ Official Statement The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent ' information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement as required by Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The e" Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, will constitute a Final Official Statement of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an official Proposal Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it will provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Proposal Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it will accept such designation and (ii) it will enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Continuing Disclosure Participating underwriters need not comply with the continuing disclosure requirements of Rule 15c2 -12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule"), because the offering is in a principal amount less than $1,000,000. Consequently, the City will not enter into any undertaking to provide continuing disclosure of any kind with respect to the Bonds. Type of Proposal - Amount A sealed proposal will be for not less than $640,250 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals will be accompanied by a good Faith Deposit • ( "Deposit ") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $13,000, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Juran & Moody, a Division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Juran & Moody, a Division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Juran & Moody, a Division of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser SJB- 187824v1 CE155 -16 -8 fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates will be in integral multiples of 5 /100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Bonds of the same maturity will bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Jim March City Administrator Dated: October 25, 2000. SJB- I87824v1 CEI55 -16 -9- AUTHORITY AND SECURITY FOR THE BONDS 5650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475. At closing Bond Counsel will render an opinion that the Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City of Centerville. The Bonds will be payable primarily from special assessments against all benefitted prop- erty. The full faith and credit of the City is pledged to their payment and the City has validly obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem taxes in the event of any deficiency in the Debt Service Account established for this issue. Taxes will be levied upon all of the taxable property within the City and without limitation of amount. Interest on the Bonds is not includable in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income for Minnesota income tax purposes, and is a preference item for purposes of the computation of the federal alternative minimum tax, or the compu- tation of the Minnesota altemative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts and estates, but such interest is includable in the computation of "adjusted current earnings" used in the calculation of fed - eral alternative minimum taxable income of corporations, and is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income and the alternative minimum tax base. See Appendix A — Form of Legal Opinion. PURPOSE $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 The purpose of the Bonds is to provide moneys for the financing of assessable improvements within the City, including but not limited to streets, sanitary sewer, water main & line extensions, storm sewer, sidewalks and curb & gutter. See Estimated Source and Application of Funds herein for addi- tional information. -io - STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT Minnesota Statutes, §475.53, states that a city may not incur or be subject to a net debt in excess of two percent (2 %) of its estimated market value. Net debt is, with limited exceptions, debt paid solely from ad valorem taxes. Computation of Legal Debt Margin as of October 17, 2000, plus this issue: 1999/2000 Estimated Market Value $131,591,000 Times 2% of Estimated Market Value x .02 Statutory Debt Limit $ 2,631.820 • Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Total Bonded Debt (includes this issue) $ 2,625,000 Less: General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds ( 345,000) General Obligation Improvement and Refunding Bonds (includes this issue) ( 255,000) General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds ( 660,000) General Obligation Refunding Bonds ( 150,000) General Obligation Improvement Bonds ( 1,215,000) Total debt applicable to debt limit $ 0 0 Legal debt margin $ 2,631,820 I Effective June 2, 1997, and pursuant to Laws of Minnesota for 1997, Chapter 231, Section 33, any lease revenue or public project revenue bond issues/agreements over $999,999 are subject to the statutory debt limit. Lease revenue or public project revenue bond issues/agreements under $999,999 are not subject to the statutory debt limit. 11 NO CONTINUING DISCLOSURE The Securities and Exchange Conunission (the "SEC ") has promulgated certain amendments to Rule 15c2 -12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. §240.15c2 -12) (the "Rule ") that make it unlawful for an underwriter to participate in the primary offering of municipal securities in a princi- pal amount of $1,000,000 or more unless, before submitting a bid or entering into a purchase contract for the Bonds, it has reasonably determined that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken in writing for the benefit of the bondholders to provide certain disclosure information to prescribed in- formation repositories on a continuing basis or unless and to the extent the offering is exempt from the requirements of the Rule. The principal amount of the Bonds is less than $1,000,000. The City hereby represents that it has not issued before the date of issuance of the Bonds, and that it reasonably expects that it will not issue after the date of issuance of the Bonds, other Bonds of the City of substantially the • same security and providing financing for the same general purpose or purposes as the Bonds. Consequently, this Board hereby finds that the Rule is inapplicable to the Bonds, because the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and any other bond issue to be integrated with the Bonds thereunder is less than $1,000,000. Therefore, the City will not enter into any undertaking to provide continuing dis- closure of any kind with respect to the Bonds. ESTIMATED SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 I. Source of Funds w General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 $650.000 II. Application of Funds Estimated Costs to be Financed: Estimated Project Costs $502,780 Contingency & Engineering 120,667 Total Estimated Costs to be Financed $623,447 Add Estimated Issuance Costs: [Bond counsel, fiscal services, and paying agent/registrar (first year fee)] $ 9,725 Capitalized Interest (3 Months) 7,754 Underwriter's Discount (1.500% of par) 9,750 Total Estimated Issuance Costs 27,229 Subtotal $650,676 Less: Estimated Construction Period Interest ( 173) Estimated Contribution from City ( 503) Par Amount of Bond Issue $650,000 12 FUTURE FINANCING The City does not anticipate the need to finance any capital improvements with the issuance of general obligation bonds within the next two months. BOND RATING The City currently does not have a general obligation bond rating assigned by Moody's Investors Service or Standard & Poor's Corporation. The City will not be applying for a rating from Moody's or Standard & Poor's on this issue. LITIGATION On August 3, 2000, the City Attorney, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., James D. Hoeft, indicated that no litigation is pending or threatened that would jeopardize the creditworthiness of the City of Centerville. Claims or other actions in which the City is a defendant are covered by insurance or of insignificant amounts. CERTIFICATION The City will furnish, upon request, a statement to the effect that this Official Statement to the best of their knowledge and belief, as of the date of sale and the date of delivery, is true and correct in all ma- i terial respects, and does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. LEGALITY Legal matters incident to the authorization and issuance of the Bonds are subject to the approving opinion of Bond Counsel, as to validity and tax exemption. A copy of such opinion will be available at the time of the delivery of the Bonds. See Appendix A — Form of Legal Opinion. Bond Counsel has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement and is not passing upon its accuracy, completeness or sufficiency. Bond Counsel has not examined, nor attempted to examine, or verify, any of the financial or statistical statements or data contained in this Official Statement, and will express no opinion with respect thereto. ,. -13- BOOK -ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM The Depository Trust Company (the "DTC "), New York, New York, will act as securities depository for the Obligations. Upon issuance of the Obligations, one fully registered Obligation will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC, for each maturity of the Obligations as set forth on the cover page hereof, each in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity. So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Obligations, references herein to the holders of the Obligations or regis- tered owners of the Obligations shall mean Cede & Co. and shall not mean the Beneficial Owners of the Obligations. DTC is a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a " clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the provisions of §17A of the Secu- rities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. DTC was created to hold securities of its participants (the "DTC Participants ") and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions among DTC Participants in such securities through electronic book -entry changes in accounts of the DTC Participants, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. DTC Par- ticipants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and cer- tain other organizations, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers, and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with DTC Participants, either directly or indirectly (the "Indirect Participants"). The Interest of each of the Beneficial Owners of the Obligations will be recorded through the records of a DTC Participant or Indirect Participant. Each DTC Participant will receive a credit balance on the records of DTC. Individual purchases will be made in the denomination of $5,000 or any whole multi- ple thereof. Beneficial owners of Obligations will receive a written confirmation of their purchases providing details of the Obligations acquired. Beneficial owners of Obligations will not receive certifi- cates representing their ownership interest in the Obligations, except as specifically provided below. Transfers of beneficial ownership interest in the Obligations will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, in turn, by the DTC Participants who act on behalf of the Indirect Participants and the Beneficial Owners of Obligations. For every transfer and exchange of beneficial ownership of Ob- ligations, the beneficial owner may be charged a sum sufficient to cover any tax, fee or other govern- mental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. The Issuer will make payments of principal and interest on the Obligations to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as registered owner of the Obligations. Upon receipt of moneys, DTC's current practice is to immediately credit the accounts of the DTC Participants in accordance with their respective holdings shown on the records of DTC. Payments by DTC Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices such as those which are now the case for municipal securities held in bearer form or registered in " street name" for the accounts of customers and will be the responsibility of such DTC Participants or Indirect Participants and not the responsibility of DTC or the Issuer, subject to any statutory and regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. -14- TAX EXEMPTION At closing Bond Counsel will render an opinion that, at the time of their issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, under present federal and State of Minnesota laws, regulations, rulings and deci- sions (which excludes any pending legislation which may have a retroactive effect), the interest on each Bond is excluded from gross income for purposes of United States income tax and is excluded, to the same extent, in computing both gross income and taxable net income for purposes of State of Minnesota income tax (other than Minnesota franchise taxes measured by income and imposed on cor- porations and financial institutions), and that interest on the Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of computing the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations or the Minnesota alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals, estates or trusts; provided that inter- est on the Bonds is subject to federal income taxation to the extent it is included as part of adjusted cur - rent earnings for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations. No opinion will be expressed by Bond Counsel regarding other federal or state tax consequences caused by the receipt or accrual of interest on the Bonds or arising with respect to ownership of the Bonds. Preservation of the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from federal gross income and state gross and taxable net income, however, depends upon compliance by the City with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (The "Code ") that must be satisfied subsequent to the is- suance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon be (or continue to be) excluded from federal gross income and state gross and taxable net income. The City will covenant to comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and main- tain the Bonds as tax - exempt under Section 103 thereof, including without limitation, requirements re- lating to temporary periods for investments and limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds. OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSIDERATIONS Property and Casualty Insurance Companies Property and casualty insurance companies are required to reduce the amount of their loss reserve de- duction by 15% of the amount of tax- exempt interest received or accrued during the taxable year on certain obligations acquired after August 7, 1986, including interest on the Bonds. Foreign Insurance Companies Foreign companies carrying on an insurance business in the United States are subject to a tax on in- come which is effectively connected with their conduct of any trade or business in the United States, including "net investment income." Net investment income includes tax - exempt interest such as inter- est on the Bonds. Branch Profits Tax A foreign corporation is subject to a branch profits tax equal to 30% of the "dividend equivalent amount" for the taxable year. The "dividend equivalent amount" is the foreign corporation's "effec- tively connected earnings and profits," adjusted for increase or decrease in "U.S. net equity." A branch's earnings and profits may include tax- exempt municipal bond interest, such as interest on the Bonds. Passive Investment Income of S Corporations Passive investment income, including interest on the Bonds, may be subject to federal income taxation under Section 1375 of the Code for an S corporation that has Subchapter C earnings and profits at the close of the taxable year if more than 25% of the gross receipts of such S corporation is passive in- vestment income. -15- General The preceding is not a comprehensive list of all federal tax consequences which may arise from the re- ceipt or accrual of interest on the Bonds. The receipt or accrual of interest on the Bonds may otherwise affect the federal income tax (or Minnesota income tax or franchise tax) liability of the recipient based on the particular taxes to which the recipient is subject and the particular tax status of other items of in- come or deductions. All prospective purchasers of the Bonds are advised to consult their own tax advi- sors as to the tax consequences of, or tax considerations for, purchasing or holding the Bonds. Qualified Tax - Exempt Obligations • The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax- exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code relating to the ability of financial institutions to deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, interest expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax- exempt obliga- 1 tions. "Qualified tax- exempt obligations" are treated as acquired by a financial institution before August 8, 1986. Interest allocable to such obligations remains subject to the 20% disallowance under prior law. -16- CITY OF CENTERVILLE GENERAL INFORMATION Access and Transportation The City of Centerville, situated in Anoka County, is located approximately 18 miles north of St. Paul and is part of the Seven County Metropolitan Area. Access is provided via Interstate Highway 35E and County Roads 14, 21 and 25. Interstate Highways 35W and 694 are approximately 6 and 9 miles west and south of the City, respectively. Principal truck lines serving the City include Eagle Trucking, and Terminal Trucking. Air transportation by major airlines is available at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, less than an hours drive from Centerville, and at the Anoka County - Blaine Airport which lies approximately 10 miles east of Centerville. The Blaine Airport has a lighted paved 4,855 -foot runway, which can accommodate charter, freight and small jets. There are approximately 25 miles of paved streets within the City limits. Tax Base For taxes collectable in 2000, the tax breakdown is 77.88% residential homestead (non - agriculture), .32% agricultural, 14.78% commercial and industrial, 4.03% non - homestead residential, and 2.99% personal property. Area 1,559 Acres (2.436 Square Miles) Population 1980 Census 1,601 1990 Census 2,305 2000 Estimate 3,000 Municipal Facilities Revenue Producing Facilities: The Waterworks System has approximately 604 municipal connections served by a 100,000 gallon elevated water storage facility along with several wells that have the capacity to pump 1,650 gallons per minute or 2,376,000 gallons per day. Average demand is 60,391 gallons per day while peak de- ' mand reaches 240,000 gallons per day. Total water hardness is 190 parts per million. The 1999 audited operating revenues were $343,308 with the average water charge per year per house- , hold and commercial at approximately $568. The industrial water base rate is $15.50 plus an additional $1.50 per thousand gallons. The Sewer System has approximately 1,033 municipal connections. All sewage services are operated through the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The 1999 audited operating revenues were $497,767 with the average sewer charge per year per house- hold and commercial at approximately $482. The sewer usage base charge is $13.00 per SAC unit per month. -17- Other Municipal Services: Fire and Rescue Department. Fire protection is provided by a 55- member volunteer fire and rescue de- partment through the Centennial Fire District. The District comprises the city's of Centerville, Circle Pines, and Lino Lakes. The Cities pay an annual membership fee to the District based on their percentage of the annual depreciation on the apparatus and equipment values. The District houses equipment in Centerville's old fire station building and pays for a share of the utilities. Equipment consists of two 1,250 gallon per minute pumpers, one 1,500 gallon per minute pumper with a 65 foot ladder truck, two 1,800 gallon tankers, three grass rig units, three emergency/rescue vehicles, one utility vehicle as well as other miscellaneous fire fighting and rescue equipment. Police Department. The City has a police department operated through a joint - powers agreement with the communities of Circle Pines and Lexington. All dispatching is conducted through the Anoka County Sheriffs Department. Parks and Recreation. The City currently operates several municipal parks encompassing approxi- mately 35 acres. Facilities include basebalUsoftball fields, picnic shelters, soccer /football fields, hockey /skating rinks, a basketball court, and general playground equipment. The combination of these parks comprises a complete park and recreation system throughout the City. City Government The City of Centerville, organized in 1857, is a Minnesota Statutory City with an Optional Plan A form of government. It has a mayor elected at large for a two -year term and four council members also elected at large for four -year terms. The professional staff is appointed and includes a city admin- istrator, city clerk- treasurer, city - consulting attorney, and city engineer. Comprehensive Plan The City of Centerville has a comprehensive plan, which serves as a guidance tool for phases of devel- opment within the community as well as guidelines for providing essential services. Employee Pension Programs The City employs nine people, seven full -time and two part -time. The pension plan covers all nine em- ployees as of December 31, 1999. The City participates in contributory pension plans through the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapters, 353 and 356, which covers all full -time and certain part-time employees. PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF), which are cost sharing, multiple - employer retire- ment plans. This plan is state administered and is coordinated with the Federal Social Security Retirement Plan (FICA) and employees are vested after three years of credited service. State statute re- quires the City to fund current service pension cost as it accrues. Prior service cost is being amortized over a period of 40 years and is being funded by payment determined as a percentage of gross wages paid by all employers participating in the State Association. The City's contributions to PERA for the past five years have been as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1999 $14,953 1996 $6,851 1998 13,026 1995 5,984 1997 8,879 -18-- Residential Development There are approximately 1 112 single-family homes and 140 multifamily units located within the City. PP Y � g Y Y In addition, there were 59 single - family dwellings and one multifamily unit constructed within the past twelve months. The status of residential subdivisions constructed or planned within the past three years is as follows: Subdivision Total Number Number of Lots Remaining Lots Name of Lots Completed Available Parkview 42 40 2 CenterVilla 28 8 20 Deer Pass 22 6 16 Hunter's Crossing 38 0 38 Industrial Park(s) There is an approximate 25 -acre industrial park located within the City with a capacity of nine enter- prises. Currently there are five enterprises occupying the park, which include Northern Forest Products, Noble Welding, Arcade Asphalt, Comfort Plus Heating & Cooling, and ADL. Commercialllndustrial Development Building construction and commercial /industrial completed within the past three years have been as follows: Description Name Product /Service of Construction ADLI Service Addition Apple Academy Service Addition Apple Tree Square Service Stores Strip Mall Goetz Landscaping & Irrigation Nursery/Green House Addition Northern Forest Products1' 2 Lumber & Building Materials Addition Performance Auto Auto Service Addition Terminal Trucking Trucking Service Addition Building Permits Building permits issued for the past four years and a portion of the current year have been as follows: Commercial/ Industrial Residential Total Total Number of Number Number Permit Year of Permits of Permits of Permits Valuation • 2000 (as of 07/31/00) 0 117 117 $ 5,428,864 1999 2 228 230 13,794,300 1998 1 242 243 16,451,000 1997 1 161 162 11,525,085 1996 0 116 116 4,846,378 1 Located within the approximate 25-acre industrial park. 2 Building construction and commercial /industrial development completed within the past twelve months. —19— Financial Institutions Financial services are provided in nearby Hugo at Firstar Bank, National Association. Reported depos- its for are currently not available as obtained from the latest edition (spring 2000) of the McFadden Upper Midwest Financial DirectoryTM Education The children of Centerville are served by Independent School District No. 12, Centennial. ISD No. 12 operates four elementary schools, grades kindergarten through five, one middle school, grades six through eight and one senior high school, grades nine through twelve. Combined enrollment at the six schools for the 1999/2000 school year was approximately 6,312. Major Employers There are approximately seven retail and/or commercial enterprises in the downtown area employing an estimated 70 people. The following is a list of the ten largest employers within the City: Number of Commercial /Industrial Product /Service Employees Terminal Trucking Trucking Services 79 Waterworks Beach Club Night Club 25 Eagle Trucking Trucking Services 24 Kelly's Comer Bar/Restaurant 23 Goetz Landscaping & Irrigation Landscaping Services 22 Noble Welding' Welding Repair 20 R&R Leasing Leasing Services 20 Why USA Real Estate Services 20 Northern Forest Products' Lumber & Building Materials 15 Apple Academy Services 13 Largest Taxpayers The following is a list of the ten largest taxpayers within the City as reported by Anoka County: Percent of Real Property 1999/2000 1999/2000 To Net Estimated Net Tax Tax Capacity Name Classification Market Value Capacity ($1,742,821) Northern States Power Utility $924,400 $29,930 1.72% Coatney Family Properties Commercial 768,200 24,619 1.41 Individual Commercial 722,600 23,068 1,32 R &R Leasing Inc. Commercial 656,300 19,314 1.11 Rehbein Inc. Commercial 653,300 19,212 1.10 Northern Forest Products Commercial 681,500 18,349 1.05 Magill Properties Commercial 506,700 15,728 .90 Minnegasco Inc. Utility 383,600 13,042 .75 Individual Commercial 418,600 12,732 .73 Individual Commercial 310,800 9,067 .52 1 Located within the approximate 25 -acre industrial park. 2 Before tax increment and fiscal disparities adjustments. - 20 - MINNESOTA VALUATIONS, TAX CREDITS AND LEVY LIMITATIONS Market Value According to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 273, all real property subject to taxation is to be appraised at maximum intervals of four years. All real property becoming taxable in any year is listed at its esti- mated market value on January 2 of that year. The estimated market value is the County Assessor's appraisal of the worth of the property. Indicated Market Value The Minnesota Department of Revenue conducts the Real Estate Assessment/Sales Ratio Study to ac- complish equalization of property valuation in the State of Minnesota and to determine the probable selling price of a property. The study is a three -year average of sale prices as related to the latest asses- sor's estimated market value. The indicated market value is determined by dividing the estimated mar- ket value by the Assessment/Sales Ratio for the city as determined by the Department of Revenue. Net Tax Capacity Starting with taxes payable in 1990, net tax capacity replaced gross tax capacity as the measure of tax- ' able value. To determine net tax capacity, the estimated market value is multiplied by a factor called "class rate," that varies depending on the use of the property. Net tax capacity differs from gross tax capacity primarily in setting lower values for homesteaded residential and agricultural properties. Net tax capacity is multiplied by the "local tax rate" to determine taxes payable. Tax Cycle Minnesota local government ad valorem property taxes are extended and collected by the various counties within the state. The process begins in the fall of every year with the certification, to the county auditor, of all local taxing districts' property tax levies. Local tax rates are calculated by divid- ing each taxing district's levy by its net tax capacity. One percentage point of local tax rate represents one dollar of tax per $100 net tax capacity, A list of taxes due is then prepared by the county auditor and turned over to the county treasurer on or before the first Monday in January. The county treasurer is responsible for collecting all property taxes within the county. Real estate tax statements are to be mailed out no later than January 31 and personal property tax statements no later than February 15. The due dates for payment of real property taxes are one -half on or before May 15 and one -half on or before October 15. Personal property taxes become due one -half on or before February 28 and one -half on or before June 30. Following each settlement (March 5, June 5, and November 5 of each year), the county treasurer must redistribute property tax revenues to the local taxing districts in proportion to their tax capacity ratios. Delinquent property taxes are penalized at various rates depending on the type of property and the length of delinquency. Tax Credits Prior to 1990, taxes on homestead residential and agricultural property were reduced by a direct sub- sidy to the taxpayer. Beginning in 1990, the homestead credit has been eliminated. The state subsidy is now accomplished through lower class rates to homesteaded classifications of property and increased state aids paid directly to local taxing districts. This new system is intended to have generally the same impact as the former homestead credit system. -21- Tax Levies for General Obligation Bonds (Minnesota Statutes, §475.61) The governing body of any municipality issuing general obligations shall, prior to delivery of the obli- gations, levy by resolution a direct general ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the municipality to be spread upon the tax rolls for each year of the term of the obligations. The tax levies for all years shall be specified and such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues pledged for the payment of said obligations, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the obligations. Such resolution shall irrevocably appropriate the taxes so levied and any special assess- ments or other revenues so pledged to the municipality's debt service fund or a special debt service fund or account created for the payment of one or more issues of obligations. The governing body may, at its discretion, at any time after the obligation have been authorized, adopt a resolution levying only a portion of such taxes, to be filed, assessed, extended, collected and remitted as hereinafter provided, and the amount or amounts therein levied shall be credited against the tax required to be levied prior to delivery of the obligations. The recording officer of the municipality shall file in the office of the county auditor of each county in which any part of the municipality is located a certified copy of the resolution, together with full in- formation regarding the obligations for which the tax is levied. No further action by the municipality is required to authorize the extension, assessment and collection of the tax, but the municipality's liability on the obligations is not limited thereto and its governing body shall levy and cause to be extended, assessed and collected any additional taxes found necessary for full payment of the principal and inter- est. The auditor shall annually assess and extend upon the tax rolls the amount specified for such year in the resolution, unless the amount has been reduced as authorized below or, if the municipality is lo- cated in more than one county, the portion thereof that bears the same ratio to the whole amount as the tax capacity value of taxable property in that part of the municipality located in his county bears to the tax capacity value of all taxable property in the municipality. Tax levies so made and filed shall be irrevocable, except that if the governing body in any year makes an irrevocable appropriation to the debt service fund of moneys actually on hand or if there is on hand any excess amount in the debt service fund, the recording officer may certify to the county auditor the fact and amount thereof and the auditor shall reduce by the amount so certified the amount otherwise to be included in the rolls next thereafter prepared. All such taxes shall be collected and remitted to the municipality by the county treasurer as other taxes are collected and remitted, and shall be used only for payment of the obligations on account of that levied or to repay advances from other funds used for such payments, except that any surplus remain- ing in the debt service fund when the obligations and interest thereon are paid may be appropriated to any other general purpose by the municipality. Levy Limitations The 1999 Minnesota Legislature established levy limitations for all counties and for all cities over 2,500 population that will be effective for taxes collected in 1999 and 2000. The computations of levy limits were determined by the Commissioner of Revenue and were available for each city /town and county as of August 1, 1999. The levy limits will not apply to certain "special levies" which will in- clude levies to pay debt service. See Property Tax Classifications on following page for partial sum - mary of 1999/2000 class rates percentages. Class Rate The factors (class rates) for converting estimated market value to net tax capacity represent a basic element of the State's property tax relief system and are therefore subject to annual revisions by the State Legislature. -22- The following is a partial summary of these factors: Property Tax Classifications Class Rate Schedule 1995/ 1996/ 1997/ 1998/ 1999/ Class Type of Property 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 la Residential Homestead Under $72,000 1.000% 1.000% Over $72,001 2.000 2.000 Under $75,000 1.000% 1.000% Over $75,001 1.850 1.700 Under $76,000 1.000% Over $76,001 1.650 2a Agricultural Land & Buildings Homestead: Under $115,000 .450 .450 .400 .350 .350 $115,000- $600,000 Under 320 Acres 1.000 1.000 .900 .800 .800 Over 320 Acres 1.500 1.500 1.400 1.250 .800 Greater than $600,001 Under 320 Acres 1.000 1.000 .900 .800 1.200 Over 320 Acres 1.500 1.500 1.400 1.250 1.200 26 Non - Homestead Agricultural Land 1.500 1.500 1.400 1.250 1.200 3a Commercial/Industrial Public Utility Under $100,000 3.000 3.000 Over $100,001 4.600 4.600 Under $150,000 2.700 2.450 2.400 Over $150,001 4.000 3.500 3.400 Residential Non - Homestead 4d Apartments: 1 to 3 units 2.300 2.300 1 Unit 1.900 1.000 1.000 2 or 3 units 2.000 1.000 1.000 4a 4 or more units 3.400 3.400 2.900 2.500 2.400 Small cities less than 5,000 population with 4 or more units 2.300 2.300 2.300 2.150 2.150 4bb(2) Under $75,000 2.300 2.300 1.900 1.250 Over $75,001 2.300 2.300 2.100 1.700 Under $76,000 1.200 Over $76,001 1.650 4b(4) Vacant Land 'See Footnote 2.300 2.100 1.700 1.650 4c(1) Seasonal Recreational/Commercial Non - Commercial: Under $72,000 2.000 1.750 Over $72,001 2.500 2.500 Under $75,000 1.400 1.250 Over $75,001 2.500 2.200 Under $76,000 1.200 Over $76,001 1.650 Resorts: lc Homestead 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4c(2) Seasonal 2,300 2.300 2,100 1.800 1.650 All vacant land is reclassified to highest and best use pursuant to local zoning ordinance. ' I - CITY OF CENTERVILLE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Valuations Estimated Net Tax Market Value Capacity 1999/2000 1999/2000 Real Property $129,908,000 $1,742,821 Personal Property 1,683,000 53,648 Less Tax Increment District Deduction ( 17,440) Fiscal Disparities' (Contribution to Pool) ( 73,384) Distribution from Pool 290.472 Total Valuation $ 131,591,000 $1,996,117 Market Value after Sales Assessment Ratio The Minnesota Department of Revenue conducts the Real Estate Sales Assessment Ratio Study to ac- complish equalization of property valuations in the State and to determine the probable selling price of a property. The Study is a three -year average of sale prices as related to the latest assessor's estimated market value. The latest Sales Assessment Ratio (1999) in Centerville is 92.1% meaning the County Auditor's recorded real property market value of $129,908,000 is 92.1% of the probable resale esti- mated market value. We have made the following computations in deriving the market value figure used in the "Summary of Debt and Debt Statistics." $ 129,908,000 County Auditor's recorded real property estimated market value. 92.1% Latest Composite Ratio from the Real Estate Sales Assessment Ratio Study of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. = $ 141,051,031 Indicated market value of real property. + 1,683,000 Personal property. _ $ 142,734,031 Indicated market value of real and personal property used in " Summary of Debt and Debt Statistics." Fiscal Disparities Law The 1971 Legislature enacted a "fiscal disparities law" which allows all the Twin City Metropolitan Area Municipalities to share in commercial /industrial growth, regardless of where the growth occurred geographically, Forty percent (40 %) of every metropolitan municipality's growth in commercial /industrial assessed valuation is pooled, then redistributed to all municipalities on the basis of population and per capita valuation after the tax increment and fiscal disparity adjustments. -24- Sales Assessment Ratio History The Sales Assessment Ratio for the City of Centerville over the past ten years have been as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1999 92.1% 1994 88.6% 1998 90.8 1993 91.2 1997 90.6 1992 89.3 1996 90.8 1991 90.3 1995 90,4 1990 99.6 Valuation Trends (Real and Personal Propertv) Valuation Trends for the City of Centerville over the past ten years have been as follows: Net Tax Net Tax Capacity Capacity Levy Year/ Indicated Estimated Before Tax After Tax Collection Year Market Value Market Value Increment! Increment 1999/2000 $142,734,031 $131,591,000 $1,796,469 $1,996,117 1998/1999 115,341,740 104,730,300 1,390,704 1,570,777 1997/1998 94,699,133 85,907,000 1,217,579 1,403,374 1996/1997 85,274,449 77,429,200 1,151,435 1,274,916 1995/1996 78,112,117 70,702,000 1,023,457 1,040,532 1994/1995 71,708,691 63,533,900 895,079 919,342 1993/1994 65,762,171 59,975,100 842,423 908,734 1992/1993 60,699,976 54,282,600 768,003 847,309 1991/1992 54,754,485 49,443,300 712,303 817,176 1990/1991 44,270,582 44,093,500 689,352 767,294 Breakdown of Valuations 1999/2000 Estimated Market Value, Real and Personal Property: Real Property $129,908,000 98.72% Personal Property 1,683,000 1.28 Total $131,591,000 100.00% 1999/2000 Net Tax Capacity, Real and Personal Property (before tax increment and fiscal disparity adjustments): Residential Homestead $ 1,399,017 77.88% Agricultural 5,754 .32 Commercial & Industrial 265,574 14.78 Non - Homestead Residential 72,476 4.03 Personal Property 53,648 2.99 Total $ 1,796,469 100.00% 1 Also before fiscal disparity adjustments. 2 Also after fiscal disparity adjustments. 3 Breakdown of real property Estimated Market Value is not available from Anoka County. - 25 - Tax Capacity Rates The following are tax rates for the City of Centerville for the past five - assessable /collection years: 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Levy Year/ Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Collection Year Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates County of Anoka 31.036% 30.091% 30.61800 32.26500 30.86100 ' City of Centerville 40.194 31.590 40.91200 48.86200 49.18400 ISD No. 12, Centennial 63.103 66.000 59.00400 64.80200 58.23000 Market Value Referendum Rate 0.000 0.000 .04416 .07074 .05380 NEMISD No. 916 .375 .297 .19400 .33300 .26100 Metropolitan Council .772 .736 .88300 .88600 .82400 Metro Transit 4.017 3.869 4.30000 4.79900 4.50200 Metropolitan Mosquito District .239 .249 .28900 .34000 .33400 Rice Creek Watershed .448 .471 .83000 .80900 .76500 Anoka County Railroad Authority 0.000 0.000 .47100 .47400 1.21000 Anoka County HRA 0.000 .707 .81800 .98300 .94400 Totals: 140.184 134.010 138.36316 154.62374 147.16880 Tax Levies and Collections Levy Year/ 1995/ 1996/ 1997/ 1998/ Collection Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 Original Gross Tax Levy $509,737 $530,995 $666,075 $866,194 Property Tax Credit& (103,147) (104,075) (104,075) (104,075) Levy Adjustments 22.039 5.087 7 2.379 Net Tax Levy $428,629 $432,007 $562,007 $764,498 Amount Collected during Collection Year $417,377 $428,550 $557,814 $750,504 Percent of Net Tax Levy Collected 97.37% 99.20% 99.25% 98.17% Amount Delinquent at end of Collection Year $ 11,252 $ 3,457 $ 4,193 $ 13,994 Delinquencies Collected as of (06/30/00) ( 9,600) ( 2,794) ( 3,059) ( 10,540) Delinquencies Abated or Cancelled as of (06/30/00) ( 290) ( 0) 965 ( 0) Total Delinquencies Outstanding as of (06/30/00) $ 1,362 $ 663 $ 2,099 $ 3,454 Percent of Net Tax Levy Collected 99.68% 99.85% 99.63% 99.55% ' Note: 1999/2000 Gross Tax Levy $1,095,001 1999/2000 Net Tax Levy 985,009 1 Property tax credits are aids provided by the State of Minnesota and paid directly to the City. Cities currently deduct property tax credits prior to certifying values with the county auditor. -26- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT (As of October 17, 2000, Plus This Issue) This Issue Purpose: G.O. G.O. G.O. &07 G.O. G.O. Water Improvement Sewer and Refunding Improvement Improvement Revenue and Refunding Water Bonds Bonds, Bonds Bonds, Bonds, Revenue Bonds, of Series a Series 1996 Series 1996 Series 1998 1998 1998 2000 Dated: 08/01/96 11/01/96 07/01/98 07/01/98 08/01/98 10/01 /00 ' Original Amount: 5410,000 $605,000 5720,000 $245,000 S615,000 5650,000 Maturity: 1 -Feb 1 -Feb 1 -Feb 1 -Feb 1 -Feb 1 -Feb Interest Rates: 4.95.5.40% 4.004.50% 4.10 -4.80% 4.71% 4.10 -4.50% 2000 50 $0 $0 $0 F $O ■ $0 2000 2001 35,000 125,000 60,000 50,000 ! 55,000 I 0 2001 2002 40,000 130,000 65,000 50,000 55,000 175,000 2002 2003 40,000 0 65,000 50,000 55,000 175,000 2003 2004 40,000 0 70,000 0 ____ 60,000 200,000 2004 2005 45,000 0 75,000 0 � 60,000 1 10,000 2005 2006 45,000 0 75,000 0' 65,000' 10,000 2006 2007 50,000 0 80,000 0 70,000 10,000 2007 2008 50,000 0 85,000 0 70,000 15,000 2008 2009 0 0 85,000 0 75,000 15,000 2009 2010 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 2010 2011 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 2011 5345,000 5255,000 5660,000 5150,000 5565,000 $650,000 ' (1) (2) (3) (1) (4) (2) ( (2) ( (2) Purpose: Dated: Original Amount: . Maturity: Interest Rates: TOTALS: 2000 50 2001 325,000 2002 515,000 2003 385,000 2004 370,000 2005 190,000 2006 195,000 2007 210,000 2008 220,000 2009 175,000 ' 2010 20,000 2011 20,000 $2,625,000 -27- CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT (As of October 17, 2000, Plus This Issue) (1) These bonds are payable primarily from net revenues of the municipal water utility system and additionally secured by ad valorem taxes on all taxable properly within the City and without limitation of amount. (2) These bonds are payable primarily from special assessments against all benefitted property and additionally secured by ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City and without limitation of amount (3) These bonds current refunded $35,000 of the 5360,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19918, dated August 1, 1991. Maturities 1998 through 2002, inclusive, were called for redemption on February 1, 1997 at a price of par plus accrued interest. (4) These bonds are payable primarily from net revenues of the municipal sewer utility system and additionally secured by ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City and without limitation of amount. (5) These bonds current refunded 5240, 000 of the 5615, 000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1987, dated July 1, 1987. Maturities 1999 through 2003, inclusive, were called for redemption on August 1, 1998 at a price of par plus accrued interest. (6) Maturities of these bonds (i) 2000 through 2001, inclusive, (it) 2002 through 2004, inclusive, (iii) 2005 through 2006, inclusive and (iv) 2007 through 2009, inclusive, are subject to mandatory redemption on February 1 of their respective years. _28_ CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL OBLIGATION DEBT (As of October 17, 2000) Pupose: Lease Purchase Agreement of 7992 Dated: 09/16/92 Original Amount: 5500,000 Maturity: -Feb 1 Interest Rates: 6.28% 2000 SO 2001 62,575 2002 60,832 2003 59,034 S182,441 (1) (1) These are non- appropriation bonds with City funds annually budgeted by Ciry Council. The full faith and credit of the City is NOT pledged for their payment • i l i —29— Overlapping Debt 1999/2000 1999/2000 Net Tax Net Tax Capacity Percentage City 's Capacity Value Applicable Share Issuer Value') in Citv1J) in City Net Debt of Debt County of Anoka $ 202,945,741 $1,705,645 .84% $ 84,210,000( 2 ) $ 707,364 ISD No. 12, Centennial 18,238,202 1,705,645 9.35 64,480,3321 6,028,911 NMISD No. 916 421,181,735 1,705,645 .40 19,365,8430) 77,463 Metropolitan Council 2,244,229,627 1,705,645 .08 24,565,0001 19,652 Metro Transit 1,988,859,543 1,705,645 .09 56,312,321( 50.681 Total Overlapping Debt: $6,884,071 Overlapping Debt Future Financing County of Anoka The County does not anticipate the issuance of any additional general obligation bonding within the next three months. ISD No. 12, Centennial The District anticipates the issuance of ap- proximately $35,500,000 in general obligation bonds within the next three months. The City is scheduled to vote on the proposed issue on the November 7, 2000 referendum. NMISD No. 916 The District does not anticipate the issuance of any additional bonding within the next three months. Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council does not anticipate the issuance of any additional bonding within the next three months. Metro Transit Metro Transit does not anticipate the issuance of any additional bonding within the next three months. ( Net tax capacity values are after tax increment and fiscal disparity contribution to pool but before distribution from pool. ( Anoka County reported bond indebtedness of $84,2 10,000 and sinking funds of $0 as of December 31, 1999. ( ISD No. 12, Centennial, reported bond indebtedness of $64,854,000 and sinking funds of $373,668 as of June 30, 2000. ( NMISD No. 916, reported bond indebtedness of $20,060,000 and sinking funds of $694,157 as of June 30, 2000. ( Deductions: (A) $513,845,139 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Debt as of December 31, 1999. Note 1: Debt Service on A above is 100% self supported from revenues of the Metro Sanitary Sewer System, although the bonds are full faith and credit bonds. Sinking funds of $17,078,000 and escrow account funds of $33,290,800 have not been deducted because said funds are attributable to A above. Fund balances are as of December 31, 1999. Note 2: The only tax supported bond indebtedness is $28,855,000 with sinking funds of $4,290,000 as of December 31, 1999. (6) Metro Transit reported bonded indebtedness of $79,927,310, sinking funds of $22,289,000 and escrow funds of $1,325,989 as of December 31, 1999. -30- Cash and Investment Balances as of September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) Fund General Fund $3,176,274 Federal Community Development Grant 27 Special Revenue Funds ( 17,989) 0 ) Debt Service Funds ( 824,314) (2) Capital Projects Funds 395,824 (3) Enterprise Funds (2,554,820) ( Escrow Fund ( 50,255) Total Cash and Investment Balances $ 124,747` • * Breakdown of the various funds is an the following page. 31 (I) Includes the following Special Revenue Funds: #614 Cable TV Fund ($ 18,250.69) #617 Recycling Fund 15,772.93 #618 City Celebration Fund 18,763.42 #619 Savings & C.D. Interest Fund ( 32,986.50) #620 Economic Development Authority Fund ( 1,288.37) (2 ) Consists of the following Debt Service Funds: #302 1979 Improvement Fund ($ 1,283.89) #303 Flood Plains Reduction Fund ( 61,506.84) #304 1987 Improvement Fund 38,171.53 #311 1993 Acorn Creek Improvements Fund 12,380.05 #313 Tax Increment No. 1 -5 Debt Service Fund ( 11,240.33) #315 Municipal Building Fund 96,964.71t #316 Tax Increment No. 1 -2 Debt Service Fund 760.42 #317 Industrial Park Tax Increment No. 1-4 Debt Service Fund ( 31,209.06) #319 Clearwater Meadows Fund ( 317,896.54) #324 Parkview Development Fund ( 501,790,92) #325 Elementary School Water Extension Fund ( 138,865.72) #326 20th Avenue Sewer and Water Debt Service Fund 91,202.50 ( Consists of the following Capital Projects Funds: #402 Park Capital Project Fund ($ 31,674.94) #403 Fire Equipment Depreciation Fund ( 5,472.00) #404 Tax Increment Financing Capital Project Fund ( 130,898.68) #407 The Woods of Clearwater Fund ( 51.45) #408 21 Avenue Improvements Fund 4,899.54 #410 Municipal Building Capital Project Fund 357,525.75 #411 Acorn Creek Capital Project 93 -1 Phase 2 Fund 317.25 4412 Acorn Creek Second Addition Capital Improvement 94 -1 Fund 25,616.00 #413 TIF District 1 -5 Fund 4,942.30 #414 Pedestrian Trail Ways Fund 351.50 #415 Storm Water Improvement Projects Fund ( 143,664.84) #420 Eagle Pass Improvement Project Fund 10,785.91 #421 Lakeland Hilts Improvement Project Fund 45,898.12 #422 Willow Glen Development Fund ( 23,484.92) #424 Parkview Development Fund ( 26,961.03) #426 20 Avenue Sewer & Water Improvement Fund 14,000.92 #427 Woods of Clearwater Creek Fund ( 9,130.13) #429 Center Villa Fund 35,052.70 #430 Buechler Estates Fund ( 2,110.65) #431 Deer Pass Fund 3,140.90 #432 Royal Industrial Park Fund 156,574.92 #433 Public Works Building Fund 6,028.92 #434 Water Interconnect Fund ( 49,230.51) #435 Lift Station No. 2 Renovation Fund 19,867.27 #436 Hunter's Crossing Fund 127,463.75 #437 Downtown Revitalization Fund 6,037.00 ( Consists of the following Enterprise Funds: #601 Water Fund ($ 1,057,67!.55) #602 Sewer Fund ( 1,495,710.58) 0603 Refuse Fund ( 98.35) #604 Gambling Revenue Fund ( 1,340.00) t These Debt Service Funds should be deducted when computing debt ratios since the bond issues are not included in general obligation debt figures since the bonds are payable from lease payments. Total cash and investment balances available for debt ratios is ($921,278.80). These negative fund balances will be reduced or eliminated with transfers out of the General Fund at year end. —32— SUMMARY OF DEBT AND DEBT STATISTICS General Obligation Debt Bonds secured primarily by water revenues $ 345,000 Bonds secured primarily by special assessments (includes this issue) 1,620,000 Bonds secured primarily by sewer and water revenues 660,000 Total General Obligation Direct Debt $ 2,625,000 Add Debt Service Funds 921,279 Net Direct General Obligation Debt $ 3,546,279 Add City's share of net overlapping debt 6,884,071 Total Net Direct and Net Overlapping Debt $ 10,430,350 Special Obligation Debt Lease Purchase Agreement of 1992 $ 182,441 Facts for Ratio Computations 1999/2000 Indicated Market Value (real and personal property) $142,734,031 1999/2000 Net Tax Capacity (real and personal property, after tax increment adjustment) $1,996,117 2000 Estimated Population 3,000 Debt Ratios Net Direct Net Net and Net Direct Direct Overlapping Overlapping Debt Debt Debt Debt To Indicated Market Value 1.84% 2.48% 4.82% 7.30% Per Capita $875 $1,182 $2,295 $3,477 Per Capita Adjusted' $746 $1,007 $1,956 $2,963 I The City's tax base is 14.78% commercial & industrial, which has been deducted. —33— $650,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 2000 CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA (ANOKA COUNTY) CUMULATIVE BOND YEARS AND WORKSHEET (FEB. 1) CUMULATIVE YEAR AMOUNT BOND YEARS BOND YEARS 2002 $175,000 218.750 218.750 2003 175,000 393.750 612.500 2004 200,000 650.000 1,262.500 2005 10,000 42.500 1,305.000 2006 10,000 52.500 1,357.500 2007 10,000 62.500 1,420.000 2008 15,000 108.750 1,528.750 ` 2009 15,000 123.750 1,652.500 2010 20,000 185.000 1,837.500 2011 20,000 205.000 2,042.500 AVERAGE MATURITY: 3.14231 years. BONDS DATED: November 1, 2000. INTEREST PAYMENTS: February 1, 2001, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and Feb - ruary 1 to registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. REDEMPTION: The City may elect on February 1, 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for re- demption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. PROPOSAL: Sealed proposals of not less than $640,250 and accrued interest. Good faith check or a Financial Surety Bond for $13,000 must ac- company the proposal. RATES: Each rate must be in integral multiples of 1 /20th or 1 /8th of 1 %. No limitation is placed upon the number of rates that may be used. ESTIMATED CLOSING DATE: November 29, 2000. -34- PROPOSAL FORM DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 2000 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CENTERVILLE E TERVILLE CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA FOR ALL OF THE $650,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 2000, OF YOUR CITY AS DESCRIBED IN THE TERMS OF PROPOSAL, WE WILL PAY YOU DOLLARS ) (NOT LESS THAN $640,250) PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF SAID BONDS TO THE DATE OF DELIVERY. SAID BONDS SHALL BEAR INTEREST PAYABLE FEBRUARY 1, 2001, AND SEMIANNUALLY EACH AUGUST 1 AND FEBRUARY 1 THEREAFTER AS FOLLOWS: % - 2002 % - 2004 % - 2006 % - 2008 % - 2010 % - 2003 % - 2005 % - 2007 % - 2009 % - 2011 DESIGNATION OF SERIAL AND TERM MATURITIES LAST YEAR OF SERIAL MATURITIES YEAR OF TERM MATURITIES PRINCIPAL WILL BE PAYABLE AT U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. CUSIP NUMBERS WILL BE ISSUED AT THE COST OF THE SUCCESSFUL UNDERWRITER. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR PROMPT ACCEPTANCE AND SUBJECT TO ALL TERMS IN THE TERMS OF PROPOSAL. WE ARE TO BE FURNISHED THE APPROVING LEGAL OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL, TOGETHER WITH THE DELIVERY OF THE PRINTED AND EXECUTED BONDS, WITHIN 40 DAYS AFTER AWARD OR AT OUR OPTION THEREAFTER. DELIVERY WILL BE MADE AT (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS -SEE OVER). ACCOUNT MEMBERS: ACCOUNT MANAGER BY: ACCEPTED FOR THE ADDRESSEE THIS DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000. BY: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY ADMINISTRATOR WE COMPUTE OUR TOTAL NET INTEREST COST TO BE $ FOR A NET INTEREST RATE OF %. THESE COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT A PART OF THIS OFFER. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO USE THIS FORM; HOWEVER, ANY PROPOSAL ROPOSAL MUST COMPLY WITH THE TERMS STATED IN THE TERMS OF PROPOSAL. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS PROPOSAL IN DUPLICATE -35- SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS : SALE RESULTS WILL BE FURNISHED TO PROPOSAL MAKERS AT 8:30 A.M. ON THE DAY AFTER THE SALE AT 651- 224 -1500. IF RESULTS ARE DESIRED IMMEDIATELY, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER: THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT FOR THE GOOD FAITH CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,000 TO BE RETURNED TO THE UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL MAKER. JURAN & MOODY BY: DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 2000 -36- This page left blank intentionally i y 470 Pillsbury Center fi 141 < 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 tina.detaS (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 - 9310 fax StekinathriMran http: / /www.kennedY- graven.com CHARTERED $650,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000 City of Centerville Anoka County, Minnesota We have acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance by the City of Centerville, Anoka County, Minnesota, of its General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 2000, (the `Bonds "), originally dated as of November 1, 2000, in the original aggregate principal amount of $650,000. For the purpose of rendering this opinion we have examined certified copies of certain proceedings taken by the City with respect to the authorization, sale and issuance of the Bonds, including the form of the Bonds, certain other . proceedings and documents furnished by the City, and applicable laws of the State of Minnesota From our examination of such proceedings and other documents, assuming the genuineness of the signatures thereon and the accuracy of the facts stated therein, and based upon laws, regulations, rulings and decisions in effect on the date hereof; it is our opinion that: 1. The Bonds are in due form, have been duly executed and delivered, and are valid and binding general obligations of the City, enforceable in accordance with their terms. The rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability of the Bonds may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganir moratorium, and other similar laws affecting creditor's rights generally and by equitable principles, whether considered at law or in equity. 2. The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable from special assessments levied or to be levied on property specially benefited by local improvements and ad valorem taxes for the City's share of the cost of the improvements, but if necessary for the payment thereof additional ad valorem taxes are required by law to be levied on all taxable property in the City, which taxes are not subject to any limitation as to rate or amount. 3. Interest on the Bonds is not includable in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes or in taxable net income for Minnesota income tax purposes, and is not a preference item for purposes of the computation of the federal alternative minimum tax, or the computation of the Minnesota alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, trusts and estates, but such interest is includable in the computation of "adjusted current earnings," used in the calculation of federal alternative minimum taxable income of corporations, and is subject to Minnesota franchise taxes on corporations (including financial institutions) measured by income and the alternative minimum tax base. The opinion set forth in the preceding sentence is subject to the condition that the City comply with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon be, or continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and excluded from taxable net income for Minnesota income tax purposes. We express no opinion regarding other federal or state tax consequences arising with respect to the Bonds. 3JB- 185043v1 CE155 -16 We have not been asked and have not undertaken to review the accuracy, completeness or sufficiency of the Official Statement or other offering material relating to the Bonds, and accordingly we express no opinion with respect thereto. This opinion is given as of the date hereof and we assume no obligation to update, revise, or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to our attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur. Dated at Minneapolis, Minnesota, S]8- 185043v1 GEM-16 APPENDIX B City's Financial Statements The following financial statements are excerpts from the annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 1999. The complete financial statements for the year 1999 and the prior two years are • available for inspection at the Centerville City Hall and the St. Paul office of Juran & Moody. The reader of this Official Statement should be aware that the complete financial report may have further data relating to the excerpts presented in the appendix which may provide additional explanation, in- terpretation or modification of the excerpts. Excerpts from the Financial Report • Combined Balance Sheet — All Fund Types and Account Groups • Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance (Deficit) — All Governmental Fund Types • Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance — Budget and Actual - General Fund • Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings — All Proprietary Fund Types • Combined Statement of Cash Flows — All Proprietary Fund Types • Notes to the Financial Statements CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA ' COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS DECEMBER 31, 1999 (With comparative totals for December 31, 1998) Governmental Fund Types Special Debt Capital General Revenue Service Projects ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS ASSETS Cash and temporary investments (deficit) 5 1,026,797 5 (23,892) S 1,237,781 $ 358,606 Accrued interest receivable 2,631 24 3,560 1,747 Delinquent taxes receivable 31,202 _ - _ Accounts receivable 1,265 5,000 - 3,878 Special assessments receivable 98 - 221,973 - Due from other governments 47,283 3,041 - Prepaid items - - _ Inventory - - - _ Bond discount - - - - Fixed assets, net _ - - _ OTHER DEBITS Amount available in debt service funds _ - - Amount to be provided for debt retirement - - _ TOTAL ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS S 1,109,276 S (15,827) S 1,463,314 S 364,231 LIABILITY, EQUITY (DEFICIT) AND OTHER CREDITS LIABILITIES Accounts payable S 26,976 S 6 S 127 S 118,468 Accrued salaries payable 11,290 - - - Deferred revenue 14,414 - 214,060 - Capital lease payable _ - - Bonds payable - - - - TOTAL LIABILITIES 57,680 6 214,187 118,468 EQUITY (DEFICIT) AND OTHER. CREDITS Investment in general fixed assets - - - - Contributed capital - _ - - Retained earnings Reserved - - _ _ Unreserved - - - - Fund balance (deficit) Reserved - - 1,294,207 - Unreserved Designated 1,051,596 - - 444,792 Undesignated - (15,833) (45,080) (199,029) ' TOTAL EQUITY (DEFICIT) AND OTHER CREDITS 1,051,596 (15,833) 1,249,127 245,763 TOTAL LIABILITIES, EQUITY (DEFICIT) AND OTHER CREDITS S 1,109,276 S (15,827) $ 1,463,314 S 364,231 See Notes to Financial Statements. Proprietary Fiduciary Totals Fund Type Fund Type Account Groups (Memorandum Only) General Generai Trust and Fixed Assets Long -term Enterprise Agency (Unaudited) Debt 1999 1998 5 2,375,700 $ 15,293 S - $ - $ 4,990,285 $ 4,237,914 5,396 42 - - 13,400 5,643 - 31,202 24,061 84,800 - - - 94,943 85,771 523,283 - - - 745,354 1,305,527 - - - - 50,324 8,981 - - 8,263 23,122 - - - 23,122 11,4I2 6,595 - - - 6,595 7,254 ' 1,758,265 1,053,696 - 2,811,961 2,668,001 1,249327 1,249,127 326,169 - - - 575,747 575,747 1,879,245 $ 4,777,161 $ 15,335 5 1,053,696 S 1,824.874 S 10,592,060 $ 10,568,241 $ 6,581 $ 15,335 $ - $ - S 167,493 S 64,990 1,467 - - 16,169 28,926 21,676 522,589 - - - 756,063 1,297,107 - - 218,705 218,705 269,284 ' 720,000 - - 1.590,000 2.310,000 2,645,000 1,250,637 15,335 - 1.824,874 3,481,187 4,298,057 1,053,696 1,053,696 970,158 - I 1,134,514 - - - 1,134,514 1,165,242 71,631 - 71,631 71,631 - 2,320,379 - - 2,320,379 1,827,556 1,294,207 891,321 - - 1,496,388 2,035,744 (259,942) (691,468) 1 3,526,524 - 1,053,696 - 7,110,873 6,270,184 $ 4,777,161 $ I5,335 $ 1,053,696 5 1,824,874 $ 10,592,060 5 10,568,241 CITY OF CErITERVII.LE, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT) ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1998) Special Debt Capital General Revenue Service Project REVENUE Property taxes S 758,282 S - 3 - 3 - Tax increments - - - 23,738 Licenses and permits 291,587 - Intergovernmental 284,747 - - Charges for services 1,265 - - 32,115 - Fines and forfeits 35,421 - Special assessments 296 - 580,087 Interest on investments 36,196 323 34,652 38,547 Miscellaneous 39,371 16,645 - 86.073 TOTAL REVENUE 1,447,165 16,968 614,739 180,473 EXPENDITURES Current General government 387,387 Public safety 495,404 .. - - Public works 197,626 - - Culture and recreation 62,546 - - - Miscellaneous 5,615 17,316 - 9,162 Capital Outlay 73,616 9,922 - 281,928 Debt service 385,579 11,915 Principal 98,137 12,250 Interest and other TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,222,194 27,238 483,716 315,255 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 224,971 (10,270) 131,023 (134,782) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in 20,933 = 898,830 63,181 Bond proceeds Operating transfers out (100,000) - (106,895) (691,935) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (79,067) - 791,935 (628,754) I EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES I45,904 (10,270) 922,958 (763,536) FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), JANUARY 1 905,692 (5,563) 326,169 I,009,299 FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), DECEMBER 31 51,051,596 3 (15,833) 51,249,127 S 245,763 See Notes to Financial Statements. 1 Totals (Memorandum Only) 1999 1998 $ 758,282 5 574,149 23,738 24,266 291,587 346,327 284,747 229,845 33,380 79,674 35,421 21,514 580,383 448,796 109,718 94,398 142,089 231,562 2 ,259,345 2,050,531 387,387 334,517 495,404 419,835 197,626 111,306 62,546 37,444 32,093 64,188 365,466 843,965 397,494 744,040 110,387 98,605 2,048,403 2,653,900 210,942 (603,369) 982,944 - 848,691 (898,830) - I 84,114 848,691 295,056 245,322 2,235,597 1,990,275 $ 2,530,653 $ 2,235,597 CITY OF CEENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND YEAR. ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 • Variance - Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) REVENUE Property taxes $ 762,119 5 758,282 5 (3,837) Licenses and permits 200,000 291,587 91,587 Intergovernmental 176,677 284,747 108,070 Charges for services 300 1,265 965 Fines and forfeits 20,000 35,421 15,421 Special assessments - 296 296 Interest on investments 22,000 36,196 14,196 Miscellaneous 30,933 39,371 8,438 TOTAL REVENUE 1,212,029 1,447,265 235,136 EXPENDITURES Current General government 326,683 387,387 (60,704) Public safety 404,735 495,404 (90,669) Public works 191,519 197,626 (6,107) Culture and recreation 51,277 62,546 (11,269) Miscellaneous 25,000 5 ,615 19,385 Capital outlay 90,513 73,616 16,897 , TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,089,727 1,222,194 (132,467) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE OVER 1 EXPENDITURES 122,302 224,971 102,669 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 1 Operating transfer in - 20,933 20,933 Operating transfer out (122,302) (100,000) 22,302 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (122,302) (79,067) 43,235 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE 1 AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES $ - 145,904 $ 145,904 1 FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 - 905,692 i FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 $ 1,051,596 1 1 See Notes to Financial Statements. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 Enterprise OPERATING REVENUE Charges for services $ 268,497 Hook -up fees and unit charges 572,578 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 841,075 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services 30,797 Supplies and maintenance 23,911 Other services and charges 35,944 Utilities I0,428 MCES disposal charges 195,866 Depreciation 37,609 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 334,555 OPERATING INCOME 506,520 NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE) Interest on investments 74,635 Interest expense (34,946) TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE) 39,689 INCOME BEFORE OPERATING TRANSFERS 546,209 OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS (84,114) NET INCOME 462,095 CREDIT FOR DEPRECIATION ON CONTRIBUTED ASSETS 30,728 INCREASE IN RETAINED EARNINGS 492,823 RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 1,899,187 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 S 2,392,010 See Notes to Financial Statements. CITY OF CENTERVTT T E, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 Enterprise CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income S 506,520 Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 37,609 (Increase) decrease in assets: Accounts receivable (8,542) Prepaid items 8,263 Inventory (11,710) Special assessments receivable 95,049 Increase (decrease) in liabilities: Accounts payable (3,164) Accrued salaries payable 611 Deferred revenue (95,743) NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 528,893 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers out (84,114) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Interest paid on debt (34,946) Purchase of fixed assets (97,372) NET CASH USED BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES (132.318) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments 71,352 INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 383,813 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 1,991,887 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 52,375,700 See Notes t es o Financial Statements. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Reporting Entity The City of Centerville is a statutory city operating in accordance with the Plan A form of government, as defined in the State of Minnesota Statutes. As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the reporting entity include those of the City of Centerville (the primary government) and its component units. The City of Centerville does not have any component units. B. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation The accounts of the City are organized and operated on the basis of funds and account groups. A fund is an independent fiscal and accounting entity with self - balancing sets of accounts. Fund accounting segregates funds according to their intended purpose and is used to aid management in demonstrating compliance with finance- related legal and contractual provisions. The minimum number of funds are maintained consistent with legal and managerial requirements. Account groups are a reporting device to account for certain assets and liabilities of the governmental funds not recorded directly in those funds. The City has the following fund types and account groups: Governmental funds are used to account for the City's general government activities. Governmental fund types use the flow of current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual (i.e., when they are "measurable and available "). "Measurable" means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and "available" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. The City considers all revenues available if they are collected within 60 days after year end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for unrnatured interest on general long -term debt which is recognized when due, and certain compensated absences and claims and judgments which are recognized when the obligations are expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses, interest and special assessments are susceptible to accrual. Other receipts and taxes become measurable and available when cash is received by the government and are recognized as revenue at that time. The preparation of general purpose financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. Entitlements and shared revenues are recorded at the time of receipt or earlier if the susceptible to accrual criteria are met. Expenditure driven grants are recognized as revenue when the qualifying expenditures have been incurred and all other grant requirements have been met. Governmental funds include the following fund types: The general fund is the City's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the City, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The special revenue funds account for revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes (not including major capital projects). The debt service funds account for the servicing of general long -term debt not being financed by proprietary funds. The capital projects funds account for the acquisition of fixed assets or construction of major capital projects not being financed by proprietary finds. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Proprietary funds are accounted for on the flow of economic resources measurement focus and use the accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred The City applies all applicable FASB pronouncements issued on or before November 30, 1989 in accounting and reporting for its proprietary operations. Proprietary funds include the following fund type: Enterprise funds are used to account for those operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business or where the Council has decided that the determination of revenues earned, costs incurred and/or net income is necessary for management accountability. Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the government in a trustee capacity or as an agent on behalf of others. Agency funds are established to account for cash or other assets held by the city as trustee or agent for individuals, private organizations, other governments and/or other funds. The fund is custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and does not involve measurement of results of operations. Account groups. The general feed assets account group (unaudited) is used to account for fixed assets not accounted for in proprietary funds. The general long -term debt account group is used to account for general long -term debt and certain other liabilities that are not specific Liabilities of proprietary funds. C. Assets, Liabilities and Equity Deposits and Investments The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on band, demand deposits and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. State statutes authorize the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury, commercial paper, corporate bonds, repurchase agreements and shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies. Investments are stated at fair value. Earnings on investments are allocated to the individual funds based upon the averaee of month -end cash and investment balances. Property Tares The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County for collection. The County is responsible for collecting all property taxes for the City. These taxes attach an enforceable lien on taxable property within the City on January 1 and are payable by the property owners in two installments. The taxes are collected by the County Treasurer and tax settlements are made to the City during January, June, and November each year. Taxes payable on homestead property, as defined by State statutes, are partially reduced by a homestead and agricultural credit aid. The credit is paid to the City by the State of Minnesota in lieu of taxes levied against homestead property. The State remits this credit in two equal installments in July and December each year. Delinquent taxes receivable include the past six years' uncollected taxes. Delinquent taxes have been offset by a deferred revenue liability for delinquent taxes not received within 60 days after year end. Special Assessments Special assessments represent the financing for public improvements paid for by benefiting property owners. These assessments are recorded as receivables upon certification to the County. Special assessments are recognized as revenue when they are received in cash or within 60 days after year end. All special assessments receivable are offset by a deferred revenue liability. CITY OF CENTERVIT I F MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Receivables and Payables Transactions between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either "interfund receivables/payables" (i.e., the current portion of intertimd loans) or "advances to/from other fiords" (i.e., the non - current portion of interiund loans). All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as "due to/from other funds." Advances between funds are offset by a fund balance reserve account in applicable governmental funds to indicate they are not available for appropriation and are not expendable available financial resources. Inventories The inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market on the first -in, first -out (FIFO) method. Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items. Fixed Assets Fixed assets used in governmental fund types of the City are recorded in the general fixed assets account group (unaudited) at cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated fixed assets are recorded at their estimated fair value at the date of donation. Assets in the general fixed assets account group are not depreciated. Interest incurred during construction is not capitalized on general fixed assets. Public domain (infrastructure) general fixed assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks and other assets that are immovable and of value only to the City) are not capitalized. The cost of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets' lives are not included in the general fixed assets group or capitalized in the proprietary funds. Property, plant and equipment in the proprietary funds of the City are recorded at cost. Property, plant and equipment donated to these proprietary fund type operations are recorded at their estimated fair value at the date of donation Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized in proprietary funds as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of proprietary fund fixed assets is reflected in the capitalized value of the asset constructed, net of interest earned on the invested proceeds over the same period. Property, plant and equipment are depreciated in the proprietary funds of the City using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Assets Years Collection system 60 Water distribution system 40 Equipment 5 -10 Compensated Absences Unused vacation is allowed to be carried over at year end. At year end, $16,169 is recorded in the General Long -term Debt Account Group for unused vacation. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED Long -term Obligations The City reports long -term debt of governmental funds at face value in the general long -term debt account group. Certain other governmental find obligations not expected to be financed with current available financial resources are also reported in the general long -term debt account group. Long-term debt and other obligations financed by proprietary fiords are reported as liabilities in the appropriate funds. For governmental fund types, bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are recognized during the current period. Bond proceeds are reported as an other financing source net of the applicable premium or discount. Issuance costs, other than those withheld from the actual net proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. For proprietary fund types, bond discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight line method. Issuance costs are recognized as debt service expenditures in the year paid Fund Equity Reservations of fund balance represent amounts that are not appropriable or are legally segregated for a specific purpose. Reservations of retained earnings are limited to outside third -party restrictions. Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans that are subject to change. The proprietary fund's contributed capital represents equity acquired through capital grans and capital contributions from developers, customers or other funds. Memorandum Only - Total Columns Total columns on the general purpose financial statements are captioned as "memorandum only" because they do not represent consolidated financial information and are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. The columns do not present information that reflects financial position, results of operations or cash flows in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. Comparative Data/Reclassifications Comparative total data for the prior year have been presented in the selected sections of the accompanying financial statements in order to provide an understanding of changes in the City's financial position and operations. Also, certain amounts presented in the prior year data have been reclassified in order to be consistent with the current year's presentation. Note 2: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY A. Budgetary Information Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for the general fund All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end. In August of each year, all departments of the City submit requests for appropriations to the City Administrator so that a budget may be prepared. Before September 15, the proposed budget is presented to the City's council for review. The council holds public hearings and a final budget is prepared and adopted in early December. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function and department. The City's department heads, with the approval of the City Administrator, may make transfers of appropriations within a department. Transfers of , appropriations between departments require the approval of the City Council. The legal level of budgetary control is the department level. Budgeted amounts are as originally adopted, or as amended by the City Council. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 2: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY - CONTINUED B. Excess of Expenditures over Appropriations For the year ended December 31, 1999, expenditures exceeded appropriations in the General Fund as illustrated below: Budget Actual Excess General Fund aO&9.222 n a a wg,a2 The excess expenditures were funded by actual revenue in excess of budget C. Deficit Fund Equity The following funds have a deficit fund balance as of December 31, 1999: Special Revenue Funds Recycling S 16,523 City Celebration 11,307 Debt Service Funds 1993 Acron Creek Improvements 12,379 Municipal Building 32,701 Capital Projects Funds Pedestrian Trail Ways - 352 Eagle Pass Additions 10,786 Lakeland Hills 45,811 TIF District 1 -5 4,942 21" Avenue Improvements 4,900 Center Villa 25,022 Deer Pass 2,670 Royal Industrial Park 88,182 Public Works Building 6,029 Lift Station #2 Renovation 7,316 Downtown Revititintion 3,019 The deficit in these funds will be eliminated by future revenue sources. Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS A. Deposits and Investments Cash balances of the City's funds are combined (pooled) and invested to the extent available in various investments authorized by Minnesota State Statutes. Each fund's portion of this pool (or pools) is displayed on the financial statements as "cash and temporary investments." For purposes of identifying the risk of investing public funds, the balances are categorized as follows: Deposits In accordance with Minnesota Statutes and as authorized by the City Council, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. 1 CITY OF CENTERVII T F, MINNESOTA • NOTES TO FINANCIAL STA DECEMBER 31, 1999 M ESS Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS - CONTINUED Minnesota Statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond, or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds (140% in the case of mortgage notes pledged). Authorized collateral includes the legal investments described below, as well as terrain first mortgage notes, and certain other State or local government obligations. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. At year end, the City's carrying amount of deposits was $3,765,138 and the bank balance was $3,797,486. The basic balance was entirely covered by federal depository insurance and by collateral held by the City's agent in the City's name. Investments Investments are categorized into these three categories of credit risk: 1. Insured or registered, or securities held by the City or its agent in the City's name. 2. Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the City's name. 3. Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent but not in the City's name. At year end, the City's investment balances were as follows: I Category Carrying and 3 Fair Value U.S. Government Securities 7 $ 282,975 Investments not subjected to risk categorization: 4M Money Market Fund 942,00 Total Investments S� 1.724 972 Cash on Rand Cash in the possession of the City, consisting of petty cash totals $92. Cash and Investments Summary A reconciliation of cash and investments as shown on the Combined Balance Sheet for the City follows: Cash on hand Carrying amount of deposits $ 1 Carrying amount of investments 3,224.977 1.224.977 Total Cash and Temporary Investments d B. Due From Other Governments A summary of amounts due from other governments as of December 31, I999 is as follows: County General Fund $ 47,283 Special Revenue Fund Recycling Fund 3.041 Total $ 50.324 CITY OF CENTERVR 1 F, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS - CONTINUED C. Fixed Assets A summary of changes in general fixed assets (unaudited) for the year ended December 31, 1999 is as follows: Balance Beginning Balance of Year Additions End of Year Land and land improvements $ 27,450 $ - $ 27,450 Buildings 742,728 - 742,728 Furniture and equipment 129,549 83,538 213,087 Other improvements 70,431 - 70.431 Total $ 970"158 La= 8 S 1.053'696 The following is a summary of proprietary fund type fixed assets at December 31, 1999: Enterprise Funds Water Sewer Total Water distribution system $1,059,266 $ - $ 1,059,266 Sewer collection system - 1,119,814 1.119,814 Total 1,059,266 1,119,814 2,179,080 Less accumulated depreciation (127,177) (293.638) (420.815) Net Fixed Assets L932..02 $ 826.176 1 758 D. Deferred Revenue Deferred revenue at December 31, 1999 is comprised of the following: Debt General Service Enterprise Total Delinauent taxes $ 19,414 $ - $ - $ 19,414 Special assessments Delinquent - 2,711 13,032 15,743 Deferred - 211.349 509,557 720.906 Total $ 19.14 4 4$ 21 .060 ua 5.2,1§,9,§2 E. Long -term Debi 1 General Obligation Bonds. The City issues general obligation bonds to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued for general govenunent activities. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the city. General obligation bonds currently outstanding are as follows: 1 CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS - CONTINUED General Long -term Debt General Obligation Special Assessment Bonds The following bonds were issued to finance various improvements and will be repaid primarily from special assessments levied on the properties benefiting from the improvements. Some issues, however, are partly financed by ad valorem tax levies. All special assessment debt is backed by the full faith and credit of the City. Each year the combined assessment and tax levy equals 105% of the amount required for debt service. The excess of 5% is to cover any delinquencies in tax or assessment payments. Authorized Balance at and Issued Interest Rate Issue Date Maturity Date Year End G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1979 $ 215,000 6.30% 6 -01 -79 4-01 -00 $ 15,000 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1996 605,000 4.30 -4.50 11 -01 -96 2 -0I -02 380,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1998 615,000 4.10 -4.50 08 -01 -98 02 -01 -09 615,000 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1998 245,000 4.71 07 -01 -98 02 -01 -03 200.000 Total General Obligation Special Assessment Bonds 1L210 Q40 General Obligation Revenue Bonds The following bonds were issued to finance improvements to the water system. They will be retired by user charges and are backed by the full faith and credit of the City. G.O. Water Revenue Bonds of 1996 $ 410,000 5.05 -5.40% 8 -01 -96 2 -01 -08 $ 380,000 G.O. Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of 1998 720,000 4.10-4.80 7 -01 -98 2 -01 -09 720,000 Total General Obligation Revenue Bonds Other General Long-Tenn Debt Capital Lease Payable During 1992, the City entered into a lease, with option to purchase, agreement as lessee for financing the construction of the City administration office and fire department Title remains with the City so long as they are not in default of terms in the lease agreement The lease agreement qualifies as a capital lease for accounting purposes and, therefore, has been recorded at the present value of the future minimum lease payments as of the date of its inception. $ 500,000 6.28% 9 -16 -92 2 -01 -03 $ 2IS.i05 1 Compensated Absences This liability represents vested benefits earned by employees through the end of the year, which will be paid at termination of employment in future years. Total Compensated Absences CITY OF CENI'ERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS - CONTINUED Changes in General Long -term Liabilities. During the year ended December 31, 1999, the following changes occurred in liabilities reported in the general Long -term debt account group. Balance Balance January 1, December 31, 1999 Additions Reductions 1999 G.O. Improvement Bonds S1,515,000 - $ 305,000 $ 1,210,000 G.O. Revenue Bonds 410,000 - 30,000 380,000 Lease Purchase Payable 269,284 - 50,579 218,705 Compensated Absences 11.130 5039 - 16.169 Total UaU $ 5032 Lial.,22 $ 1.824.874 The annual service requirements to maturity for all bonds and leases outstanding at December 31, 1999 are as follows: G.O. Special G.O. Capital Year Ending Assessment Revenue Lease December 31, Bonds Bonds Payable Total 2000 288,432 144,764 64,264 497,460 2001 268,015 140,521 62,575 471,1I1 2002 262,688 146,018 60;832 469,538, 2003 125,071 141,225 59,034 325,330 2004 76,450 141,248 - 217,698 Thereafter 379,699 659.485 - 1,039,184 Total 1,400,355 1,373,261 246,705 3,020,321 Less interest (190,355) (273.260 (28.000) (491,616) Principal $ 1.21.2692Q $l.100901Z $ 711705 $ a 57170,5 Amounts Available for Long -term Debt. Available fund balance in the debt service funds for repayment of long -term debt totaled $1,249,127 at year end. Amounts to be Provided for Long -term Debt. This represents future revenue to be generated for debt payments and severance benefits payable, generally including interest earnings, tax increments, scheduled tax levies and deferred (future) special assessment levies. The City is the administering authority for the following tax increment financing districts: District Number 1-4 Adjusted Original Tax Capacity $ 1,596 Current Tax Capacity (Payable 1998) 18.641 Captured Tax Capacity Retained by the City $ 17.045 Type of District Economic CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS S DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 3: DETAILED NOTES ON ALL FUNDS AND ACCOUNT GROUPS - CONTINUED E. Fund Equity Reservations and Designations The components of fund equity are described in Note 1. Certain reservations and designations have been made in the following funds: Reserved Purpose Amount Enterprise Fund Sewer Senior housing project commitment $ 71631 Governmental Funds Debt Service Funds Debt service on bonds issued $1,29422 Unreserved - Designated Governmental Funds General Working capital $ 1,051,596 Capital Projects Park Fund Park acquisition and improvement 31,675 Fire Fund Fire Equipment 5,472 TIF Projects Improvements within district 130,899 Storm Water System expansion 131,068 TIF District 1-4 Improvements within district 36,392 Parlcview Development Parkview project 72,771 Willow Glen Development Willow Glen Project 23,485 Woods of Clearwater Creek Development Project 9,875 Buechler Estates Development Project 2.392 Economic Development Authority Economic Development 763 Total Unreserved - Designated $ 1.446 F. Contributed Capital The changes in the City's contributed capital accounts for its proprietary funds were as follows: Enterprise Sources Water Sewer Total Beginning balance, contributed capital $ 594,212 $ 571,030 $1,165,242 Less depreciation on contributed assets (16,596) (14.132) (30.728) Ending balance, contributed capital $ 577.616 $_556 I s.a CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 4: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE A. Plan Description All full -time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF), which is a cost - sharing, multiple- employer retirement plan. This plan is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by state statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERF's Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of the step -rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.2 percent of average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 2.7 percent for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rare for a Coordinated Plan member is 1.2 percent of average salary for each of the first ten years and 1.7 percent for each remaining year. Under Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.7 percent of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.7 percent for Coordinated Plan members for each year of service. For PERF members whose annuity is calculated using Method I, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90. A reduced retirement annuity is also available to eligible members seeking early retirement. There are different types of annuities available to members upon retirement. A normal annuity is a lifetime annuity that ceases upon the death of the retiree — no survivor annuity is payable. There are also various types of joint and survivor annuity options available which will reduce the monthly normal anmiity amount, because the annuity is payable over joint lives. Members may also leave their contributions in the fiord upon termination of public service in order to qualify for a deferred annuity at retirement age. Refunds of contributions are available at any time to members who leave public service, but before retirement benefits begin. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for PERF. That report may be obtained by writing to PERA, 514 St. Peter Street, 4200, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 or by calling (651) 296 -7460 or 1- 800 -652 -9026. B. Funding Policy Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 set the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. PERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members are required to contribute 8.75 and 4.75 percent, respectively, of their annual covered salary. The City is required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll; 11.43 percent for Basic Plan PERF members, and 5.18 percent for Coordinated Plan PERF members. The City's contributions to the Public Employees Retirement Fund for the years ending December 31, 1999, 1998, and 1997 were $14,953, 513,026, and $8,879, respectively. The Cities contributions were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by state statute. CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1999 Note 5: OTHER INFORMATION A. Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters for which the City carries insurance The City obtains insurance through participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) which is a risk sharing pool with approximately 800 other governmental units. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT for its workers compensation and property and casualty insurance. The LMCIT is self sustaining through member premiums and will reinsure for claims above a prescribed dollar amount for each insurance event. Settled claims have not exceeded the City's coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities, if any, include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNRs). The City's management is not aware of any incurred but not reported claims. 13. Segment Information for Enterprise Funds Water Sewer Total Operating revenue $ 343,308 $ 497,767 $ 841,075 Depreciation expense 21,965 15,644 37,609 Operating income 249,100 257,420 506,520 Net income 207,728 254,367 462,095 Fixed asset additions 80,889 16,483 97,372 Bonds payable 324,000 396,000 720,000 Net working capital 729,445 1,228,936 1,958,381 Total assets 2,134,390 2,642,771 4,777,161 Total equity 1,574,811 1,951,713 3,526,524 C. Legal Debt Margin In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City may not incur or be subject to net debt in excess of two percent of the market value of taxable property within the City. Net debt is payable solely from ad valorem taxes and, therefore, excludes debt financed partially or entirely by special assessments, enterprise fund revenues or tax increments. The City does not have any debt subject to the 2% limit. Note 6: FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • In 1985, the City discontinued providing the fire protection services to the Centerville cotmmunity. The City joined the Centennial Fire District along with the cities of Circle Pines and Lino Lakes. The City contributed all fire apparatus and equipment items to the fire district. The City in turn will be receiving payments, from the district of $2,270 for 15 years on the apparatus values and $4,973 for 10 years on the equipment values. The City Council passed a resolution to have these funds recorded in the City's fire capital projects fund. These payments are recognized as revenue when they are received. The City pays an annual membership fee to the fire district based on their percentage of the computed annual depreciation on the apparatus and equipment values. The lire district still houses equipment in the City's building and pays for a share of the utilities. Note 7: COMMITMENTS In 1997, the City entered into a Joint Powers agreement with the Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (ACHRA) to provide senior housing to the City. The ACHRA has issued $1,290,000 of Housing Development Revenue Bonds to provide for construction costs of the project The City has reserved $71,631 in the Sewer Enterprise Fund in accordance with the agreement with ACHRA. This amount is to be used in the event revenue is not sufficient to cover operating expenses and debt service. The City would also be liable for any deficit above the amount reserved. This commitment exists until December 31, 2012. No expenses were incurred relating to the commitment in 1999 or 1998. • MEMO DATE : November 2, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Lawn Care Quotes Included in your packet are copies of two quotes that were received for lawn care services. Valley Creek appears to be the low quote. Paul Palzer indicates that he has been pleased with the past service from this vendor. I would recommend that the City approve the contract with Valley Creek. • Val • ley y Lawn & Landscape Inc. Cr eek 7060 Valley Creek Plaza 115 -28, Woodbury, MN. 55125 (651) 458-0778 LAWN MAINTENANCE CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF CENTERVILLE AND VALLEY CREEK LAWN & LANDSCAPE, INC. Client: City of Centerville Location of Service: Client Contact Person: Paul Palzer Contract Effective Dates of Service: MAY 1, 2001 TO OCTOBER 31, 2001 Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. shall provide the following services for and on behalf of the client in description as follows. All services shall be performed by Valley Creek Lawn and Landscape, Inc. in a professional and timely manner. WEEKLY LAWN MOWING • Weekly mowing of all areas of grass specified in location list above. Mowing every week or as needed May through September as specified by the client contact person. • Trimming around edges as needed, but no less than once per month. • Sidewalks and parking areas to be blown off of excess grass cuttings after mowing • All trash and debris to be PP mowing u icked prior to mowin at locations listed above P • Any other areas mowed, other than the locations listed above, will be specified separately per agreement with the client contact person. • Mowing to be done on Monday or Tuesday of each week. • Mowing will be billed at an hourly rate of $27.00 per hour. • • • Lawn Maintenance Contract 2001 Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. Page2of3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Any other additional services of landscaping or maintenance, not outlined in this contract, will be bid separately with the client contact person specified on this contract. INVOICES & PAYMENTS • Invoices will be mailed on the 1 of each month. • Payments are due on the 15 of each month. In all other cases, the invoice will be due net 15. This applies to additional services not covered in the monthly rate of service. • If payments are not received on the specified due date, Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape Inc. may, at it's sole option and without prior notice, terminate this contract for terms of non - payment. See termination of contract clause. • Payments to be made May 15, 2001 to October 15, 2001. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape Inc. may, at it's sole option and without prior notice, terminate this contract for non - payment over 30 days of invoice date. In all other cases, this contract shall continue in full force and effect until the scheduled effective contract termination date set forth unless either party gives thirty (30) days written notice by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested of its intention to terminate. Receipt of a termination notice by either party shall automatically terminate this contract at the end of the notice period, unless both parties agree in writing to reinstate the contract prior to the effective date of termination. For the purpose of the service of notice of termination for the services listed in this contract, pursuant to the paragraph above, service must be made to Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. 7060 Valley Creek Plaza #115 -28, Woodbury, MN 55125. For the purpose of the service of notice of termination to the client, pursuant to the paragraph above, service will be made to The Lawn Maintenance Supervisor, City of Centerville, 1880 Main Street, Centerville, MN 55038. INSURANCE Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. represents that it maintains and shall continue to maintain insurance covering its liability under this contract for loss or damage to persons or property from any acts or omissions and arising directly from the provision of service hereunder, subject to the limitations of this contract. Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. certifies that it has Worker's Compensation insurance. Lawn Maintenance Contract 2001 Wiley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. Page 3 of 3 INDEMNITY The Client shall indemnify and hold harmless Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. and any of its directors, officers, shareholders and employees and agents from and against any action or threatened action, suit or proceedings arising out of, or as a result of, the indemnifying part's performance under this contract and against any and all claims, expenses, losses or damages (including reasonable attorney's fees), arising out of the clients willful negligence or willful acts of omission. LEGAL EXPENSES In the event Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. commences a lawsuit for the recovery of payments due pursuant to the contract or any other amount due under the provisions of this contract, due to liability, loss, damage, cost, or expense (including reasonable attomey's fees) by reason of any act or omission of client or because of default in the clients performance of any other term or provision of this contract, the client shall pay Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. reasonable attorney fees and costs and disbursements associated there with. ADDITIONAL NOTES • No modification to this contract shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties. • All work orders and communication must come from the client contact person listed on this contract for the above listed site. Other persons, other than the client contact person, handling any portion of said contract must be authorized in writing by the client contact person to Valley Creek Lawn & Landscape, Inc. • Work shall include all labor, supervision, tools, vehicles, supplies and other services that are necessary to maintain the above contracted services. • Vehicles and equipment will be operated safely and procedures employed shall be according to accepted industry standards. • Work performance shall comply with the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. CONTRACT RATE: for MAY 1, 2001 to OCTOBER 31, 2001 $27.00 per hour per mower PLUS APPLICABLE MINNESOTA STATE TAXES. I hereby accept all the terms in the above stated contract as an acting agent for the above stated client. Client Contact Person Signature Date /alley Creek Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. Date OCT. 26. NCO 8 :I7AM CITY COLLISION NO. ',CS BID ON LAWN CARE FOR CITY OF CENTERVI►.1 10i26/00 FOR A 2YEAR CONTACT FOR 5 PARKS AND ONE CITY BUILDINGS MOWING, WEEDING, WEED TRIMMING, ALSO INCLUDES FALL AND SPRING CLEAN UP INCLUDES EDGING AROUND CITY BUILDING 3000.00 PER MONTH THIS BID IS GOOD FOR 30 DAYS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CALL DAN MORRISON 763 -413 -9911 GRASS ROOTS LAWN & SNOW OCT, 26. 2000 8 :17AM CITY COLLIS :ON NO. 5433 D . 1 BID ON LAWN CARE FOR CITY OF CENTERVII.I F• 10/26 /00 FOR A 2YEAR CONTACT FOR. 5 PARKS AND ONE CITY BUILDINGS MOWING, WEEDING, WEED TRIMMING, ALSO INCLUDES FALL AND SPRING CLEAN UP INCLUDES EDGING AROUND CITY BUILDING 3000.00 PER MONTH THIS BID IS GOOD FOR 30 DAYS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CALL DAN MORRISON 763-413-9911 GRASS ROOTS LAWN & SNOW m Ak.5 , 1 2 t M z5 "IAA 3, , I Sit. Z, (0 7S Z 1)41 s J � t • t TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members FROM: Teresa Bender, Clerk/Treasurer SUBJECT: Resolution 00 -32 DATE: November 3, 2000 Attached, please find a sample letter forwarded to residents who have utility balances 30 days or more delinquent. The letter states that the matter needs to be rectified by November 6, 2000 or the City will assess a 10% late fee, a $25 administration fee and forwards account balances to Anoka County for certification to their 2001 property taxes. The date of November 6, 2000 was chosen due to the fact it coincided with the 3' quarter billing cycle due date. Resolution 00 -32 will be presented at the Council meeting. • T r 4 October 9, 2000 «MrMrs» «FirstName» «LastName» � . «Address 1» 0 f 1 «City», «State» «PostalCode» RE: Past Due Utility Billing eth AMOUNT DUE: $«Amount» Dear «MrMrs» «LastName »: The City's records indicate that your ace. a .:s o 'a . e .. s . as' if C • ober 6, 2000. The City requests that you p. #0's its n, j. .1 i to ovember 6, e 2000 or the above stated amou 11 .? - j d • ` ■ a OT my Auditor and appear on your 2001 Real Estat; S - . Please e*,, the C' 1 a4;ds . 0 • e i be-,pu . ding balance $«Amount» and a • =:..'ti. al .i. (1 a. tr » ' -e to amounts levied against the ' arce . - ti, e . - u. , RI's: .. 1 n ry 1 rdinance #30 — SECTION 17, COL ' QlO ID 1‘01 . z E � P1 i.46‘ - t• o r - if :Ott a • y questio' - :arding your account and thank y. D i na : . : for .u'r i . .t a t o this matt . s E. Si cerely,- � a ' ; fi x \ mss z T e 1 : e .er C erk/Treas er Cc Hon, able Mayor and Council • in / • 1, TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members - FROM: Teresa Bender, Clerk/Treasurer SUBJECT: Canvassing of Election Results DATE: November 3, 2000 Due to the fact that Election day is November 7, 2000, this item will be discussed at the meeting. • d MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Joint Powers Agreement/Reports — Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council • Included in your packet is a letter from the chair of the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council. An amendment is being proposed to the by -laws that will allow Centerville representation on the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement CounciL Our representatives will be the Centennial Lakes Police Department Police Chief and the Centennial Lakes Police Department Police Commission Chair. We need to approve this amendment to become an official part of the group. This group was originally created in 1982 to primarily initiate and carry on law enforcement responsibilities that are of mutual concern to the members of the agreement. Two reports have recently been created by this group and are included in your packet. Also included is a letter from Police Chief Heckman that introduces these two reports. • ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT M.A. JOHNSON - Government Center • 2100 Third Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 -2265 attorney @co.anoka.mn.us Administration / Civil Division Criminal Division / Investigation Division Family Law & Mental Health Division Juvenile Division / Victim - Witness Services (763) 323 -5550 (763) 323-5586 (763) 422 4589 Fax (763) 422 -7524 Fax October 25, 2000 TO: Centerville City Council FROM: Robert M. A. Johnson, Chair r ._ 4 Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council RE: Joint Powers Agreement The Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council is proposing several changes to the joint powers agreement creating the Council. Substantively, the agreement adds the cities of Centerville and St. Francis to the Council. It also changes the representation of the county to provide for two representatives appointed upon recommendation of the sheriff and two county commissioners. The other changes in the addendum are intended to better conform the joint powers agreement to existing law. In order to place these proposed changes in context, I am enclosing a copy of the 1982 agreement, a draft addendum showing the changes, and a signature copy of the addendum. If the City Council approves the addendum, please execute the clean signature copy and return it to the Office of the County Attorney at the above address. RMAJ: ds Enes. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer MASTER AGREEMENT JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT The undersigned governmental units, namely Anoka, Blaine, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Ramsey, Lino Lakes, Circle Pines, Lexington, Circle Pines -Lexington Commission, and the ' al Police Commi , ton Joint Munici P 4 P County of Anoka hereby recognize the need to prepare to deal adequately with current crime problems and problems of law enforcement which could itensify with continuing population growth and changes and which are of regional nature and are occurring or likely to occur within the region represented by Anoka County. WHEREAS, they likewise recognize that they do all have the power to and do in fact maintain police departments and police personnel; and WHEREAS, one of the stated purposes of this Council shall be to preserve the authority and responsibility of local law enforcement to the extent to which it is practical and economical; and WHEREAS, the undersigned governmental units recognize that pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Section 471.59 Minnesota Statutes Annotated, • that they do have the authority to enter into this agreement where they are jointly and cooperatively exercising a power common to all of the contracting parties, and pursuant to this and in order to insure that a proper regional organization be established representative of the various municipalities involved with authority and responsibility to research and study problems of law enforcement of a regional nature, together with the authority and power to implement such regional services as hereinafter set forth, and that the parties hereto do establish the following organization with the management authority vested therein as set forth as follows: 1. The name shall be: ANOKA COUNTY JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL. 2. That it would be subject to the management of a council of 23 whose membership would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the Village or City Council; provided, however, that the cities of Circle Pines and Lexington and the Circle Pines - Lexington Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission, and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff and one other individual to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint two individuals: one to represent the unincorporated areas with the County and one to represent the incorporated areas in the County who do not have a police department with at least six full -time police officers. That the 23rd person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibility would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. And further, the first meeting of the Council shall be called by the chief of the most populous city for the purpose of organizing the Council and after the Council is organized, its members shall determine the method, time, place and frequency of their subsequent meetings. The Council shall adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its business as may be expedient and necessary and conformable to law. -2- • • 3. That the governmental units hereby delegate to the Council herein described that they should be empowered as follows: A. To undertake research and initial recommendations for law enforcement and criminal justice programs which may be regional in nature and regional in responsibility or that have a common purpose which could be carried on in a more efficient manner collectively than separately. B. To initiate and carry on law enforcement responsibilities which are of mutual concern to the parties to the agreement, including the authority to hire the personnel necessary and acquire the equipment and property that might be called for in any one of the projects which might be determined to be of regional significance. C. That the area over which this Council shall have responsibility shall be the entire County of Anoka. D. That the Council shall have the authority to make application for state and federal funds, to enter into contracts with various state and federal agencies in regard to the expenditure of such funds; the Council shall have the authority to make application to and receive funds from various foundations, organizations or individuals to assist the Council in carrying out its responsibilities; the Council shall have the authority to receive funds from any local governmental units to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities. E. The Council shall prepare a budget detailing the anticipated expenditures for each calendar year and shall submit said budget to the County Board by September 1. The County Board shall have authority to make such alterations in the budget as they deem proper and necessary and shall proceed to levy taxes as needed to fund the budget as approved. -3- b F. Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any thirteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. 4. This agreement supercedes the Joint Powers Agreement between seven of the parties hereto relating to the Joint Law Enforcement Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, on behalf of our governmental units, do hereby bind ourselves in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. CITY C).",,,,,-,1 OF ANOKA CITY O�SLAINE i j By: � l By: • •_ C( ,,c Jerry Bulger , is r Ci,�/ Nana et Its:. (mayor }} char k. tl o m q isc . \\ i () Its: Mayor • Its:\ C frgager n Dated: C14Rr M 2j, 19P2.- Dated: J�f ,. - • Z'i 1 54 4 , CITY OF CIRC PINES CITY OF COLUM3 IGHTS 1 4 ;�.0 By: �c By: (2� • t Administra Its: Mayor Its ; /�y��//��i / / /J / • By: / / � r / , .t . /!laird By: 4'24 it -11;.:f; ' -Cct . L,'. Its: Mayor Its: City Manager Dated: q — Dated: y- S' .f CITY OF COON RAPIDS CITY OF FRIDLEY Robert D. Thistle i Its: C_ty Manager A / Its: �• y� By: AI.I I _ By: &-c.w ft( r ('>/.r✓s (.. ° on r rt :. u ew - s Its: Mayor Its: City Manager Dated: April 15, 1982 Dated: April 27 1982 CITY OF LEXINGTON CIRC S -LEXIN ON POLICE L B _. i /' '... -.., .._ . BY: �.i✓ .. ........601e.. 0 , — Its: Mayor Its: ''') 1 / , ' / pi By: (-pv.r._`... .1 ■q :..ni By: �- / Its: Clerk Its: 4 I Dated: April 29, 1982 Dated: /34 a9 / 9 t • INO a or Aden CITY OF I tss• Mayor ` % Its: By: -*✓ .,.e).tilt _ Q/22,..: ` 2 . - r ri Its: City Administrator "„#/; A / �. Dated: April 29, 1982 Dated: ,yy /et 7 "CITY OF SPRING LBXE ` P " B } _____---•; _____---•; // Its:_ i / / - , By: %..'J.r" r. ./ , , / Its: 6 Cc: .—/-, -; -, • .. .7 Dated: lr: . '7 i , -5- DRAFT JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM #1 THIS AGREEMENT ADDENDUM is made by and between the County of Anoka, the Cities of Anoka, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ramsey, St. Francis, and Spring Lake Park, and the Circle Pines - Lexington - Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. RECITALS: (1) In 1970, the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council was formed by a joint powers agreement and was modified by an agreement executed in 1982 to add a number of cities in Anoka County.. (2) The county, cities, and police commission named above (herein "parties ") wish to enter into this agreement addendum to amend the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement in order to add the Cities of Centerville and St. Francis as parties to the agreement, and to make other appropriate amendments to the parties' agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO AMEND THEIR AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. The first paragraph in Section 2 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: That it would be subject to the management of a council of 23-26 whose membership would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the Villasc u, City Council; provided, however, that if a participating governmental unit contracts with the Anoka Countv Sheriff for police services, it shall be represented by the Anoka Countv Sheriff; provided further however, that the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington and the Circle Pines - Lexington - Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief of Police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission; and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff and vuc othe, ;,„1:o:lual tv be appuiutcd by tilt Ducted of Cuuuty CV11111li3alV,lc1 a. 111 a,lditiun talc BOal & vf Cvullty Cul11,111 allall appuiut two four individuals uuc tV ,cl wc„ttla# 41ll,1 V1k Vl all d atcaa wtth�he EOtilty and tint. to 1cplcacllt tllc l„1,V1pulakd a,caJ 111 the Cuuuty win) du uut hay %, a pulicc J'. pas tnn.,1t will, at Icaal ,L. full- tilll\ Vtit off c, a appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, two of whom shall be Anoka County commissioners and two of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the Anoka County Sheriff. That the 23' 26 person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibility would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. -1- • A. There are no remaining parties to the Agreement as a result of withdrawal pursuant to this Agreement; or B. All parties, or all remaining parties, mutually agree to terminate the Agreement. Termination of this Agreement will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by a party before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, any remaining funds or any property acquired pursuant to the terms of this agreement may be retained by Anoka County or by the party acquiring the property, except as may otherwise be required to comply with any requirement related to the source of funds used to acquire the property. 9. Section 11 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: The records and documents relating to all matters that are the subject of this Agreement are subject to inspection, review and audit by the parties and state officials so authorized by law during regular business hours. Records will be retained in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chap. 138. 10. The parties agree that the cities of Centerville and St. Francis may participate in the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council. The City of Centerville shall participate through the Circle Pines - Lexington - Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. 11. By signing this addendum, the cities of Centerville and St. Francis agree to be bound, effective as of the date of the party's signature, by provisions in the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement signed by the other parties in 1982. 12. All parties to this Addendum need not sign the same copy of the Addendum. An original Addendum signed by each party shall be maintained in the Office of the Anoka County Attorney. CITY OF By Mayor By City Manager / Administrator /Clerk/Coordinator Dated: -3- That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. 2. Part F in Section 3 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any thirteen fourteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. 3. Section 5 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: By the terms of this agreement, a party does not waive any limitation of liability available to that party, including, but not limited to, Minn. Stat. Chap. 466. 4. Section 6 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Anoka County will be responsible for handling funds and shall disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by counties. 5. Section 7 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: A strict accounting will be made of all funds and a report of all receipts and disbursements will be made upon request. 6. Section 8 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Contracts and purchases made in providing services under this Agreement will be made by Anoka County and will conform to the requirements applicable to the County. 7. Section 9 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Any party has the right to withdraw from this Agreement by declaring in writing its intention to withdraw effective on a specified date, which date cannot be less than thirty days from the date of the written notice. A withdrawing party must send a copy of the written notice to each party. Withdrawal by a party will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by such party before the effective date of withdrawal. 8. Section 10 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: This agreement will terminate under the following circumstances: -2- JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM #1 THIS AGREEMENT ADDENDUM is made by and between the County of Anoka, the Cities of Anoka, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ramsey, St. Francis, and Spring Lake Park, and the Circle Pines - Lexington - Centerville John Municipal Police Commission. RECITALS: (1) In 1970, the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council was formed by a joint powers agreement and was modified by an agreement executed in 1982 to add a number of cities in Anoka County.. (2) The county, cities, and police commission named above (herein "parties ") wish to enter into this agreement addendum to amend the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement in order to add the Cities of Centerville and St. Francis as parties to the agreement, and to make other appropriate amendments to the parties' agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO AMEND THEIR AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. The first paragraph in Section 2 of the John Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: That it would be subject to the management of a council of26 whose membership • would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the City Council; provided, however, that if a participating governmental unit contracts with the Anoka County Sheriff for police services, it shall be represented by the Anoka County Sheriff; provided further, however, that the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington and the Circle Pines - Lexington- Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief of Police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission; and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff and four individuals appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, two of whom shall be Anoka County commissioners and two of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the Anoka County Sheriff. That the 26 person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibility would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. -1- 2. Part F in Section 3 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any fourteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. 3. Section 5 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: • By the terms of this agreement, a party does not waive any limitation of liability available to that party, including, but not limited to, Minn. Stat. Chap. 466. 4. Section 6 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Anoka County will be responsible for handling funds and shall disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by counties. 5. Section 7 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: A strict accounting will be made of all funds and a report of all receipts and disbursements will be made upon request. 6. Section 8 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Contracts and purchases made in providing services under this Agreement will be made by Anoka County and will conform to the requirements applicable to the County. 7. Section 9 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Any party has the right to withdraw from this Agreement by declaring in writing its intention to withdraw effective on a specified date, which date cannot be Tess than thirty days from the date of the written notice. A withdrawing party must send a copy of the written notice to each party. Withdrawal by a party will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by such party before the effective date of withdrawal. 8. Section 10 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: This agreement will terminate under the following circumstances: A. There are no remaining parties to the Agreement as a result of withdrawal pursuant to this Agreement; or -2- f' B. All parties, or all remaining parties, mutually agree to terminate the Agreement. Termination of this Agreement will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by a party before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, any remaining funds or any property acquired pursuant to the terms of this agreement may be retained by Anoka County or by the party acquiring the property, except as may otherwise be required to comply p y with any requirement related to the source of funds used to acquire the property. 9. Section 11 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: The records and documents relating to all matters that are the subject of this Agreement are subject to inspection, review and audit by the parties and state officials so authorized by law during regular business hours. Records will be retained in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chap. 138. 10. The parties agree that the cities of Centerville and St. Francis may participate in the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council. The City of Centerville shall participate through the Circle Pines - Lexington - Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. 11. By signing this addendum, the cities of Centerville and St. Francis agree to be bound, effective as of the date of the party's signature, by provisions in the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement signed by the other parties in 1982. 12. All parties to this Addendum need not sign the same copy of the Addendum. An original Addendum signed by each party shall be maintained in the Office of the Anoka County Attorney. CITY OF By Mayor By City Manager /Administrator /Clerk/Coordinator Dated: -3- . 1� 1 Chief of Police Joel D. Heckman )`" Centennial Lakes Police Department 1 200 Civic Heights Circle Circle Pines MN 55014 c�krErattlA 763- 784 -2501 iheckman @centenniallakesod.com LAKES October 20, 2000 To: Cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, and Lexington Re: Anoka County Public Safety Radio System and Record System Reports cc: Commissioner Don Anderson, Centennial Lakes Joint Police Commission Representative to the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Attached please find copies of the reports generated from our project workgroup that has met since February 2000. The first report addresses the need for Anoka County Board action on our police and fire emergency radio system The second report addresses the need for countywide integration of public safety computer based systems in Anoka County. Both reports will be reviewed at the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday October 25, 2000 at 1930hrs in the Anoka County Government Center Board Room The boardroom is located on the 7 floor of the Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, Anoka. Both reports will then be presented to the Anoka County Board on November 7, 2000 at 1500hrs at the same location. If you would like to attend either meeting or should you have questions on either of these reports please contact me. Thank you. _ I INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY JULY 19, 2000 INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. Interchange Tower, Suite 180 600 South Highway 169 Minneapolis, MN 55426 (952) 545 -8173 Date: July 19, 2000 Commission Number 299 � VEGe 'u'4 �.. . 1 O +' y • it REGISTERED ',— i i PROFESSIONAL i f� i ENGINEER x 6192 oci I hereby certify that this report was prepared iT 0 ' by me and that I am a duly registered professional en• ineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota • rte- - da` 1 Amin► ' Reg. No: 6192 Date: July 19, 2000 Ronald G. Vegemast 4 1 ' ` SECTION I EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AUTOMATION SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 1.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS Anoka County Central Communications and subscriber law enforcement agencies tY 9 utilize three computer -based systems in everyday operations. Those systems are a computer -aided dispatch system, a mobile data communication system, and a records management system. The computer -aided dispatch system is used to automate operations in the central communications dispatch center. The current status of all information related to an event that is underway and the status of all available law enforcement units in the county is maintained continuously in this computer -based system. The computer -aided dispatch system also automatically provides information related to an event, such as previous events at that location and/or hazardous conditions that exist at the location of a new event. The information is available to all operators in the dispatch center at all times, and any operator can add additional information that becomes available related to any event. The mobile data communications system extends access to information from the computer -aided dispatch system to and from persons in vehicles. The mobile data communication system is also used by persons in vehicles to access information in state and federal databases, including criminal history information, motor vehicle information, and driver license information. Information in the computer -aided dispatch system related to an event can be provided to people in vehicles automatically through the mobile data communications system, and persons in vehicles can automatically update their status condition in the computer -aided dispatch system without the involvement of a dispatch center operator. The records management system is an automation process computer system for maintaining reports and other record information maintained by all law enforcement agencies in Anoka County. The records management system makes it possible for law enforcement personnel to find pertinent information quickly and easily. For example, law enforcement agencies maintain records information on vehicles, whether the vehicle information is related to an auto accident, a wanted vehicle, a stolen vehicle, or an 2 impounded vehicle. In paper -based systems, there's always a dilemma as to where information should be stored and what file method will be used to retrieve a record. For example, should all vehicle records be in a vehicle record file or should vehicles involved in accidents be in an accident file? Regardless of where the vehicle record is stored, should the retrieval of information on a vehicle be based on the plate number; the owner's name; the description of the vehicle in terms of its make, model, color, year; or by the vehicle identification number? The records management system allows searches of vehicle information regardless of where the information is kept as part of the record system, and a vehicle can be located using any of those parameters listed, such as plate number, the owner's name, vehicle description or vehicle identification number. In Anoka County each of these three systems is essentially a separate standalone system, however, there is a communications interface between the computer -aided dispatch system and the mobile data communications system. This interface allows the transfer of event - related data to a law enforcement officer in a vehicle. It also allows the law enforcement officer in a vehicle to automatically update status and to make inquiries into state and federal databases without dispatcher involvement. At present there is no interface between the computer -aided dispatch system or the records management system, over which information from events may automatically be inserted into the appropriate records in the records management system, so that the information is captured and can be used to process ad hoc reports at a later date. In addition there is no way for personnel in the dispatch center, using the computer -aided dispatch system, to send automatic inquiries to the records system to determine if there is pertinent information related to an event stored. Presently an interface is being developed between the records management system and the mobile data communication system. 1.2 MOBILE DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 1.2.1 Uses for the Mobile Data Communication System The current uses for the mobile data communication system were outlined in Section 1.1 of this report. They include an interface to the computer -aided dispatch system and a provision for accessing data from the State of Minnesota, federal crime - related databases, and motor vehicle and driver license databases. Also mentioned is the current work underway to develop an interface between the new records management system and the mobile data devices in vehicles. 3 These uses are traditional uses for mobile data communication systems in law enforcement. They have been in use for a number of years in Anoka County and since the early 1970's by pioneer law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Activity levels related to data communications, as compared to voice communications, are expected to grow very rapidly in the next five years. In addition to the current interfacing to computer -aided dispatch functions and access to some databases for text information, there is a latent need and demand for the ability to process reports in the vehicle and to transmit those reports to a records management system by radio communications during a shift, rather than waiting until the end of the shift or another day to prepare a report. In addition to transmitting text information, there will be a wide variety of needs to transmit information in graphic form. Graphic information will include transmission of fingerprints that are collected automatically on a person in the field; transmission of high resolution color pictures, including mug shots, as part of records; and all kinds of other graphic data, including sketches, auto accident diagrams, building floor plans, and the like. 1.2.2 Components of the Existing Anoka County Mobile Data Communication System The existing Anoka County mobile data communication system utilizes a data controller that was manufactured by Motorola, and that is no longer supported by Motorola. This data controller is capable of transmission of raw data rates at 4,800 BPS. The vehicle data equipment consists of a mixture of mobile data terminals and laptop computers. The mobile data terminals have the ability to receive, display and transmit text data only on a screen that is capable of displaying no more than 320 characters (eight 40- character lines). While laptop computers have far more capabilities than the mobile data terminals, the laptops have been programmed to emulate the mobile data terminals when they are interacting with the computer -aided dispatch system over a radio link. The agencies in Anoka County that use laptops for mobile data communications are also using those computers to perform word processing based activities including the preparation of reports in vehicles during a shift period. Those reports are then transferred from the laptop on a diskette for entry into the records management system. The mobile data terminals in use were manufactured by Motorola and are no longer supported by Motorola so that spare parts are not readily available. The existing Motorola data controller and the existing mobile data terminal devices in vehicles are not capable of supporting the demand for greater capabilities, especially the transmission of graphic - related information. 1.2.3. Mobile Data Communications Message Volumes 4 The existing Motorola mobile data controller is capable of transmitting and receiving data at a rate of 4,800 BPS. The land mobile radio link between a moving vehicle and a fixed radio site is a very poor transmission medium for data as there tends to be a very high bit error rate for mobile data communications. The existing data controller therefore breaks messages up into small chunks called packets and transmits each packet with some overhead bits individually. If error - checking equipment detects bit errors in the packet, the packet is retransmitted a number of times, until either an error free packet set of data is received, or else the sending device receives a message saying that the message could not be transmitted. There is overhead associated with the transmission of packets, because each packet must be identified, and so that packets with errors can be identified and instructed to retransmit so that entire message can be reconstructed in the proper order at the receiving end. That overhead uses some bits that otherwise might be data that is to be transmitted from the sender to the receiver. In addition the signaling back and forth, instructing the sender to retransmit specific packets, and the fact that data must be transmitted multiple times, all reduces the effective throughput for a data communications system. The number of packets that need to be retransmitted increases as the radio signal level decreases, and therefore units that are further away from the mobile data fixed location radio site will require more frequent transmissions of data. Overall, the effective data transmission rate of the existing mobile data communication system is in the range of 2,000 to 2,400 BPS. On the uplink (from the mobile unit to the fixed location receiver) there is the potential for contention when one person in a vehicle attempts to transmit a data message while another data message is already being transmitted to the fixed location receiver site. When that happens, neither message can be received clearly and both messages must be retransmitted. The sending unit attempts to retransmit a specific number of times before it provides a message to the sender saying that the message could not be transmitted to the receiver. As data volumes increase, the potential for contention also increases, and because of the retransmissions, contention collisions begin to occur at an exponentially increasing rate as traffic builds. From a statistical point of view, the maximum usable uplink (mobile to fixed receiver) transmission rate for a system that has an effective transmission rate of 2,000 to 2,400 BPS is no more than about 1,000 BPS. An analysis of the existing Anoka County mobile data communication system indicates that, during busier hours of busy months, the data offered on the uplink in this system probably exceeds 1,200 BPS. As a result the system will operate successfully for a period of time until more and more collisions begin to occur, and then because many of the mobile units are retransmitting messages several times, the exponential increase of 5 collisions suddenly prevents any of the messages from getting through at all and the system locks up. It continues to be locked up until all the mobile units have finished all their retransmissions and rovided a message to their vehicle operator that the 9 P e message could not be transmitted. At that point the system clears itself and persons with mobile terminals are able to transmit messages, and eventually collisions occur which causes retransmissions, which causes even more collisions - and the system locks up again for awhile. This is a common occurrence in afternoon and evening hours, especially during summer months, in the Anoka County data communication system. It essentially destroys much of the value of the mobile data communication system, as persons must then resort to use of voice traffic, which is also very congested, in order to transmit information that could otherwise be transmitted in digital form. The existing Anoka County mobile data communication system is not able to transmit additional information, for example, the transmission of reports. III 6 SECTION II COMPUTER AUTOMATION ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 2.1 LONG -TERM MOBILE DATA COMMUNICATIONS LINK Mobile data communications will grow rapidly as new applications are implemented. It will be essential that the data communications link be at a relatively high data rate when compared to alternatives available in the year 2000. Higher data rates will be required, partly because of the very large amount of data involved in graphics, but primarily because of the increased volume of messages that require higher data throughput. There will be several high data rate mobile data communication links available by the year 2005. One of those may be a new 700 MHz very wide band channel data communications network added to the new 800 MHz regional trunked voice radio network being implemented by the Metropolitan Radio Board. That new data system, if implemented, will have a minimum raw data communications rate of 128 kBPS with an effective data rate of approximately 64 kBPS. That will be a very attractive alternative for a high data rate communications link for Anoka County if it becomes available because of the very high capacity and low cost. The cellular companies who are providing CDPD now are likely to have CDPD data rates as high as 128 kBPS or even 384 kBPS within the next few years, certainly by the year 2005. The high data rate CDPD will function effectively for Anoka County, however, the cost for use of that network is likely to be expensive. There is also likely to be a spread spectrum network available, at least in the southern half of Anoka County, by the year 2005. This network will be capable of transmission rates of up to 10 MBPS. Spread spectrum radio sites operate at low transmitter power so that site spacing will be at short distances. That requires a very large number of sites and communications links to the sites. It is expected that one or more commercial spread spectrum networks will be constructed to satisfy the growing demand for high capacity portable and mobile wireless computing. This network, if constructed, may be useful for public safety mobile communications. Because a spread spectrum network requires a very large number of sites, the network will be very expensive to construct, and it is likely to be constructed only in densely populated urbanized areas where there will be enough revenue to justify the capital investment. 7 All of these three data communications network alternatives will function with the TCP /IP data communications protocol. Anoka County law enforcement agencies will need to move to one of these high data rate communication links by the year 2005 in order to accommodate the emerging needs. The one that should be selected will be based on, first of all, the capability of meeting the performance requirements of the law enforcement agencies, and then an evaluation of the cost, the reliability and the security of the network. None of these high data rate communication links is available now. Anoka County should, however, be working toward utilization of the high data rate communication link when it becomes available in the future. This means that any short -term enhancements of data communications should, if possible, be consistent with the requirements for utilization of one of those high data rate communication links in the future. 2.2 Short-term Mobile Data Communications Considerations The existing mobile data communication system in Anoka County is not able to handle the traffic that is offered, even without any enhancements or additional functions being added to the mobile data communication system. Since the new high data rate communications links will not be available for several years, a short-term enhancement of the existing mobile data communication network must be implemented. The existing mobile data communication network might be enhanced in three alternative ways. Each of those is discussed further in this section of this report. 2.2.1 Temporary Use of a NPSPAC 800 MHz Channel This altemative would involve submitting a petition to the Metropolitan Radio Board for temporary use of a NPSPAC 800 MHz radio channel, and use that channel for the existing 4,800 BPS raw data rate communication system for the existing mobile data terminals, using the existing Motorola mobile data controller. Then, utilize the existing 806 MHz channel with a new Motorola RNC controller, communicating at 19.2k BPS raw data rate for laptop computers in vehicles. This will provide two channels in place of the existing single channel, and the second channel would have four times the data rate of the existing channel. This will provide sufficient traffic carrying capability to handle the traffic offered to the mobile data network now and provide more traffic carrying capability for the addition of enhanced functionality, such as the ability for law enforcement officers to prepare reports in their vehicles and transmit them by radio into the records management system. 8 Problems with this alternative are that there may still be an uplink problem on the NPSPAC channel, because it will need to continue operating at the 4,800 BPS raw data rate. In addition, it is considered unlikely that the Metropolitan Radio Board will allow temporary use of a NPSPAC channel based on previous decisions by the Board. In addition this will be expensive, as a new Motorola RNC controller will cost at least $100,000, and that controller would need to be disposed of in a few years, well before the end of its useful life, when one of the new high -speed data communication links is selected by Anoka County. 2.2.2 Use of Tetra Tetra is a European standard for digital modulation of radio signals. The data rate is 28.8 kBPS with forward error correction. As of May 10, 2000, there is apparently no manufacturer that has submitted a type acceptance application for a Tetra radio to the Federal Communications Commission. There may be problems with the emissions envelope of Tetra radio when compared to the Federal Communications Commission standards. It also appears that any Tetra radios type certified in the United States in the relatively near future will operate at frequencies below 512 MHz. Simulcast is not possible with Tetra technology. At this time, it is unclear if there will be an acceptable trunking protocol with Tetra radios, and Tetra radios operate at low power so that frequencies can be reused at short distances. All of these issues indicate that Tetra is not available as an alternative now and may not be for several years. By the time Tetra becomes available, if it ever becomes available, one of the other very high data rate alternatives is likely to be available for use in Anoka County. In addition any major move to Tetra will involve buying very expensive equipment that will cost more than the CDPD alternative discussed later in this report, and the equipment would have to be disposed of well before the end of its useful life when the new high data rate alternatives borne available. 2.2.3 CDPD CDPD is a service offering from one of the cellular telephone carriers operating in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area. CDPD operates using the TCP /IP communications protocol. CDPD requires a minimum capital investment in equipment at this time; however, there is a relatively high recurring cost. CDPD will provide multiple 19.2k BPS communication links with fair coverage and high reliability. The system will make it possible to use laptop computers, which would be fully usable in a high data rate communication link later. The investments in hardware and software that 9 need to be provided to utilize the CDPD network are, for the most part, usable in the high data rate communication system later. • 10 SECTION III RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 HIGH DATA RATE RADIO LINKS It is recommended that law enforcement personnel throughout Anoka County continue to monitor progress toward implementation of high data rate radio communications links for use in mobile data communications. The monitoring should include gathering information in regard to pricing, data rate, reliability, and security of the data links. A decision should be made as soon as possible in regard to which of these high data rate radio communication links should be selected for long -term use. 3.2 MOBILE DATA COMMUNICATIONS It is recommended that all software that is developed and purchased for use with laptop computers in vehicles should consider future high data rate radio links and uses. It is also recommended that CDPD be implemented at the earliest possible date to keep the mobile data communication system from locking up during busier hours, especially during busier months. The CDPD technology utilizes TCP /IP communications protocol and, therefore, all software interfaces must utilize that protocol. Because the mobile data terminals do not have large display areas, in terms of the ability to display a large amount of text, and they do not have the capability to display graphics, it is recommended that those law enforcement agencies that use the MDT's migrate to use of laptops at the earliest possible time. 3.3 LINKAGE BETWEEN THE COMPUTER -AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM AND THE CDPD LAPTOPS The contractor for the computer -aided dispatch system, PSSI, has offered to implement a TCP /IP communications protocol linkage to the CDPD network for operation of laptop PC's in vehicles. This interface will include application software for the laptops that will permit them to function fully with the computer -aided dispatch system over the CDPD network. 11 It is recommended that the mobile data terminals continue to use the Motorola data controller for an interface to the computer -aided dispatch system and to the State of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System. 3.4 LINKAGE BETWEEN THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE CDPD LAPTOPS The records management system contractor, VisionAir, is required by contract to provide a TCP /IP interface to the CDPD network and laptop PC's. This interface should allow full functioning with separate proprietary application software for the laptops. The laptops should be able to interface to the State of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System through the records management system. 3.5 INTERFACE BETWEEN THE COMPUTER -AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM AND THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The CAD contractor, PSSI, and the records management system contractor, VisionAir, utilize Windows NT as the operating system for their systems. Since both systems utilize Windows NT, an interface between the two should be relatively simple. The computer -aided dispatch system contractor, PSSI, has indicated a willingness to work with VisionAir to create this intersystem interface. PSSI has provided a price for this interface to the county. VisionAir is already required to provide this interface. It is recommended that this interface be implemented at the earliest convenient time. 3.6 CONFIGURATION The next page of this report includes a sketch of the intersystem configuration links that have been described in Sections 3.2 through 3.5 of this set of recommendations. ANOKA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT FUTURE DATA INTERFACES RECOMMENDED LAPTOPS TCP /IP CDPD TCP / IP \CP / IP CJ IS AZ CAD WINDOWS - NT >. RMS b 4 CJRS- CJIS < > NCP LOCAL PDs 9100s UPGRADES: RMS LAPTOP APPLICATION SW PSSI / CDPD VISION / CDPD PSSI / VISION CAD LAPTOP APPLICATION SW 13 3.7 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 3.7.1 State of Minnesota Criminal Justice Interfaces It is recommended that Anoka County provide an enhancement to their records management software to provide for a new required interface to the State of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System and Criminal Justice Reporting System. The state requires that the interface utilize the TCP /IP communications protocol on or before July 1,2001. 3.7.2 Jail Management and Civil Process It is recommended that the county acquire and install a jail management module and a civil process module to the records management system software being purchased from VisionAir. This software will more fully utilize the power available in the VisionAir records management system application software and provide for much smoother and more effective operations at relatively low cost. 3.7.3 Reports from Vehicles When the CDPD communication system is in place, it is recommended that law enforcement personnel in vehicles equipped with laptop computers prepare and transmit reports by radio using existing paperless software. Preferably, this should be done by having formats for reports stored in the laptops in the vehicles so they need not take up radio time while being transmitted to the vehicle. The reporting system should allow for the population of various fields in a selected report format from the computer- - aided dispatch system record, so that this information does not require reentry. The officer in the vehicle should be able to change infomiation in fields and add fields and comments, so that a report is completed. When completed, it should be transmitted by radio to the records management system where it will be available for review by a designated person before it is finally entered in the records management system. 3.7.4 New Technologies It is recommended that law enforcement personnel throughout Anoka County continue to monitor new technologies that are becoming available to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement officers. 14 One new technology to continue to monitor is the automatic pickup and transmission by radio of fingerprints for comparison to fingerprints on file in an automatic fingerprint identification system. This will greatly assist law enforcement officers in identifying persons in the field who otherwise might not be readily identified. Law enforcement officers in Anoka County should also be ready to receive records, including high - resolution color mug shots, of persons for whom there is a criminal justice record. - When a graphics capability is available over a radio link, law enforcement personnel in Anoka County should begin to consider various kinds of graphic information that can be made available to officers in the field. This could include sketches and building floor plans, as well as maps and other graphic information. It should also be possible to include pictures of stolen and wanted property. The means for including this information in the records system in a way in which it can be located in a user - friendly manner must be considered as part of this activity, so that it is useful to law enforcement officers in vehicles. Software for the preparation of an accident report in a vehicle, including a diagram of the accident scene, is currently available and should be considered for use in Anoka County. This auto accident report can also then be transmitted by the mobile data communications radio link to the records management system. 3.7.5 Courts and Attorneys A planning group has been formed including representatives of the county and city attorneys, county and municipal courts, and the Anoka County law enforcement agencies to explore and implement opportunities for an integrated criminal justice system. The county has received a grant to support this activity from the State of Minnesota. It is anticipated that browser access to the new Anoka County records management system and other criminal justice data using the TCP /IP communications protocol will be available to all personnel in criminal justice occupations in the county. At present, the planning group is in the process of selecting a vendor to provide professional assistance during the design and implementation of this system. 3.7.6 Migration to Use of Laptop Computers for Mobile Data Communications The existing data communications network controller must be kept operational to allow the Motorola 9100 mobile data terminals to communicate with the computer -aided 15 • dispatch system. If the communications link for the laptop computers becomes the CDPD service, the laptop computers will not require continued use of the existing Motorola data network controller. Motorola no longer provides spare parts in support of the existing data network controller. It is unknown when a failure will occur for which a replacement part is unavailable. It is therefore recommended that a firm date be established when the existing data network controller is retired. All existing Motorola 9100 mobile data terminals will need to be replaced by laptops by that date. It is recommended that the date be no later than June 30, 2003 to allow two budget cycles to fund the replacements. 3.7.7 Remote Fire Service Printers Fire service entities in Anoka County have printers in fire stations to receive printed information related to a fire incident. These printers currently communicate with the computer -aided dispatch system over leased telephone lines that are expensive and somewhat unreliable. It is recommended that fire departments consider use of the CDPD network to transmit fire incident data from the computer -aided dispatch system to the printers in fire stations. 3.7.8 Fire Records Management Records management systems tailored to the needs of the fire service are common. In addition, laptop computers in fire apparatus can be used to communicate with the computer -aided dispatch system; as well as provide valuable data that is map based, graphics based, and text based. 3.8 COST ESTIMATES The Anoka County Department of Central Communications has submitted a capital budget for 2001 for a mobile data system upgrade. The breakdown of the cost estimates for this project are included in this report on the next page. The consultant has reviewed those estimated project costs and believes that they are reasonable. Mobile Data System Upgrade Project Costs Computer Aided Dispatch (PSSI) • CDPD Interface (includes 20 units) $35,000 • Additional 80 units - $30,000 • 100 CAD mobile client software licenses $50,000 • Interface to Vision RMS $4,200 • Parallel radio frequency data operation $12,500 • TCP / IP state interface $35,000 • Message switch hardware $7,200 • State interface hardware $2,500 • Tax on hardware $630 CAD Total $177,030 Records Management System (Vision) • Vision mobile client (12 units) $18,000 • Interface to PSSI data $5,000 • CDPD server hardware $7,200 • Tax on hardware $468 (Vision mobile server software already purchased) RMS Total $30,668 Wireless Internet Protocol items; hardware (CDPD) • Laptops (12) $24,000 • CDPD modems (3 -3 watt, 3 -ext. ant., 6 -PC card) $6,687 • Mounting brackets, installation $4,800 • Frame relay connection - CAD $1,500 • Permanent Virtual Connection - RMS $500 • Tax on hardware $2,229 CDPD Total $39, 716 Contingency - 5% of total $12,370 Project Total - $259, 787 17 • The estimated project costs include CDPD interfaces for 100 units. Approximately 40 additional interface licenses will need to be purchased if all present users of mobile data terminals migrate to use of laptops communicating over the CDPD network. The law enforcement departments that currently use mobile data terminals will also need to buy the laptops and CDPD modems, and other vehicle hardware required for migrating to use of the CDPD network with laptops. Each user of the CDPD network will also need to pay a charge of $50 per month per laptop to AT &T for use of the network during the period that the CDPD network is used. All of these costs are in addition to the estimated project cost figures that are included in the 2001 capital budget for the mobile data system upgrade. 3.9 SCHEDULE The plan for implementing the CDPD data link as indicated in the 2001 capital budget for the mobile data system upgrade shows a completion date of May 31, 2001. It is recommended that this upgrade to use the CDPD network be accomplished at about that time. The PSSI computer -aided dispatch interface to the CDPD network and the VisionAir interface to the CDPD network should also be completed by May 31, 2001, so that those systems will be ready when the cutover to the CDPD occurs. This will require that both PSSI and VisionAir implement the TCP /IP communications protocol, and the applications software for the computer -aided dispatch interface and the records management interface also must be developed by that May 31, 2001 date. The PSSI to VisionAir intersystem interface should also be completed by May 31, 2001. This will allow access to closed event history data, and allow the population of fields in report formats as soon as the CDPD system becomes available for use. The upgrade of the interface with the State of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System and Criminal Justice Reporting System to use of the TCP /IP protocol should be implemented as soon as VisionAir is able to accomplish this. The state requires that the interface use TCP /IP on or before July 1, 2001. Installation of the jail management and civil process software modules to the records management system should be accomplished as soon as possible. August 26, 2000 ADDENDUM TO: Report entitled, Integration of Public Safety Computer Based Systems in Anoka County, dated July 19, 2000, prepared by Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. Section 3.7.8 of the above referenced report suggests that fire service entities are showing a trend toward increasing use of computer based systems. After the report was published, representatives of the Anoka County fire indicated that Anoka County fire service entities are already moving toward greater use of computer based technology and that a major advancement in the near future is an important need. Currently, Anoka County fire service entities are served by the Anoka County Central Communications — 911 computer -aided dispatch system and they are using local PC based software for records management. Data that is captured by the computer -aided dispatch system during progress of an incident must be printed out and reentered into the PC based records management systems. There are no mobile data communications links to laptops or mobile data terminals in fire apparatus and therefore, valuable information in preplans, about structures, about hazardous conditions and in inspection reports cannot be retrieved from the PC based records management systems while en route to and at fire scenes. The current systems lack sophisticated graphic capabilities for recording of building floor plans, for storing geographic information including current road maps and hydrant and water main data, for noting locations of stand pipes, and for storing and retrieving pictures taken during fire inspections visits. • Upgrading public safety based computer based systems with advanced fire service related capabilities can result in improved safety for fire fighters and improved service to the public. Safety can be improved if fire fighters en route to a fire scene can review hazardous conditions that were previously recorded, and by reviewing inspections reports for the location of a fire and the immediate surrounding area. Service to the public can be improved when current map data including road closures is retrievable while en route, when building floor plans are available while en route, and when hydrant and water main data is available en route. Providing these upgrades will require the implementation of a laptop based mobile data communications system with high data rate communications links Y 9 suitable for graphics transmission, and the implementation of a modern centralized fire service records management system. The mobile data communications system and the fire service records management system must be efficiently interconnected with the computer -aided dispatch system in a fully integrated manner. These upgrades need to be implemented as soon as possible as they become more necessary as Anoka County becomes more developed and urbanized. It is recommended that the fire service entities in Anoka County, through the Anoka County Fire Protection Council, begin immediately to plan the needed systems and intersystem integration to a level where reasonably accurate cost estimates can be developed for the upgrades. This planning process should be completed by the spring of 2001 so that budget requests for the 2002 budget year can be prepared. If funding is available, detailed request for proposal specifications can be written in early 2002 so that the upgraded systems may be ready for use in 2003. d r r PUBLIC SAFETY LAND MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM PLANNING IN ANOKA COUNTY October 17, 2000 1 t o PUBLIC SAFETY LAND MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM PLANNING IN ANOKA COUNTY Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. Interchange Tower, Suite 180 600 South Highway 169 Minneapolis, MN 55426 (952) 545-8173 Date: October 17, 2000 Commission Number: 299 .4R4ty pi p VE9 €1:1 it • cC REGISTERED " -4 ; 2 . PR2FESSIDNAL ' ' :4 Ei9GiNEER i 4ek 6 1 92 I hereby certify that this report was prepared r �, by me and that I am a duly registered professional - . engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota � : L _ ' , - -, Y eryt-ed-g /C littAA.e...4--4 Reg. No: 6192 Date: October 17, 2000 Ronald G. Vegemast TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION I — INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 4 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE 5 1.3 PROJECT WORKGROUP 6 1.4 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 6 SECTION II — EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 7 2.1 SYSTEMS AND RADIO CHANNELS 7 2.1.1 Fire Service Radio Systems in Anoka County 7 2.1.2 Law Enforcement Radio Systems in Anoka County 7 2.2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 8 2.2.1 Construction of the Questionnaire Document 8 2.2.2 Results of the Analysis of Questionnaires 9 2.3 ANALYTICAL DETERMINATION OF RADIO COVERAGE 10 2.4 RADIO CHANNEL CONGESTION 15 2.5 BACK-UP RADIO FACILITIES 17 2.6 COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES BETWEEN DISPATCH CENTER AND THE RADIO SITES 18 2.7 STATUS OF ANTENNAS AND TRANSMISSION LINES 18 2.8 BACK-UP POWER 18 2.9 INVENTORY AND AGE OF RADIO EQUIPMENT 19 2.10 BACK-UP DISPATCHING 20 SECTION III — ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 21 3.1 ENHANCE EXISTING RADIO SYSTEMS 21 3.1.1 Congestion 22 3.1.2 Coverage Relief 24 3.1.3 System Reliability Concerns 24 3.1.4 Interoperation Communications 25 3.1.5 Other Needs 25 3.2 TRIMMED 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 25 3.3 TETRA TECHNOLOGY 26 3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES 27 3.4.1 Cost Estimates for Items that are Independent of Radio System Alternative Selected 27 3.4.2 Cost Estimate for an Enhanced VHF Radio System 28 3.4.3 Cost Estimate for Mn/DOT Digital Modulation 800 MHz Radio System 29 3.4.4 Cost Estimate for Stand-alone 800 MHz Radio System 30 3.5 COMMUNICATIONS LINKS TO FIXED LOCATION RADIO SITES 30 SECTION IV — CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 4.1 GENERAL CONCLUSION 33 4.2 TETRA 33 4.3 ENHANCEMENT VERSUS REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LAND MOBILE RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 34 4.3.1 Base Alternative Directions 34 4.3.2 Evaluation of Base Alternative Directions 34 4.3.3 Altemative System Direction Cost Issues 37 4.4 SCHEDULE AND CRITICAL DECISION POINTS 38 4.4.1 Back-up Dispatching 38 4.4.2 Second 24 Hour Law Enforcement Dispatch Channel 39 4.4.3 Fire Service Alerting Through Radio Paging 39 4.4.4 Long-term Direction Implementation Schedule 39 APPENDIXES 42 Ronald Vegemast Engineering Inc. Report Anoka County EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Empirical and analytical methods were used to evaluate existing public safety land mobile radio systems in use in Anoka County. The results of use of the empirical methods agreed quite closely to the results obtained from use of the analytical methods. It is clear that congestion, particularly on law enforcement dispatch channels is a very significant problem that has a negative impact on safety of law enforcement officers and on the efficiency and effectiveness of those law enforcement officers. Coverage of radio systems, particularly the talk -out of dispatchers to people in the field is in need of substantial improvement. This is particularly true for personnel using portable radios inside buildings, especially in the northern half of Anoka County. There are major concerns with the overall reliability of the systems in use. There is no adequate provision for answering 9 -1 -1 calls and providing a radio operating service in the event that the existing dispatch center in the Anoka County Government Center would have to be abandoned for any reason. Most of the fixed location radio sites do not have emergency generators and they would be off the air during any period after failure of commercial electrical power. Telephone lines used to connect remote radio sites to the dispatch center are relatively unreliable and in need of improvement. Interference on the radio frequencies currently used is a significant problem that is increasing each year as radio systems that are interfering with Anoka County systems are becoming busier each year. There is substantial concern with the potential for jamming radio frequencies in use by public safety entities in Anoka County. This is particularly true because there has been an ongoing off and on jammer who is interfering with public safety radio systems in use in Hennepin County. There are minor concerns about the ability to coordinate activities through interoperating radio systems between different entities within and outside of Anoka County. The impact of failure to address the deficiencies identified is less than the highest level of safety related to fire and law enforcement operations, and a significantly lower level of service to the public. In order to correct those deficient areas, there are two very different basic alternative system directions between which Anoka County public officials may choose. There are, however, some other enhancements or system improvements that should be implemented regardless of which of the two base alternative directions is chosen. Those system improvements that should be implemented without regard to overall direction are: Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -1- Report: Anoka County • A back -up dispatch center should be implemented at an estimated cost of $150,000. That amount is currently available for a back -up dispatch center in the Anoka County budget. • A substantially upgraded fire radio paging system should be implemented at an estimated cost of $1,710,000. • An upgrade in test equipment and spare parts will be needed regardless of the alternative system direction chosen by the County. A reasonable budget for an upgrade of test equipment and spare parts will be $100,000. • A second law enforcement dispatch channel must be placed into operation 24 hours per day compared to the current 16 hours per day. This will require the almost immediate addition of three or four more dispatch center radio operators. Of the two base alternative directions that public officials in Anoka County may select, one is enhancement of the existing radio systems. Enhancements that would provide acceptable performance in the operating areas for public safety communications are recommended in this report. Those enhancements require expanding the number of radio channels available although the addition of radio channels is not possible with existing technology. Enhancement should also include the addition of fixed location radio sites and simulcast control of those sites. The estimated cost for those recommended improvements is $4,750,000. Those enhancements to the existing systems will likely be adequate for a period of time, probably less than a normal ten year useful life, before a different kind of radio system will be needed. Continued use of existing systems, even with the enhancements described in this report, will likely result in reoccurring congestion in less than ten years and the only viable alternative at that time is most likely to be migration to an entirely new replacement system, probably the Mn/DOT 800 MHz trunked radio system. The second base alternative system direction that might be selected is total replacement of the existing public safety land mobile radio systems. The replacement that is recommended in the report is to subscribe for service from the new Mn/DOT digital modulation, trunked radio system currently being implemented. If that recommendation is selected, the performance of the radio systems is judged to be excellent in all parameter areas. The system is also likely to be acceptable as a system, without requiring replacement, well into the 21 century. The estimated cost for implementing a total replacement of the existing land mobile radio systems is $10,640,000. If the total replacement alternative is selected and if the system were funded by the sale of bonds to be retired over a ten year period, then the average cost per year will be less than 2% of the cost to provide fire and law enforcement protection to the citizens of Anoka County. It is believed that the improvement in safety for firefighter and law enforcement personnel alone can justify a cost figure that is less than 2% of the cost of providing public safety service. In addition, improvement in the overall effectiveness and efficiency of personnel in the field leading to a higher grade of public service also justifies the cost. Ronald Vegemast Engineering. Inc. -2- Report Anoka County If the total system replacement alternative is chosen, then use of microwave point -to -point radio for communications links to remote radio sites can be cost justified. In addition, microwave circuits will provide better reliability, stability and audio clarity. It is recommended that microwave point -to -point links be used if the total system replacement alternative is chosen. Regardless of the alternative chosen, it is important that a back -up location for receiving 9 -1 -1 telephone calls from the public and from which minimum control of the radio network will be possible should be implemented at the earliest possible time. Planning for a back -up dispatch center is complete and funding has been made available in the Anoka County budget. There is substantial congestion for eight hours each day on the single law enforcement channel in use. The second law enforcement dispatch channel should be made operational for 24 hours per day compared to the current 16 hours per day in order to provide some relief from congestion for law enforcement personnel. Use of the second channel during an additional eight hours per day will result in some improved radio coverage during the eight hour period in the northern areas of the county. This change should be implemented as quickly as it is possible to hire and train additional law enforcement dispatch radio operators. The improvements to the fire radio page alerting are a critical need that can be implemented as quickly as additional equipment can be placed into service since no additional radio frequencies are required. This upgrade of fire service radio paging will need to be done regardless of which base system direction alternative is chosen. Therefore, the fire radio page alerting system should be implemented as quickly as possible. In teens of the direction that is selected for implementation, the report lists in Section 4.4.4 a series of steps that need to be taken. The first of those steps is to decide which of the two base alternative directions is to be followed. Within the base altemative chosen, there are additional subalternatives that also need to be decided upon. Once the direction is established, the required amount of funding will be known and must be arranged. Additional radio frequencies will be needed if the enhancement of existing systems alternative is chosen. Needed radio sites will need to be identified based on engineering studies and agreements will have to be executed for use of those sites. Communications engineering work would then need to be performed followed by a procurement phase and implementation phase. Because of the critical nature of many of the system deficiencies identified, it is essential that public officials in Anoka County proceed as quickly as possible to decide on the long -term direction to be followed and the other steps to get the necessary upgrades implemented. Ronald Vegenosl Engineering, Inc. -3- Report Anoka County SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Public safety land mobile radio systems in use in Anoka County were studied during the spring and summer of 1997. The output of that activity was a report entitled, "Anoka County Governments Land Mobile Radio Systems." Conclusions and recommendations in that report include: " • Continued use of existing systems as is for more than a few years cannot be recommended due to the operational concerns described in Section 3.4 and 3,5 of this report. In particular, the evaluation parameters in the summary table are listed from top to bottom in the general order of importance. It should be noted that the most important four operational parameters that need to be satisfied by a radio system all have significant concerns with the existing radio systems as they are. It must also be observed that those concerns will become even more of a concern each year into the future. • Enhancing existing systems can overcome, at least partially, three of the four major operational parameters that were evaluated in the systems. There is little that can be done with interference in the frequency bands that are most used by governments in Anoka County. Even though relief from three or four concerns can be provided though enhancements, those enhancements will only provide relief from concerns for a temporary period of time. Eventually the congestion problems will reoccur even with the enhancements. This would mean that there is the high probability that in the early years of the first decade of the twenty- fast century, that Anoka County governments will find that there is 110 longer an opportunity to continue use of the frequency bands that are currently used. At that time, it is highly probably, without some radical change in the regulatory proceedings that are not apparent at this time, that Anoka County governments will find it prudent to migrate to an 800 MHz trunked radio system. This means that if Anoka County governments make the investment in the enhancements of the existing systems, that investment will need to be abandoned before the end of the useful life of those enhancements is reached, and the full cost of migrating to an 800 MHz radio system will happen even though it happens a little bit later. No part of the capital investment in enhancements will reduce the cost of any 800 MHz trunked radio system alternative. • Continued use of the radio frequency bands currently used by governments in Anoka County will eventually require that those governments purchase digital modulation radios because of regulatory changes by the Federal Communications Commission. The best estimate as to when that might occur is approximately the year 2003 or 2004. Those digital modulation radios in the currently used radio bands will be close to the same price as digital modulation radios for use in the regional 800 MHz trunked radio system. • Proceeding to an 800 MHz trunked radio system is most likely to be inevitable for government radio users in Anoka County. The timing could be as early as the year 2000 or as late as 2003 or 2004, particularly if at least some system enhancements are implemented and Anoka County governments can tolerate the negative effects of increasing levels of interference. At the time that the inevitable happens, and Anoka County governments find it prudent to migrate to an 800 MHz trunked radio system, the system option must be determined. A stand -alone system will be more expensive for infrastructure mainly because Anoka County can use the infrastructure of the regional system if becoming a subscriber on Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County the regional system is elected. At the same time, analog subscriber radios (mobile radios, portable radios and RF control stations) will be less expensive than the digital modulation radios that will be needed if the County governments subscribe for service on the regional subnetwork. It is probable, however, that the differential in cost between analog trunked radios and digital trunked radios will narrow in the future. It is therefore considered probable that the total cost to implement an 800 MHz trunked radio system, which will be the cost for the infrastructure and the cost for the subscriber radios, may be about the same total amount. While audio clarity may not be as good with digital modulation radios, subscription for service from the regional system can provide a higher level of intersystem intercommunications, wider area scanning, region -wide roaming instead of roaming only within the County, and a full range of advanced features only available if digital modulation radios are used. • The licenses for the 800 MHz radio frequencies usable in Anoka County will require that the system be constructed and in use by some time in 2002 or the FCC may allow any other eligible entity to license and use those frequencies. • The Minnesota Legislature has exempted radio equipment purchased for use with the regional 800 MHz trunked radio system from sales taxes through July 31, 2003. We therefore recommend that governments in Anoka County plan to migrate to the regional 800 MHz trunked radio system in about the year 2002 or 2003. Installation of the infrastructure and beneficial use of the system using portable radios in 2002 will protect the frequency licenses. Completion of the installation of the mobile radios by July 31, 2003 will save hundred of thousands of dollars in sales taxes. Implementation in the 2002 / 2003 time frame can prevent significant expenditures for enhancement of existing systems that will be of no value when migration to a trunked radio system occurs. It is further recommended that no expensive enhancements of existing systems be planned prior to the migration to an 800 MHz system." 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE There have been several significant developments since the 1997 project was completed. In late 1998, the Federal Communications Commission issued a set of rules referred to as "Refarming ". The refarming rules provide a way to subdivide existing radio frequency bandwidth so that for many existing frequencies, two new frequencies can be created and used. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) 800 MHz radio system details are now known as the bidding process for that system has been completed and implementation of the system is underway. If Anoka County is to take advantage of the exemption on paying sales taxes for equipment to be used as part of the Mn/DOT 800 MHz radio system, then engineering work should begin in early 2001 at the latest. As a result, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners decided that the issues related to public safety land mobile radio communications in Anoka County should be reanalyzed. The new analysis should consider whether or not improvements in public safety radio systems are required, and if so, can the necessary improvements be accomplished through enhancement of existing systems or should the existing systems be replaced by migration to the Mn/DOT 800 MHz radio system. The objective for this project is to present recommendations to the Anoka County Board of Commissioners based on this analysis with the new information considered. Ronald Engineering, Ve emasi n , Inc. -5- Report: Anoka County 8 8 8 1.3 PROJECT WORKGROUP A project workgroup was established to perform the analysis and to develop the recommendations requested by the Board of Commissioners. Members of that project workgroup are: Dave Pecchia, Lino Lakes PD Milo Bennett, Centennial FD Ron Gageby, Coon Rapids City Council Dave Johnson, Blaine PD Jim Kordiak, Anoka County Commissioner Larry Podany, Anoka County Sheriff Joel Heckman, Centennial Lakes PD Harley Wells, Spring Lake Park Mayor Steve Bluml, Coon Rapids PD Gary Lenzmeier, Fridley PD Tom Johnson, Columbia Heights PD Byron Froh, St. Francis PD John Tonding, Anoka County Central Communications Dick Phinney, Anoka Champlin FD Bruce Wojack, Anoka County Emergency Management Tim Farmer, Coon Rapids FD Morrie Mox, Anoka County Central Comm - Radio Service 1.4 PROJECT METHODOLOGY The project began with a gathering of empirical data. Much of the empirical data was generated through an analysis of responses to questionnaires circulated among the fire service and law enforcement entities in Anoka County. Other empirical data was gathered through conversations during and in between meetings of the project workgroup. In addition to gathering empirical data, there was also an analysis of analytical studies that were performed. Analytical studies included making actual radio field strength measurements for radio systems throughout Anoka County, performing a statistical analysis of traffic and doing computer based radio propagation predictions. All of the empirical and analytical data was used in an evaluation of alternatives that centered around enhancement of existing radio systems and complete replacement of existing systems. Based on the evaluation of the base alternatives, conclusions were developed and recommendations were generated based on the conclusions reached. The conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report. Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. -6- Report: Anoka County SECTION II EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 2.1 SYSTEMS AND RADIO CHANNELS 2.1.1 Fire Service Radio Systems in Anoka County Most of the fire service agencies in Anoka County utilize a single County fire channel, although a group of communities in the south central part of the County also have a separate radio frequency for the fire services. In addition to the main and single fire frequencies, there are three frequencies, called TAC A, B, and C, that are available for use at fire scenes. Both the County-wide fire channel and the channel serving the three communities are used both to alert firefighters to respond to a fire incident and to provide two -way communications between a fire dispatcher in Anoka and firefighter personnel who are responding to, and at the scene of, a fire incident. The alerting of firefighter personnel to respond to the fire incident is performed over a one -way radio paging process to radio pager receivers that are used by the firefighters. The primary County fire channel is a single frequency, simplex channel with a single primary transmitter located at the Paul Parkway site with backup transmitters at the Andover (Radio Shop) site and at the Anoka County Government Center site. The separate channel serving the three fire services in the south central part of the County is also a single frequency, simplex channel with a transmitter at the Spring Lake Park water tank site with a backup transmitter at the Bunker Park site. Because the talk -back capability using very low power handheld portable radios is much poorer than the talk -out from a high power transmitter at a base location, the primary fire channel has a total of ten receivers scattered about the County so that personnel using a portable radio can reach a nearby receiver site on the talk -back path. This greatly improves the overall coverage performance of the radio system as a two -way radio system requires the ability to talk both directions, talk -out and talk -back. The single channel serving the three communities in south central Anoka County has only the one receiver at the base transmitter site. There is a dedicated radio operator in the Anoka County Central Communications — 9 -1 -1 Dispatch Center to serve the fire service needs throughout the County. 2.1.2 Law Enforcement Radio Systems in Anoka County The Anoka County law enforcement agencies utilize five radio channels. Two of those radio channels are dedicated for dispatch radio operations purposes. Those two channels are the south main dispatch (Channel 1, which is a two frequency mobile relay or repeater channel) with a Ronald Vegemast Engineering. Inc. -7- Report: Anoka County primary transmitter at the Fridley water tank and with backup transmitters at that Fridley site and also at the Andover site. This channel is also served by nine additional receivers to improve the talk -back performance from radio users with low power handheld portable radios. The second dispatch channel is the north main dispatch channel (Channel 7, two frequency mobile relay or repeater channel) with a primary transmitter at the Andover site and a backup transmitter at the Anoka County Government Center site. This channel also is equipped with nine additional receivers to improve talk -back coverage from low power handheld portable radios. A third law enforcement channel is the information channel (Channel 3, a two channel mobile relay or repeater channel) with a primary transmitter located at the Bunker site and with a backup transmitter located at the Anoka County Government Center. This channel also has nine additional receivers to improve the talk -back coverage from low power handheld portable radios. A fourth law enforcement channel is the south administrative channel (Channel 5, which is a single frequency simplex channel) with the transmitter and receiver at the Andover site. There is no backup transmitter for this channel and there are no additional receivers associated with this channel. The fifth law enforcement channel is the north administrative channel (Channel 2, which is a single frequency simplex channel) with a primary transmitter at the Anoka County Government Center. There is no backup transmitter and there are no additional receivers associated with this channel. The south main dispatch channel is served by a radio operator 24 hours per day. The north main dispatch channel is served by a radio operator only 16 hours per day from 1100 to 0300. Currently there is no radio dispatch radio operator on this channel from 0300 to 1100. 2.2 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 2.2.1 Construction of the Questionnaire Document Early in the progress of this project, a questionnaire was developed and circulated in the fire service and law enforcement communities. The questionnaire was constructed in a way intended to obtain information from the users of the fire and law enforcement two -way radio systems in regard to the performance of those systems. For example, the questionnaire did not explore the issue of congestion by asking a simple question such as, "Is there congestion on the radio channel ?" Instead, questions related to congestions were, "During busier hours of busy month, what percentage of the time do you have to wait ten seconds or longer to use the radio channel ?" Another question related to congestion is, "During busier hours of busy month do law enforcement officers report fewer car stops and building checks than during other times ?" Separate questionnaires were developed for the fire service and for law enforcement. Copies of Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. •8- Report Anoka County the questionnaires used are included in this report in Appendix A. The questionnaires were circulated to all fire service agencies in Anoka County. The questionnaires circulated to law enforcement agencies were sent with instructions to ask that groups of patrol officers on different shifts respond. Copies of all questionnaires received have been sent to Mr. John Tonding at Anoka County Central Communications. 2.2.2 Results of the Analysis of Questionnaires An analysis of the results obtained through an analysis of the questionnaires that were returned are included in this report as Appendix B and Appendix C. In general, the fire service responses indicated a significant concern with the reliability of the fire radio systems in use and with coverage. A very important deficiency mentioned is covering of transmissions on the radio channel caused because the channel is a single frequency, simplex channel. Often, a firefighter in the field is unaware of another firefighter transmitting and, therefore, the unaware firefighter also begins to transmit and the two transmissions interfere with each other and neither transmission is understandable. This problem is occurring on a more frequent basis as the activity levels related to population growth in Anoka County continue to increase. During the review of the questionnaires, the fire service representatives on the project workgroup did an informal survey of fire service entities in regard to the pager radio coverage. The fire service representatives determined that pager radio coverage is poor except in the central part of Anoka County. There were frequent reports of no reception at all or that reception was highly dependent on the direction one faces when a page alert is received. The analysis of the Anoka County law enforcement radio questionnaire returns indicated that the law enforcement radio users have identified the following six critical deficiencies: • Congestion is a major problem with the main dispatch channels over - saturated during busier periods. Officers show fewer reports of car stops and fewer reports of out -of -car during busier months with safety concerns as a result. There are also fewer reports to dispatch of on -the -scene during busier periods with is an operational problem for dispatchers. • Coverage is less than desirable with coverage using portable radios inside rated as a critical deficiency in many areas of the County. • The overall reliability of the radio system is also rated a critical concern. • Interference on the radio channels resulting in covering or garbling of transmissions is rated a critical deficiency. The interference causes confusion and results in less effectiveness and efficiency, and interference from other radio systems is growing as other radio systems are also becoming busier with time. • Potential jamming of the main dispatch channel is rated to be a critical concern, especially because of the ongoing jamming of law enforcement main channels in Hennepin County. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -9- Report Anoka County • Monitoring of radio channels is rated a critical concern even though most law enforcement personnel have mobile data communications available that eliminates monitoring. Mobile data communications does require typing out messages, which is much slower than short voice messages between personnel and is only a partial solution to the monitoring problem. The law enforcement questionnaire responders also indicated that an improved ability to intercommunicate with other agencies within Anoka County and with agencies outside the County is a very important need for improvement. 2.3 ANALYTICAL DETERMINATION OF RADIO COVERAGE The questionnaire results of both fire and law enforcement indicate that coverage needs to be improved. The questionnaire is an empirical method for determining deficiencies and needs for improvement. There are analytical methods that can also be used to determine coverage performance for comparison to the empirical data obtained from radio users. One of those analytical methods is actually measuring radio field strength during a drive in a vehicle throughout the County. A drive test was performed on the fire main county -wide dispatch channel and on the two law enforcement main dispatch channels. Detailed maps of the actual field strength have been provided to Mr. John Tonding at Anoka County Central Communications. The next three pages of this report show the area in which coverage with a portable radio attached to a belt would be predicted in light industrial and commercial, as well as residential buildings. That area is within the line marked " -87 dBm Measured" on the maps. There is a fourth map that shows the area in which reliable radio page reception can be expected for a radio page receiver mounted on a belt inside light industrial, commercial buildings and residential buildings. That area is within the line marked " -77 dBm Measured" on the map. The field measurement maps on the next four pages are for light industrial, commercial buildings and residential buildings. Larger buildings such as schools, community complexes, hospitals and shopping centers would have spotty areas of coverage. Smaller industrial and commercial buildings that are metal skinned and/or have few or no windows would also have spotty or poor radio coverage performance with a portable radio worn on the belt indoors. In addition to the actual radio field measurements, computer predictions of coverage from the radio sites were also produced and they are also shown on the maps on the next four pages of this report. The computer predicted coverage 95% of the time to a portable radio carried on a belt is under the fan shaped pattern of radial lines. Computer predictions are not as accurate as the actual field measurement because there are variations which are treated county -wide on a statistical basis in the computer but are actual conditions when the field measurements are made. Nevertheless, the computer predictions are reasonably close to what was determined to be the actual conditions during field measurements. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -10- Report: Anoka County SAINT FRANCIS SE'HEL i LINWOOD TOWNSHIP BURNS TOWNSHIP EAST BETHEL OAK GROVE -87 dBm Measured Irma, 1�111� IfI'flff '1, CO LUMBUS "`� u , TO WNSHIP ' \\ / 2 ill al , A ,,. .. . \\\I \\,, \ \\\ ' i NtIN H\ //,,,„, ,, 7 ,4 \\ itt/Aci:41;:tw _ _.„„_ .,,-.4„.. i f //44#,A,,,,,,, 4 11 LAW ENFORCEMENT CH 1 COVERAGE TO PORTABLE WORN ON THE BELT INDOORS Ronald Vegemas! Engineering, Inc. - 11- Report: Anoka County it — -87 dBm Measured SAINT FRANCIS BE :11 f ++ ' • I / • LINWOOD TOWNSHIP BURNS TOWNSHIP \ \ \ / k .. 1/4\ 1/4 I & \\\‘ i I A ..„ ...*..„.. .....: .... , '4".....4%. \\ N\ : \ 1 111/////// - . // /// i V may ■ ., L.tgNcti:N j �';: 1/1111, � / ��igl� y v; / _ .cif �i 1 . _7� .r- 4� \\ + � ` / / / /�. ��j / A I \,; FIRE COVERAGE TO PORTABLE WORN ON THE BELT INDOORS Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -12- Report: Anoka Cowry '. ` H y / 1 � II I ` `i�I' Il \\!II Measured III /i A ,,,,_ --i; e ,---<••••••••• i,,••.:_.... ____:, .., ,,,,„,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,7„,, .,_ ,H,. _ \,,,,,„,„‘„,,,,,;,.,„,,,,,,,,,,,,/„,„,,,,,„;,..„,„ , ,,,,,,,,,,,t ,10' r /,„/,4Av!" - ,... ,t,;--,,;'e.,41.r - ...:. ... . .....„,,,,.,,,,,,,,,:H..., \ H" : ;1;,; , : : 1) , ! : ,:,' , ., ,, ) \ I: .1" 6,,,,,,,;; ----5----_____ ____ .___,,,,.- _•• , ,_ ...... -^-��. -_ ` i / � I I �� „:„.;„\,:„:‘,..,:::-\ U � ��V���'f dBm 1oii 'l I i V' I n1 \ \� ..,11111 I , I lil ' 1 1 \; 'N i A t 1111\ ytt \ N ' !t tilt LAW ENFORCEMENT CH 7 COVERAGE TO PORTABLE WORN ON THE BELT INDOORS Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. -13- Report: Anoka County SAINT FRANCIS BE HEl � • 1 LINWOOD TOWNSHIP ' BURNS TOWNSHIP lk I , I I I EAST 13-11 \\ ` `` -77 dBm \ • \� Measured 1 \_ ce.- --'�� fr.: al il "at% % 1 : . -- 1 ..' 1 ‘ C .3/4% - , .... k li f i lilliY ' i ' - ■;.,, i t 1 f w 4 A 4 li . - ,, 11,010- \,, A . / /� /r ll I � • A , FIRE COVERAGE RADIO PAGE RECEIVERS ON THE BELT, INDOORS Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -14- Report: Anoka Counry In addition to the actual field measurements and the computer predictions, tests using a portable radio attached to the belt inside various facilities in the southern most part of the County, the northeast area of the County, and the northwest area of the County were also performed. The results of that test are shown in a matrix form entitled "Anoka County Talk Test — 08117/00" included in the next page of this report. As shown on that table, the talk -out performance is generally poor except on Channel 1 in the very southern part of the County. The talk -back performance from the portable radio back to the base system is generally much better and that is because of the large number of additional receivers that are scattered about the County. Addition of more receivers might improve some of the talk -back performance, however, the main reason for coverage problems is the talk -out performance from the single primary transmitter sites. Generally, the talk -back performance is very good except in the Saint Francis area on the fire channel. The fire receiver for the northwestern part of the County is located on the B108 Tower at an elevation of 325 feet above the ground. It is probable that poor talk -back coverage in St. Francis is that the antenna is a high gain antenna located too high up the tower resulting in the signal reception performance being up in the air above the ground. It is suggested that some tests be made with a lower gain antenna at a lower elevation on that tower to see if the talk -back performance on the fire channel improves. The field measurements, computer predictions and the actual radio tests all support the empirical data reported as part of the questionnaire process. If radio coverage is poor, than the system is hardly much better than having no radio system at all. It is not possible for public safety personnel to function efficiently and effectively with maximum safety unless they can communicate by two -way radio. It is clear that the two -way radio coverage is less than it must be in Anoka County. Of particular concern is the coverage for alerting firefighter personnel to respond to incidents over a radio pager system. This is particularly true during daytime hours when there may be relatively few volunteer firefighters available to respond to any given incident. If some, or a majority of, those people do not receive the page alerts because of poor radio coverage they are not available to respond and there may be no firefighters, or an insufficient number, that can respond by being alerted through their pager receivers. This is an intolerable situation and should not continue. 2.4 RADIO CHANNEL CONGESTION The law enforcement questionnaire responders answers to the two questions related to determining whether or not there was congestion on the two main dispatch channels in the County shows that there appears to be a substantial level of congestion. Data on numbers of new events arriving in the dispatch center for law enforcement response during July of 1999 were analyzed. The data on numbers of new events arriving during various hours of the day were entered into a computer which calculated mean and standard deviation. By definition, in a dispatch center, busier hour is defined as mean plus three standard deviations. Use of this Ronald Vegemasf Engineering, Inc. - Report : Anoka County in V N N vl I "Cr N .. rzi 7 en .. .-. N kci 4 S m E R a) C) pa : F, N N N 7 N V 'k, X in ' d " a) III N p bp .b o al r. 4 4 U en N O '--1 N en N cn .... N 'z U N .-. II II G Q. 7 '7 en X '1- '1 , z1 - en N N o .. U C . ti 0 Z v 0 N p to 7 V k In in in en N ,.- P• 0 .n F+ co v C an G bD C 7 9. A C x X h In /} I^, k ^ N ..-' cn II II "I' [4 0 i, W (~ d cn `a a <N ill- � CA E. Z aH b z x w E O M 0. �'" x . T, W U R" Z x a o H H v1 � U U x O F" • a .w z U c.) d U it,' � �" . w d Z 0 3 O O FG W' -� U� 0 vl W ri c� V m w w W p O ab n e 1 e re > 0 0 p O a A w (4..). � W . = a' co 4 v ° ° yy C)— " v U `'4U a nU U II II VI N I Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County r - method during the time period of 1500 to 2300, shows 71.0 new events arriving during the busier hour. A methodology, developed many years ago by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the University of California at Berkely (JPL) under a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) contract, that has been upgraded over time and has proven to be accurate, indicates that for the dispatch operation in use for law enforcement in Anoka County, a dispatcher and radio channel are busy when 33 new events arrive in an hour. In the 1500 to 2300 timeframe each day there are two channels and two dispatchers available to serve law enforcement needs in Anoka County and they would become saturated when more than 66 new events arrive in an hour. This 66 new event per hour figure assumes that the dispatching is evenly balanced between the two dispatch operators and that the dispatch operators only serve people in the field for dispatching functions and do not provide response to information inquiries and do not answer inbound 9 -1 -1 telephone calls. Since it is impossible to keep some extraneous activities out of dispatcher involvement and since it is impossible to exactly balance load, the actual load per dispatcher is somewhat less than 33; perhaps in the neighborhood of 30 new events (60 new events for two dispatchers). Since busier hour shows in 1999 a likelihood of 71 new events arriving during busier hour, the analytical analysis supports the empirical data provided by law enforcement questionnaire responders indicating that there is channel congestion. The congestion situation is even more serious in the 0700 to 1100 timeframe. During that time, the mean plus three standard deviation figure indicates that during busier hour of July of 1999, 45.9 new events would arrive. During that period of 0700 to 1100, there is only one law enforcement dispatcher on duty in Anoka County. As indicated previously, if that dispatcher does nothing but handle dispatch radio operations, the dispatcher can handle up to 33 new events arriving per hour during busier hour before dispatcher and channel saturation occur. Since 46 new events arrive during busier hour in July of 1999, it is clear that the analytical data supports the empirical indications that there is substantial channel congestion during the period 0700 to 1100. Anoka County should immediately begin to have a second dispatcher providing radio operator service to the law enforcement officers on both main dispatch channels 24 hours a day, including the period of 0300 to 1100. In addition, a third law enforcement radio operator dispatcher is required during the time period of 1500 to 2300 every day. In addition to a third dispatcher, a third law enforcement radio dispatch channel is required because when the dispatcher is busy the radio channel is busy and, therefore, a third dispatcher will need a third main dispatch channel. 2.5 BACK -UP RADIO FACILITIES Each of the main radio channels (the south and north main law enforcement channel, the law enforcement information channel and the county -wide fire channel) have back -up radio facilities. With the exception of the south main dispatch channel, however, the coverage performance will be even poorer than the talk -out performance from the primary sites. This should be viewed with concern, particularly because of the volume of radio traffic that needs to be carried. Back -up Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County radio coverage must be improved so that it is closer to the coverage from the primary base stations. 2.6 COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES BETWEEN DISPATCH CENTER AND THE RADIO SITES There are communications facilities to interconnect the dispatch center in Anoka and the various base radio sites and receiver sites. At the present time, those communications facilities are leased telephone lines from Qwest Communications. Almost all of the base radio stations are controlled by DC signalling which requires a copper connection type telephone line between the dispatch center and the radio sites. It is becoming very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to obtain DC lines from the telephone company and, therefore, some additional electronic equipment must be added on both ends of the telephone line to cause the line to look like a DC line when it is in fact a different kind of telephone company lines. DC signalling has never been as reliable as the more modern in -band tone signalling to control the remote radio base stations at the radio sites from the dispatch center. The addition of the electronic devices to cause the line to simulate a DC line has compounded those control problems. The Anoka County radio technical staff has been experiencing difficulties in trying to keep the control of the base stations functioning as the problems with DC control are compounded. The best solution to this problem would be to replace the telephone lines with microwave facilities. Microwave is very reliable and functions extremely well and reliably. An alternative is to purchase new base radio equipment that operates with in -band tone signalling rather than with DC signalling. The existing base radio stations are generally more than ten years old and should be candidates for replacement in the next few years. Therefore, if the decision is made to continue use of the VHF radio band, one of the considerations must be replacement of all of the DC control stations at as early a date as possible to reduce the problems with station control over telephone lines. The best solution will be to use microwave facilities to control the stations wherever it is economically feasible. 2.7 STATUS OF ANTENNAS AND TRANSMISSION LINES Most of the antennas and transmission lines are about 25 years old, dating from the days when LEAA funding was available in the middle 1970s. Those lines and antennas have reached the end of their useful life and should not continue in service for critical public safety radio systems where high system reliability is required. 2.8 BACK -UP POWER The only sites in the Anoka County public safety radio systems that have backup electrical power are the Anoka County Government Center and the Andover site where the County radio maintenance facilities are located. At all other sites, if commercial power fails, the radio stations will shut down and stay down until commercial power is again available. In some cases, it may Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report Anoka County be several days before commercial power is restored; particularly after a series of severe storms. This is unacceptable from a reliability point -of -view for public safety radio systems and, therefore, back -up power generators must be provided for all radio sites regardless of what kind of radio system is used by police and fire agencies. 2.9 INVENTORY AND AGE OF RADIO EQUIPMENT Continued use of mobile and portable radios beyond certain time spans becomes increasingly difficult and more expensive. As parts age they begin to fail more frequently. Old printed circuit boards become brittle and sometimes crack opening electrical connections. Threaded antenna connectors become worn and will no longer hold antennas. Plastic cases on radios crack or break as the plastic ages. The result is that at points in the life of radios, the failure rate often begins to accelerate. Manufacturers are only required to provide spare parts for a seven year period after the end of the manufacturing cycle for radio and land mobile radio manufacturing cycles are typically about three years. The discontinuance of availability of spare parts often coincides with the onset of an accelerating failure rate. That time marks the practical end of the useful life for a mobile or portable radio. Empirical experience across the U.S. and Canada has shown that the practical useful lifespan for a portable radio is eight years and for a mobile radio it is ten years. At the end of May 2000, law enforcement entities in Anoka County had 525 handheld portable radios and 346 mobile radios. Of those numbers, 269 of the portable radios were six or more years old and should be replaced by the summer of 2002. An additional 67 portable radios were four or five years old and should be replaced by the summer of 2004. Therefore, by the summer of 2004, 64% of the handheld portable radios in use by law enforcement agencies in Anoka County will need to be replaced. Of the law enforcement mobile radios, 191 were eight or more years old and should be replaced by the summer of 2002. Twenty -four additional radios were six or seven years old and will need to be replaced by the summer of 2004. Therefore, 62% of the mobile radios in use will need to be replaced by the summer of 2004. In the fire service, there were 283 handheld portable radios of which 201, or 71 %, were five years old or older and should be replaced by the summer of 2003. The fire service in Anoka County had 174 mobile radios of which 77 were five years old or older and should be replaced by the summer of 2003. That means 44% of the fire mobile radios will need to be replaced by 2003. Of the 1328 total fire and law enforcement mobile and portable radios, 829, or 61 %, will need to be replaced by the summer of 2004. In addition, because the population is growing and the public safety activity levels in Anoka County are growing, additional radios will need to be purchased over the next three or four years. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County In regard to the fixed location radio equipment, virtually all of the radio stations are relatively old and should be replaced as soon as possible. The need to replace those stations, in addition to their age, is also influenced by the fact that almost all of them utilize DC signalling for control and the phone line difficulties make this almost intolerable. Almost all of the transmission lines and antennas in use must be replaced at the earliest possible time period. 2.10 BACK -UP DISPATCHING While it is an infrequent occurrence, many dispatch centers in use in the United States and Canada have been forced to have personnel abandon the dispatch center for some period of time. Reasons for abandonment are varied and include such things as a gas leak in a building, damage due to storms, bomb threats and the like. While infrequent, this is a potential occurrence for the Anoka County Central Communications — 9 -1 -1 Dispatch Center. If this occurs, it is absolutely essential that there be some other place to which incoming 9 -1 -1 calls may be directed by Qwest to be answered. It is also absolutely essential that the location to which the 9 -1 -1 calls may be diverted also have at least minimal radio communications capabilities. Because the probability of the need to use this alternate dispatch facility is very low, it is difficult to justify the expenditure of major amounts of money to provide the minimally necessary back- up radio facilities. It would be possible, however, to have some multi -line telephone sets that could receive the 9 -1 -1 calls even though there might not be the Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and Automatic Location Identification (ALI) equipment included. With a group of multi -line telephone sets and a group of operators, 9 -1 -1 calls can be received and information can be obtained from the caller so that alerting of personnel to respond can occur. If remote radio facilities include mobile relay or repeater stations, then inexpensive RF control stations could be used to intercommunicate between this back -up dispatch facilities and personnel in vehicles in the field. It would be a marginal performance system but adequate to handle the more serious incidents that occur. It is recommended that Anoka County plan, design and implement an altemate minimal back -up dispatch facility as soon as possible regardless of the type of radio system that is selected for use over the long -term. Ronald Vegemast Engineering Inc. -20- Report. Anoka County SECTION III ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 3.1 ENHANCE EXISTING RADIO SYSTEMS It is clear that the existing public safety radio systems in Anoka County have serious deficiencies and unmet needs that must be addressed as soon as possible to continue to provide effective and efficient service to the public and to provide as much safety as possible for personnel in vehicles responding to incidents. It is important that the significance of the radio communications deficiencies be understood. Fire fighter and law enforcement personnel need to be able to talk with dispatch center personnel and with other persons on or near the scene of many incidents. The ability to communicate is needed if maximum safety of operations is to result. Fire fighters inside or on top of buildings must be warned of changed conditions including impending collapse and fire nearing explosive or other wise dangerous materials. Law enforcement personnel must alert each other to the location or movement of dangerous persons in a building, and alert each other as to each officers position and movement. Some of the most dangerous functional duties of law enforcement personnel include car stops and suspicious building checks. The level of safety of fire fighters and law enforcement personnel is reduced if those persons cannot communicate with others on the first try because of poor coverage, congestion and/or interference deficiencies. Most volunteer fire departments are having difficulty in the recruitment of a sufficient number of fire fighters and are short handed as a result. The staffing levels are particularly difficult during work day hours. At present, in about half of the area of Anoka County, radio paging receivers fail to receive incident alerts a significant percentage of the time when a person with a pager is indoors. A volunteer fire fighter cannot respond if the radio page receiver does not receive the alert message. No responders means no response to a fire or response by an adjoining fire department with a delay in alerting and a longer travel time. This is only one example of a reduction in service to the public caused by deficiencies in radio communications. Deciding to continue public safety land mobile radio systems as they are should not be considered and is not an alternative discussed in this report. One of the alternatives for providing an improved two -way land mobile radio system for use by public safety agencies in Anoka County would be to enhance the existing radio systems. This subsection 3.1 of this report discusses possible ways in which existing systems might be enhanced to overcome some of the existing deficiencies. Subsection 3.2 has a description of a system that, if implemented, will completely replace the land mobile radio systems currently used. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report Anoka County 3.1.1 Congestion If it is decided that existing systems should be enhanced as a way of overcoming many of the deficiencies in two -way land mobile public safety radio systems in Anoka County, then the issue of congestion must be addressed. The existing congestion can be relieved if at least five additional radio frequencies can be licensed for use by public safety entities in the County. Those five frequencies will be needed for the following uses: • Two additional radio frequencies for one more law enforcement mobile relay or repeater dispatch channel. This is necessary as three law enforcement dispatch radio operators, each using a separate two frequency mobile relay radio channel, are needed from 1500 to 2300 every day. • Two additional radio frequencies for one more mobile relay or repeater law enforcement administrative channel. • One more frequency to be paired with the existing County fire frequency to make a mobile relay or repeater pair. This would greatly reduce any covering of transmissions that occurs when one person begins transmitting while someone else is already transmitting because the second person could not hear that the first person was already transmitting on the channel. With the existing simplex county -wide fire channel, there is little danger from potential jamming as the jamming is being performed by a person in a vehicle driving around and that jamming would only affect listeners in the vicinity of the jammer. If the fire service in Anoka County were to implement a mobile relay or repeater channel, the jammer could jam the system county -wide by putting his jamming transmitter on the mobile relay input frequency. This could be relieved for paging purposes if the dispatcher were to disable the repeat function if the channel is being jammed on the input frequency and still do the paging on the output frequency where jamming is not occurring. In addition to the five radio frequencies needed immediately, it is probable that at Least four more radio frequencies will be needed, probably within five years. Those frequencies would be needed for the following purposes: • Two additional frequencies for a mobile relay or repeater pair for an additional county- wide law enforcement tactical channel. Additional tactical radio facilities are required because of the rapidly growing rate of law enforcement activity as the population of the County continues to grow and as the County becomes more urbanized. 3 A single frequency simplex frequency will be required to permit firefighter personnel to monitor what is happening without that monitoring going on on the dispatch channel. • The fire service will most likely require a fourth fire scene tactical channel in the future. This means that within about five years, public safety agencies in Anoka County will need a minimum of nine additional high -band, VHF radio frequencies in order to relieve congestion Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. -22- Report Anoka County problems. At the same time, other radio users with the County, including County departments such as Public Works and city radio users, are also likely experiencing congestion now or will be experiencing congestion in the future. Most of those radio user entities also operate in the high- band VHF radio area and will need additional frequencies so that more than the nine frequencies for public safety entities will in fact be needed within Anoka County within about the next five years. Agencies that migrate to use of the new Digital Modulation, 800 MHz Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Radio System will be turning back frequencies in the VHF band in the future. Those frequencies will not begin to be turned back until migration to the new Mn/DOT radio system is completed which will not begin until the beginning of 2003. The policy established for use of those turned back frequencies states that the agency that will be turning back a frequency must notify the Metropolitan Radio Board 90 days prior to turning back the frequency. The Metropolitan Radio Board will then make a decision as to whether or not that frequency to be turned back is needed for some purpose within the Mn/DOT system. If it is not needed, the Board will notify the State of Minnesota frequency coordinator that a frequency will become available. It will then be up to the frequency coordinator to determine who among various applicants for additional frequencies should receive the turned back frequency. It must be understood that there are great demands for additional frequencies in the VHF band from cities and counties located throughout and surrounding the metropolitan region, including counties in Wisconsin. There are great needs for VHF frequencies in at least 14 counties that are contiguous to the seven county metropolitan region. As a result, the frequency coordinator will be forced to ration frequencies that are made available for licensing by applicants from all of those counties. It is believed that Anoka County might receive no more than one or two of the frequencies that will be turned back by the agencies that will be migrating to the new system. Not all of the frequencies currently used by the agencies migrating to use the Mn/DOT radio system are to be turned back, as many of them will have continuing uses for such things as siren control and fire service paging. The other possible way in which Anoka County may be able to obtain additional VHF radio channels will be through use of very narrowband radio frequencies that are being made available for licensing by the FCC through its refarming process, the rules for which were published in September of 1998. It will be necessary that very narrowband frequencies having a bandwidth of 6.25 kHz be used. Use of the 6.25 kHz bandwidth channels will allow having two frequencies in the bandwidth currently occupied by one frequency for at least some of the frequencies currently in use in Anoka County. There will be some restrictions on use of these very narrowband frequencies in regard to at what site adjacent frequencies will be usable. It is, however, possible that with one or two additional turn back channels and use of very narrowband radios that nine additional frequencies for public safety use and some additional frequencies for use by other government radio users in Anoka County can be obtained within the next five years. There are no digital modulation radios currently manufactured that operate within 6.25 kHz of bandwidth. Enhancement of the existing public safety radio systems in Anoka County is not possible if Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -23- Report Anoka County 6.25 kHz bandwidth digital modulation radios are not manufactured within the next one or two years. 3.1.2 Coverage Relief The main problem in regard to radio coverage is talk -out from fixed location radio sites, particularly to handheld portable radios worn on the belt inside buildings. The only way to overcome this problem is to increase the number of fixed location transmitter sites. Unfortunately, it is generally not possible to have two transmitters on the same frequencies transmitting at the same time, This means that either the dispatch center must use some means of control, automatic or manual, to select a single transmitter to transmit out to part of the geographic coverage area required or an expensive electronic method called simulcasting must be employed that would permit two or more transmitters to transmit the same message at the same time. Automatic or manual selection of a transmitter is unacceptable from an operation perspective. Therefore, the coverage difficulties can best be significantly relieved by increasing transmitter sites and employing simulcast technology. 3.1.3 System Reliability Concerns The reliability concerns are related to three different areas which are: the need for a back -up dispatch center; the need for reliable communications links between the dispatch center and fixed location radio sites; and the need for overlapping coverage in the event that a primary site is out of service for any reason. A back -up dispatch center can be provided, as described earlier in this report, for a relatively low capital investment. The back -up dispatch center will be required regardless of which alternative is selected for overall radio communications improvements. The communications links between the dispatch center and fixed location radio sites are best served by employing microwave links. Microwave links are relatively expensive, and generally cannot be justified on a cost basis over the savings by eliminating the cost of telephone lines in any reasonable time period. It may be possible, however, to utilize the existing Mn/DOT radio system microwave network that goes through Anoka County and that might interconnect more than half of the fixed location radio sites that may be required for adequate coverage to the dispatch center in Anoka. The additional sites might be tied in through relatively inexpensive spur microwave links or those sites may still be links to the dispatch center leased telephone lines, however, whether the system is interconnected over microwave and/or telephone lines, the fixed location radio stations must be controllable by means of in -band tone signalling rather than DC signalling. The coverage difficulties can be relieved with proper design when the simulcast system is laid out so that there is reasonable coverage with any one site being out of service. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report Anoka County 3.1.4 Interoperation Communications Intercommunications between different agencies can be enhanced if agencies begin to put other agency's frequencies into their radios if they remain in the VHF radio band. In addition, as part of the new Mn/DOT radio system there are interoperability facilities between existing interoperability channels and 800 MHz talk groups that would provide for the existing level of interoperability. The new Mn/DOT radio system also has two additional VHF interoperability channels in addition to those that exist now and it would be important to add those VHF frequencies to all public safety radios in use in Anoka County if the enhancement of the VHF band is the alternative selected. 3.1.5 Other Needs The interference problem is inherent in the VHF band and interference cannot be relieved. In fact, interference should be expected to increase due to more activity levels on other radio systems that interfere with Anoka County frequencies and if the very narrowband radios are selected as those very narrowband center frequencies will be closer to interfering radio channels from other systems resulting in a higher potential for interference. As more channels are added, there is Less chance for jamming as the channel that is being jammed can temporarily be taken out of service and the radio users from that channel can be added to the other channels. There will be increased congestion when that occurs but the jamming tends to be continued for only short periods of time, perhaps 15 minutes, as the jammer does not want to be found. Jamming of radio channels is still a potential problem if the VHF alternative is selected. It is not possible to prevent people from monitoring voice transmissions if the VHF alternative is selected. 3.2 TRUNKED 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES A major alternative radio system that may be considered for public safety agencies in Anoka County is the replacement of the entire high -band, VHF radio system with a new trunked radio system operating in the 800 MHz band of radio frequencies. There are sufficient 800 MHz radio frequency pairs available to build an acceptable system for public safety use in Anoka County, and trunked, 800 MHz radio systems are well proven. Use of trunking technology in the 800 MHz radio band is likely to satisfy the two -way, land mobile radio needs of public safety agencies in Anoka County for many years to come. There are two possible alternative trunked 800 MHz radio system alternatives available for consideration in Anoka County. The first of those is to subscribe for service on the new Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Digital Modulation, Trunked, 800 MHz Radio System; as Hennepin County, Carver County and the City of Minneapolis have elected to pursue. The second altemative is implementation of a stand- alone, trunked, analog 800 MHz Ronald Vegemas! Engineering, Inc. - Report.. Anoka County radio system. Each system will provide an excellent grade of service in Anoka County except that the stand - alone, analog radio system will have some lesser quality than the Mn/DOT system. Lesser qualities of a stand - alone, analog 800 MHz trunked radio system include: • Slightly greater risk of monitoring of an analog radio system than of a digital modulation radio system. • Lesser ability to interoperate with agencies that are subscribers on the Mn/DOT digital modulation radio system because of incompatibility for intercommunication between subscriber radios. • Less audio quality in some areas of the County due to the noise background that occurs in fringe areas and inside some structures in an analog radio that does not occur in a digital modulation radio. Selection of the stand - alone, analog 800 MHz radio system alternative will mean that Anoka County would need to arrange to use the 800 MHz radio frequency pairs that have been set aside for use in Anoka County but that are currently licensed by Mn/DOT. Whether one of the two trunked, 800 MHz radio system alternatives or enhancing the existing VHF. system alternative is selected, there are several issues which will have to be addressed including: • There are no trunked 800 MHz radio pager receivers and, therefore, the fire radio paging alert system will need to be enhanced in the same way no matter what alternative is selected. • Anoka County public safety entities must be able to receive information from callers who dial 9 -1 -1 and to receive radio page alerting and at least minimum two -way, land mobile radio communications in order to handle the true emergency incidents. Therefore, a back- up dispatch facility will need to be implemented regardless of the radio system alternative selected. • Additional dispatch center radio operator personnel will be required to handle the dispatch end of two -way, land mobile radio communications with public safety personnel operating in the field regardless of the radio system alternative selected. 3.3 TETRA TECHNOLOGY TETRA is a different form of digital modulation than the APCO Project 25 digital modulation. Both voice and data messages can be sent over a TETRA radio system and there is flexibility in the data transmission rate that can be used. TETRA is an open architecture technology and there are at least six manufacturers that produce TETRA radio equipment. All equipment produced by these manufacturers is interchangeable in Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -26- Report: Anoka County any system. TETRA is in use throughout the world except North America, with many systems fully operational. Pricing for infrastructure and for subscriber radio equipment is relatively low, with top of the line mobile and portable radios reportably priced around $800.00 primarily due to intense competition and high volume production. Introduction of TETRA radio equipment in the United States has been delayed apparently for two reasons. The first of those reasons is that Motorola holds certain U.S. patents with rights needed to that intellectual information before TETRA radios can be sold in this country. Motorola has so far been unwilling to negotiate rights to that technology, however, it is believed that Motorola will give rights in trade for other rights to other intellectual property that Motorola desires. The second reason is that there may be a problem with FCC rules in regard to radio electrical characteristics for which a waiver is needed and the FCC has yet to consider that issue. Operation in the simulcast mode is not possible with TETRA and therefore TETRA is an inefficient frequency user in a system like that needed in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region. It is possible that there may not be enough frequencies to build a TETRA system in this metropolitan region. Costs to implement a TETRA system in Anoka County are unknown, however, a relatively expensive infrastructure will be needed that will probably result in costs similar to the two 800 MHz alternatives described in this report. TETRA will also mean that the ability to intercommunicate with land mobile radio users in non- TETRA systems will be difficult and expensive to accomplish. There is a memorandum of understanding signed by four of the European manufacturers of TETRA equipment that is used to coordinate their activities related to the introduction of TETRA technology to the United States and Canada. That group of manufacturers has promised to provide Anoka County with a pro forma TETRA system design with pricing for a stand alone TETRA system serving the county. As of this writing, that design and pricing has not been delivered. 3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVES 3.4.1 Cost Estimates for Items that are Independent of Radio System Alternative Selected Some items are needed regardless of the radio system alternative selected. They are mobile radio installation, fire radio paging improvements, backup dispatch facility and equipment, test equipment and training, and more law enforcement dispatch center radio operator personnel. Cost estimates for each of those items is discussed in this section of this report. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -27- Report: Anoka County Cost Estimate for Installation of Mobile Radios: $0.12 million assuming 600 mobile radios installed at $200 each. Cost Estimate for Improvements to Fire Radio Paging: $ 0.27 Nine mobile relay radio base stations with antennas, lines and installation 0.80 Simulcast equipment 0.40 Radio paging terminal and CAD interface 0.06 Sales tax on equipment 0.03 Radio engineering 0.15 Contingency $ 1.71 million TOTAL Cost Estimate for Backup Dispatching: $114,271 Furnishing/equipment 28,669 Professional services 7,428 Other $150,368 TOTAL This amount of funding is currently included in the Anoka County budget. Cost Estimate for Additional Law Enforcement Dispatch Radio Operators: One more radio operator is needed during the 0300 -1100 time period for a second law enforcement dispatch zone to be in use 24 hours per day. One more radio operator is needed during the 1500 -2300 time period for a third law enforcement dispatch zone. No additional equipment is needed to implement this recommendation. The actual number of additional dispatch center operators needed is dependent on the current shift staffing. It is probable that there will need to be recurring funding for three or four more dispatch center operators to meet this need. Three additional dispatch center radio operators will cost $105,750 per year based on 2001 personnel costs. Test Equipment and Training: It is suggested that an allowance of $100,000 be provided for any of the radio system alternatives for test equipment and training. 3.4.2 Cost Estimate for an Enhanced VHF Radio System The actual cost for enhancement of the existing VHF radio system is dependent on a detailed system design and on the possibility for use of the Mn/DOT microwave system to connect Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County remote radio equipment sites to the dispatch center. Following is an estimate for a reasonable system enhancement plan: $ 0.42 14 mobile relay stations with antennas, line and install 0.90 three simulcast groups 0.40 four microwave spurs (this assumes that Mn/DOT will permit use of the Mn/DOT radio system microwave system for an Anoka County enhanced VHF radio system) 1.68 1400 radios @ $1200 each 0.58 Civil work (towers, shelters, emergency power, etc.) 0.21 Sales tax on equipment 0.15 Radio Engineering 0.41 Contingency $ 4.75 million TOTAL 3.4.3 Cost Estimate for Mn/DOT Digital Modulation 800 MHz Radio System Motorola personnel provided Anoka County Central Dispatch personnel with a budgetary quote for adding Anoka County as a subscriber for service on the Mn/DOT 800 MHz, digital modulation, trunked radio system. A copy of that budgetary quote is included in this report as Appendix D. It is believed that there are several modifications to that budgetary quote that should be made. Those modifications are listed below: $15.00 Motorola budgetary quote - 0.51 Nine sites rather than 10 sites assumed by Motorola - 2.43 Four hot standby microwave links rather than 3DS3 loop protected microwave network - 0.04 Loop switching equipment - 0.30 Lower contingency amount - 1.97 Assume a subscriber radio cost of $1800 based on recent Motorola radio announcements and EF Johnson pricing for 1313 radios + 0.16 87 additional radios @ $1800 each + 0.58 Civil work + 0.15 Radio engineering $10.64 million TOTAL NOTE: No sales tax on equipment is included as there is an exemption on sales tax for this equipment if purchased prior to August 1, 2003. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County 3.4.4 Cost Estimate for Stand -alone 800 MHz Radio System An accurate cost estimate can only be prepared if a detailed system design is completed, however, it is possible to construct a budgetary cost estimate based on actual pricing for a somewhat similar system that was accepted for use in 1999. That system is a stand - alone, analog modulation, 800 MHz trunked radio system installed in Chester County, PA. That system consists of 15 total sites with eight sites in a single simulcast group with 11 channels, two additional simulcast groups of two sites and four channels each and three single sites with four channels each. There are 1200 radios, two redundant network controllers and a 16 hop, two -loop DS3 microwave network with loop protection. The cost of the radio system was $8,220,000 and the microwave system was $2,210,000. Following is a cost estimate for a similar system installed in Anoka County with nine sites in a single simulcast group of 11 channels. $ 8.22 Chester County radio system 2.21 Chester County microwave system +0.58 Civil work - 3.00 Nine site system reduce by six sites @ $500,000 each - 0.45 Two less simulcast groups of two sites each +0.24 200 additional radios @$1200 each +0.83 10% allowance for differing circumstances, and inflation +0.42 Sales tax on equipment +0.15 Radio Engineering $ 9.22 million TOTAL 3.5 COMMUNICATIONS LINKS TO FIXED LOCATION RADIO SITES Communications links are required to connect the dispatch center location to fixed location radio sites located throughout Anoka County. Alternative ways for providing these required communications links include a County owned microwave point -to -point radio system, County owned glass fiber connections, or leased communications facilities from Qwest Communications, Inc. Microwave has proven to be a very reliable and quality way to provide point -to -point communications links. Outages of microwave paths can and do happen due to short -term atmospheric conditions, especially heavy rain, and damage to or failure of equipment. Nevertheless, outages are rare. Glass fiber links do not suffer outages due to atmospheric or weather conditions, however, glass fiber links tend to be slightly less reliable than microwave links due to cuts in either overhead or underground cables. Outages of glass fiber communications links, like microwave links, are rare. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -30- Report: Anoka County Leased communications links facilities tend to be the least reliable and the least stable, but often are the least expensive unless the County already has glass fiber installed and cost justified on another basis. Currently, Anoka County relies on telephone lines leased from Qwest Communications, Inc.. Those telephone lines, especially because they are DC continuous lines, have proven to be less reliable than they should be to meet the need of public safety land mobile radio communications. Unless the County has glass fiber available or can cost justify installing glass fiber on another basis, glass fiber tends to be the most expensive alternative available unless there are a very large number of circuits required. The number of circuits required for public safety land mobile radio systems in Anoka County are relatively small in number and, therefore, glass fiber will be far more expensive than microwave. In addition, construction of a glass fiber link requires that the County have the required right -of -way. Glass fiber links can be constructed either overhead on poles or underground. Overhead construction requires making arrangements with the power company, the telephone company, railroads, and other right -of -way owners including the State of Minnesota. Estimating the cost for the various alternative communications links is difficult as costs vary depending on factors that are applicable to any particular communications link. For example, the availability of an adequate structure to support microwave antennas may dictate the need for additional strengthening of the support structure. Telephone line lease costs are dependent on whether or not the line is entirely within the service area of a single telephone company and upon many other factors. The following table provides representative costs as a way of comparing typical leased telephone line costs to typical hot- standby point -to -point microwave links. The table also shows payback periods in years for various numbers of lines required on each of the links. The payback period is calculated by multiplying the annual telephone line cost times the number of lines and dividing that number into the link initial cost amount. By comparison, typical cost for construction of a glass fiber link, assuming that the right -of -way is available, are $12,000 per mile for overhead construction and $18,000 per mile for underground construction with an additional cost of $30,000 per end for the fiber multiplex equipment. MAX MW LINK ANNUAL 5 LINE 10 LINE 20 LINE FREQ DISTANCE INITIAL TELEPHONE PAYBACK PAYBACK - PAYBACK BAND MILES COST LINE COST PERIOD YRS PERIOD YRS PERIOD YRS 6 gHz 15.0 $100,000 $1,320.00 15.2 7.6 3.8 10 gHz 9.0 $ 90,000 $1,080.00 16.7 8.3 4.2 18 gHz 4.0 $ 70,000 $ 840.00 16.7 8.3 4.2 23 gHz 2.5 $ 40,000 $ 600.00 13.3 6.7 3.3 Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County If the direction for delivering improvement to public safety land mobile radio systems in Anoka County follows the path of enhancement of existing systems, a relatively small number of circuits, five or less, will be required on each link. If an 800 MHz trunked radio alternative is selected, a minimum of 13 circuits will be required on each link. From a pure cost perspective, microwave radio could not be justified if enhancement of the existing radio systems is the direction selected. There would be a reasonable payback period for the microwave links if an 800 MHz trunked radio system alternative is selected assuming that the regional 800 MHz radio system microwave network currently being constructed can be used as a backbone and only spur microwave links would need to be added. The reliability of microwave is generally far better than the reliability of leased telephone facilities. Microwave circuits tend to be quite stable while telephone circuits are often unstable due to many factors including the moisture level surrounding lines and other facilities. Audio clarity of microwave is excellent while audio clarity on telephone lines is often negatively impacted by noise caused by many factors. Microwave can be cost justified if an 800 MHz trunked radio system alternative is the direction selected to provide improvements to the land mobile radio system. In addition, microwave will provide a greater level of reliability and better quality circuits. Use of microwave cannot be cost justified if the direction selected for improving public safety land mobile radio systems in Anoka County is to enhance existing systems. Use of microwave, if existing systems are to be enhanced, will likely provide a higher level of communications link reliability and quality, but at a higher cost than use of telephone lines. It is recommended that the backbone microwave network currently under construction for the regional 800 MHz radio system be used provided the Metropolitan Radio Board grants permission for that use. Additional hot - standby point -to -point links from that regional backbone microwave to remote radio sites should be selected regardless of the direction decided upon for improving land mobile radio systems in Anoka County if the additional cost can be justified. In the event that enhancing the existing systems is the direction selected to improve the land mobile radio system, and the additional cost of the microwave links cannot be funded, then it is recommended that all stations be controlled through in -band tone signalling over regular telephone lines. This will mean that all DC continuous lines will have to be eliminated. Ronald Vegemas! Engineering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL CONCLUSION Anoka County cannot continue to use the existing public safety radio systems without enhancement or complete replacement. Radio coverage is a major problem for the fire service and law enforcement. Lack of sufficient coverage, particularly when using portable radios on a belt inside a building is a necessity and is becoming more significant as a need in the more rural parts of the County as continuing population growth occurs. Congestion on law enforcement channels is at a critical level and must be relieved as soon as possible. Congestion will be worse every year as the population grows and as the County becomes more urbanized. Much of the fixed location radio equipment; including the transmitters and receivers, antennas and transmission lines; are past the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Emergency power must be provided at remote radio sites. More than half of the mobile and portable radios in use in the fire service and in law enforcement will be at or past the end of their useful life within three or four years and will need to be replaced. Therefore, the issue is not whether something needs to be done, but rather what is the best direction to follow in providing the critical improvements that are needed by public safety entities in Anoka County for improved effectiveness and efficiency and the highest level of safety for personnel. 4.2 TETRA It is recommended that TETRA not be considered as a long -term direction chosen by Anoka County. There are too many unknowns related to TETRA in the United States to choose that as the direction at this time. It is likely that a TETRA system will be in the same cost area as use of the MnIDOT 800 MHz system, and use of TETRA would mean that Anoka County radio users will likely have a difficult time intercommunicating with non -TETRA radio users operating outside Anoka County. It is also unlikely that Anoka County will be able to obtain enough radio frequencies to build a system that will meet the needs. The European manufacturers of TETRA radio equipment will strive to overcome the obstacles so that they can market that technology in North America. It is therefore recommended that Anoka County officials continue to monitor TETRA developments for applicability of the technology as a long -term direction. Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -33- Report: Anoka County 4.3 ENHANCEMENT VERSUS REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LAND MOBILE RADIO SYSTEMS IN ANOKA COUNTY 4.3.1 Base Alternative Directions There are two basic directions to be considered for improving public safety land mobile radio communications in Anoka County. One alternative is to enhance the existing systems, and the other alternative involves total replacement of the existing public safety land mobile radio systems. 4.3.2 Evaluation of Base Alternative Directions The project workgroup of Anoka County Central Communications used a matrix form to provide an evaluation scoring of the relative performance of the two basic altematives. That evaluation form is included as the next page in this report. The project workgroup used a scale of 1 -5 to evaluate the performance of various enhancements and new replacement systems that might be considered to improve the performance of land mobile radio systems in Anoka County. The scoring system was 1 -5 with "1" meaning the system is performing exceptionally well in meeting the needs and "5" was a score given to systems that do not meet the needs at all. Scores of "2 ", "3 ", or "4" were given with "3" meaning barely acceptable, "2" meaning fairly good but not completely meeting the needs and "4" meaning the system does do something in the area but is essentially unacceptable. The first column in the form is entitled, "System As Is ". The project workgroup evaluated that system as shown with four of the categories receiving a score of "2 ", one "3 ", one "4 ", and two "5's ". Of even more importance, the three parameters considered most important by the project workgroup; congestion, coverage, and reliability; were scored "3 ", "4 ", and "5 ". This is an indication that the system, as is, must be improved or replaced as it is simply not performing in an acceptable manner in the most important parameter areas. In regard to system enhancement, the "Refarming" and "Frequency Turn Backs" columns indicate that improvements in the congestion area may be made by using those possibilities for enhancement. More improvement can occur with refarming than with frequency turn backs as the possibility of obtaining substantial relief from congestion through obtaining frequencies turned back by entities migrating to the Mn/DOT 800 MHz system is considered to be minimal. Adding frequencies by splitting channels with the refarming possibility will mean use of digital modulation mobile and portable radios which will result in a somewhat higher cost for those radios. Adding sites and simulcast does not improve congestion but can result in a very acceptable level of coverage and an improvement in reliability due to overlapping coverage from multiple sites. This discussion indicates that there are subaltematives within the overall basic enhancement alternative direction. However, obtaining more radio channels through refarming and the addition of substantially more fixed location radio transmitter sites is essential if improvement in the most important parameters is to result. From the discussion of costs in Section III of this report, it can be seen that adding simulcast capability will add a substantial amount to the cost of enhancements. It is possible to select individual transmitter sites rather Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - Report Anoka County . % 'CZ - — — — — n w* - CO A - 6.4 k } - - - - - - - - C.5 47 \ - - , @ CC § :\ / � _ m N N m . \ \ -1 ƒ . ° I Q \ \ § k r m N N r ,{ a m2 2 h U \ \ § / a. t ® N r / ) 0 _ : \ a r r 0 } ^ / \ q )) j ° r m N m N \ \} \ \ � - . / /� /�2\ ƒ/ \ § �/ \ /\ 2 0 8 © 7 2 / ® j m @ b \ ` C,,_?,. / \ /\ \ 41 \ \ \/ / / ® \ / ° % / ± e u % \ E $ / o u \ , 3 / \ \ �� _ neering, Inc. - Report: Anoka County than use simulcast technology, however, that will require dispatch center operators to continuously be switching between radio sites depending on where a unit is located in the geographic area of Anoka County when communications with that unit is required. Especially during busy periods, when dispatchers are occupied with remembering and dealing with large amounts of data and large amounts of units, it must be expected that there will be frequent errors in selecting the best radio transmitter site. In addition, the dispatch radio operators cannot always know what is the best transmitter site because radio coverage is highly dependent upon terrain and a unit may actually be able to communicate better with a site further away rather than a closer site if there is some intervening terrain between the unit and the closer site. For this reason, it is strongly recommended that if the existing systems are to be enhanced, then additional radio channels obtained through the refarming process and additional radio sites with simulcast transmission should be the minimum changes implemented. If that is accomplished, then "Coverage" scoring would be a "1". All of the other parameters, except "Smart System Benefits," would be a "2" and the "Smart System Benefits" would continue to be a "5" since those benefits are only gained through use of trunking technology. The cost estimate figures in Section III of this report reflect the enhancements recommended. There are two complete replacement options that are available in the system replacement alternative direction. They are, use of the Mn/DOT 800 MHz trunked radio system or use of stand -alone 800 MHz trunked radio system. As can be seen from the evaluation form, the two 800 MHz trunked radio system alternatives are considered to provide excellent performance in all of the parameter areas with the exception that it will be somewhat easier for the public to monitor an analog radio system than one that uses digital modulation. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that one of the 800 MHz franked radio systems will provide the very best performing radio system for use by public safety entities within Anoka County. In addition, use of trunked radio technology is likely to be a long- term solution to the needs of public safety entities in Anoka County while use of the existing radio frequencies will most likely become unacceptable in some period of time, probably less than ten years, due to the increasing needs, especially for more radio channels and more functionality, as the population of the County continues to grow and the degree of urbanization increases. It is probable that even with splitting channels through using the refarming option that it will not be possible to provide the increases in radio frequencies that probably will be required in less than ten years. At that time, Anoka County may be forced to abandon its investment in any enhancement of existing radio systems, if that direction is chosen, in order to migrate to an 800 MHz trunked radio option. That would likely occur before the end of the useful life of equipment that might be purchased within the next few years if the enhancement of existing systems option is selected. All of the major U.S. based radio manufacturers are currently developing new hardware and new software options using the end -to -end digital technology that includes digital modulation in the form that is included in the Mn/DOT 800 MHz trunked radio system. This technology is using the Internet Protocol (IP) addressing and is essentially a wide -area digital communications Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. -36- Report Anoka County system with radios attached at various places. As a result, it is clear that the technology already does provide much enhanced functionality that is of great value to public safety radio users. Of more importance, however, the computer technology represented by a wide -area IP addressable network will clearly provide many advanced features and much new functionality that will be developed at a very rapid rate and will be commonly available from multiple radio providers so that competitive bids for equipment that will provide many of those advanced features will be possible. For this reason, even though implementing a stand - alone, analog 800 MHz trunked radio system is an option as a lower cost compared to the Mn/DOT 800 MHz, digital modulation radio system, use of the Mn/DOT radio system is recommended if the total replacement direction is selected. This new radio system communicates in a digital format end -to -end. The new Mn/DOT system architecture is fully consistent with the current trends in computer and communications technology. There is every indication that this architecture will be the basic architecture in use through much of the 21 century. 4.3.3 Alternative System Direction Cost Issues In Section 3.4.2, the cost estimate for the recommended enhanced VHF radio system alternative is shown as $4.75 million. That cost includes simulcasting, which is recommended, if that direction is chosen for implementation in Anoka County. If a total replacement alternative is chosen by Anoka County, it is recommended that the alternative be the Mn/DOT 800 MHz, digital modulation radio system at a total cost of $10.64 million, Therefore, in this report it is concluded that the minimum expenditure necessary to bring public safety land mobile radio systems to at least an acceptable level in Anoka County will cost $4.7 million. The incremental difference in cost to go from enhancing an existing system to bring it to an acceptable level for some period of years, probably less than ten years, and the cost of a system that will fully meet the land mobile requirements of public safety entities in Anoka County is a little more than $6 million. The recommendation in this report is that the citizens of Anoka County choose the system that will fully meet the requirements and needs of public safety entities in Anoka County and that is use of the Mn/DOT 800 MHz, digital modulation land mobile radio system. Not only will that system meet all of the needs, but the system is likely to last well into the 21 century. In considering the estimated cost of that system, $10.64 million, it must be remembered that most or all of the funding to pay for that system will have to come from the citizens of Anoka County. Some of the funding might be made available by the Minnesota Legislature, but at least most of the $10.64 million will have to come from citizens of the County. Expenditure of that amount will provide a radio system that will provide the highest level of safety possible for firefighter and law enforcement personnel functioning out in the field in life and death situations. Any lesser system will provide a lesser level of safety as there is always some less possibility of being able to communicate when it is absolutely essential to do so unless the very best system is Ronald Vegemast Engineering, lnc. -37- Report: Anoka County provided. In addition, the effectiveness and efficiently of personnel in the field may be improved through having the best possible radio system so that personnel can communicate essentially at will at all times. To put the cost of the recommended system in perspective, assume that the system is paid for by selling $10.64 million of bonds that would have a ten year Life. Without regard to what budget or budgets would be used to obtain the funds to pay off the bonds, the citizens of Anoka County would have to contribute monies to build up a fund to pay off those bonds in ten years. The cost per year to pay off $10.64 million in bonds will probably be substantially less than 2% of the annually recurring cost of fire and law enforcement protection in the County. It is concluded that a less than 2% increase in cost of fire and law enforcement protection is worth that cost for the improved operating safety of firefighters and law enforcement officers, and, especially, an even slight improvement in effectiveness and efficiency of personnel that can occur if the optimum land mobile radio system is placed in service. Service to the public can be improved. For example, at present, there are areas of the County in which it is likely that only half of the radio page receivers used by firefighters will receive page messages. During the day, there tend to be only a small number of volunteer firefighters available to respond to any fire incident. It is also becoming more and more difficult to recruit volunteer firefighters so many fire departments are understaffed. It is often essential that every available volunteer receive the radio page alert if a necessary minimum crew to man a fire truck will be able to respond. If half of the page receivers do not receive the page, due to poor coverage, then there may not be enough man power to man a truck, spool off hose, man pumps, and get into fire suppression duties. Therefore, fire protection can be substantially impaired without the best possible land mobile radio system being available for use. That is why it is concluded that even small increases in performance of the land mobile radio system can result in substantial improvements in the level of safety and service to the public. The additional cost being less than 2% of the cost of fire and law enforcement protection is justified. In reality, the differential between enhancing existing systems and replacing them with a modem trunked radio system is in the neighborhood of 1% of the cost of fire and law enforcement protection. 4.4 SCHEDULE AND CRITICAL DECISION POINTS 4.4.1 Back -up Dispatching Both the questionnaires returned by fire service and law enforcement personnel rates overall reliability of the land mobile radio systems as a critical need. In the event that the dispatch center in the Anoka County Government Center building had to be abandoned for any reason; for example, a gas leak in the building; there is no alternative location where dispatch center personnel can go to receive 9 -1 -1 calls from the public and to alert firefighter and law enforcement personnel to respond. This should be a major system reliability concern for all public officials in Anoka County. For that reason, it is recommended that an alternative back -up facility as described in Section 3.4.1 be implemented at the earliest possible date. That back -up dispatch center would work with either an enhanced land mobile radio system or with a system Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -38- Report: Anoka County that entirely replaces the existing public safety land mobile radio systems in use in the County. Funding for this back -up dispatch operation is included in the Anoka County budget. A location for the back -up dispatch operation must be selected. 4.4.2 Second 24 Hour Law Enforcement Dispatch Channel In Section II of this report the fact that there is one 24 hour law enforcement dispatch channel with a dedicated radio operator in use in Anoka County is discussed. There is a second radio channel that is in use with a dedicated dispatcher for 16 hours a day. In Section III there is empirical evidence from the questionnaires and analytical evidence from an analysis from traffic data that during 8 hours when the second law enforcement dispatch channel is not used, there is a significant congestion problem on the single channel that is in use. It is strongly recommended that the second law enforcement dispatch channel have a dedicated radio operator for support of that channel 24 hours per day and that is also discussed in Section 3.4.1 of this report. The expansion to 24 hours on the second law enforcement dispatch channel should be accomplished as soon as additional radio operator personnel can be hired and trained. 4.4.3 Fire Service Alerting Through Radio Paging Improvements in the radio paging system used for alerting firefighter personnel to respond to a fire incident must be improved whether existing land mobile radio systems are enhanced or those existing systems are replaced. Either way, alerting of volunteer firefighter personnel will occur using radio page receivers carried by the volunteer firefighters. The same radio paging system will be needed regardless of the base direction chosen by public officials in Anoka County. Cost for improvements to fire radio paging are shown in Section 3.4.1 of this report at $1.71 million. That cost is in addition to the costs for enhancing the existing radio systems as shown in Section 3.4.2 and in addition to the cost for replacing the existing systems as shown in Section 3.4.3. It is considered a critical need to upgrade this fire dispatching system, including using simulcast technology. That improvement can be performed immediately as no additional radio frequency is required. It is recommended that this improvement be funded and implemented at the earliest possible date. 4.4.4 Long - term Direction Implementation Schedule The following are the steps that need to be completed in order to select and implement a long- term direction to proceed for improving public safety land mobile radio systems in Anoka County: • It is necessary for public officials in Anoka County to consider the two base alternative directions for improving land mobile radio communications. Once the base alternative is chosen, then subaltematives within that overall base alternative will also need to be chosen. This should be done as soon as possible as implementation will take a substantial period of time and it is important to begin the process, especially if use of the Mn/DOT 800 MHz Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. -39- Report: Anoka Coanry trunked radio system is selected, to be sure that the procurement occurs in time to take advantage of the sales tax exemption. • Once the long -term direction is chosen, the issue of how the improvements selected will be funded need to be made. It is probable, especially if the Mn/DOT 800 MHz trunked radio system alternative system is selected, that multiple sources of funding may need to be found. This will take some time and it is important to begin the process at the earliest possible time. It is not possible to determine an exact period of time that will be required to get all of the funding agreements in place and executed. • If the 800 MHz trunked radio system alternative is chosen, sufficient radio frequencies are available or can be made available by the Metropolitan Radio Board. If enhancement of the existing system is chosen, then additional radio frequencies will need to be found as discussed in Section III of this report. This will take some time as radio technology needs to improve and it will be some period of time before entities migrating to the Mn/DOT radio system turn back some of the frequencies that they are currently using. The plan for obtaining the necessary radio frequencies must be developed and the time when frequencies become available through turn backs must be watched carefully so that Anoka County can apply for those frequencies at the appropriate time and not miss out on obtaining any frequencies that are turned back that might become available to Anoka County. • For either of the base alternative directions, additional radio sites will be needed. Those radio sites need to be determined through detailed engineering studies and leases /agreements for use of the sites under reasonable terms will need to be worked out with the owners of the sites that will be needed. It is probable that the same sites will be needed for the enhanced system and the replacement system alternatives. A possible set of sites that may be needed is shown on the map on the next page. • Once funding, frequencies and sites are available, all of the radio engineering will need to be accomplished so that proposals for providing the enhancements can be obtained and agreements can be entered into for implementation. • Once the procurement agreements are in place, there will need to be much project management activities for either of the base radio system alternative directions that are available. Two dates should be noted if the alternative of replacement of the existing systems by an 800 MHz system is the direction selected. Construction of a new system is to be completed by February 12, 2002 or the FCC may assign the frequencies to another entity. Also, the exemption on the need to pay sales taxes on equipment purchased for use on the Mn/DOT 800 MHz system ends on August 1, 2003. Ronald Vegemasl Engineering, Inc. -40- Report: Anoka Cautery Oct - 13 - 2000 14:33 From -ANOKA CO CENTRAL COMAONICATIONS +6124227504 T -929 P.001/001 F -129 Proposed Anoka County Radio System Sites Regional 800 MHz Alternative 1 • SAINT FRANCIS __4_ ' 1 BETHEL / LINWOOD TOWNSHIP BURNS TOWNSHIP / /STAGY EAST BETHEL l j / • / OAK GROVE COLUMBUS B 108 TOWNSHIP 7 -- --- --- ---- --- — - 7 RAMSEY ANDOVER D.N.R HAM LAKE CITY HALL HAM LAKE ANO 4 GOVERN NT r4: CENTER JIM COON RAPIDS PRISON BLAINE / CENTS' \ \ LEXING� IP / LINO LAKES r5�/ 1 CI GLE SPRING - `IPIhFS 'LAKE ((n� PARK 4 re. LEGEND FRIDLEY S.L.P. • Regional Existing Microwave \ t TANK — — — Anoka County Required Spur Links MATTERHORN TANK j.( F ILLTOP COLUMBIA HEIGHTS r E s D A APPENDIX COPIES OF FIRE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES - APPENDIX Report: Anoka Court Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. PEN A p N ANOKA COUNTY RADIO STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FIRE SERVICE AGENCIES 1. Are Anoka County fire departments forced to use the same radio channel at multiple fire scenes? If yes, approximately how many times has that happened during the past year? When this happens, does that situation result in confusion? If it does result in confusion, do you believe that the confusion should be eliminated as it is: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not necessary to eliminate? Please underline one of the above answers. 2. Are there times when personnel of two different fire departments transmit at the same time to the dispatch center because they are unaware that another person is already transmitting on the channel? If yes, do you consider this problem to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not necessary to eliminate? Please underline one of the above answers. 3. Is the ability to communicate with the dispatch center with a portable radio in buildings: Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 4. On a map, please show the approximate areas in your geographic area of responsibility where your volunteer fire fighters need to be able to receive radio page alerts to respond to a fire. Also, show the approximate areas where radio page alerts are received about 80% of the time or more often. 5. On a map, please show the approximate areas, if any, in your geographic area of responsibility where radio coverage with a portable radio: • Inside buildings is inadequate. • Outdoors is inadequate. 6. If the radio system, was completely, or substantially, unavailable for use due to failed equipment or software for up to three hours, would that be: • Unacceptable for life safety reasons? • Of major concern? • Undesirable? • Noteworthy? • Of no interest? Please underline one of the above answers. 7. Does your agency have the ability to communicate by two -way radio with personnel of other departments of your city such as the city police, city public works personnel, etc? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 8. Does your agency have the ability to communicate adequately by two -way radio with personnel of other agencies within Anoka County such as fire fighters from other fire departments, sheriff deputies, etc? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 9. Does your agency have the ability to communicate adequately by two -way radio with personnel of other agencies outside Anoka County such as EMS personnel, metropolitan airports personnel, or fire fighters from fire departments outside Anoka County? If yes, with agencies in which county(ies)? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. Does your agency need the ability to communicate adequately by two way radio with personnel of other agencies outside Anoka County that you are currently unable to intercommunicate with? If yes, with which county(ies)? With which city(ies)? 10. Do you experience interference to your radio system? If yes: • Which channel(s) have interference? • Does the interference cover or garble radio transmission from personnel of your agency? • Does the interference cause confusion? • Does the interference result in decrease effectiveness or efficiency of personnel because they are forced to pay attention to foreign conversations to assure that an important transmission is not missed? 11. In your experience, has monitoring of public safety radio channels in Anoka County: • By the general public resulting in sensitive information becoming general knowledge that probably would not otherwise have occurred? If yes, do you consider this type of occurrence to be: A critical problem? A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? A minor problem? No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. By the general public resulting in a large number of gawkers at interesting events that hampered your operations at the scene? If yes, do you consider this type of occurrence to be: A critical problem? - A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? A minor problem? - No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. 12.One of three main law enforcement dispatch radio channels in Hennepin County is frequently rendered unusable by a hacker that jams the channel for up to 15 minutes at a time. If this occurred to one of the police or fire dispatch channels in Anoka County would you consider this type of occurrence: • A critical problem? • A very serious problem? • An undesirable problem? • A minor problem? • No Problem? Please underline one of the above answers. ANOKA COUNTY RADIO STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 1. During busier hours of a mid- summer day, approximately what percentage of the time is it necessary to wait ten seconds or longer to use the main dispatch channel? 2. Compared to mid - February, in mid - summer do law enforcement officers: • Report a smaller percentage of all car stops? • Report a.smaller percentage of out of car events? • Report on- the -scene status updates a smaller percentage of the time? 3. What, if any, difficulties during the past year have resulted from insufficient tactical radio channels being available? 4. Is the ability to communicate with the dispatch center with a portable radio in buildings: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 5. On a map, please show the approximate areas, if any, in your geographic area of responsibility where radio coverage with a portable radio: • Inside buildings is inadequate. • Outdoors is inadequate. 6. If the radio system, was completely, or substantially, unavailable for use due to failed equipment or software for up to three hours, would that be: • Unacceptable for life safety reasons? • Of major concern? • Undesirable? • Noteworthy? • Of no interest? Please underline one of the above answers. i __ 7. Does Y our agency have the ability to communicate by two -way radio with personnel of other departments of your city such as fire fighters, city public works personnel, etc? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 8. Does your agency have the ability to communicate adequately by two -way radio with personnel of other agencies within Anoka County such as personnel of other law enforcement agencies radio with personnel of, county public works, etc? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. 9. Does your agency have the ability to communicate adequately by two -way radio with personnel of other agencies outside Anoka County such as EMS personnel, Metropolitan Airports personnel or law enforcement personnel in other counties? If yes, with agencies in which county(ies)? If yes, do you consider this capability to be: • Critical for life safety? • Very important? • Desirable? • Of value? • Not needed Please underline one of the above answers. Does your agency need the ability to communicate adequately by two way radio with personnel of other agencies outside Anoka County that you are currently unable to intercommunicate with? If yes, with which county(ies)? With which city(ies)? 10. Do you experience interference to your radio system? If yes: • Which channel(s) have interference? • Does the interference cover or garble radio transmission from personnel of your agency? • Does the interference cause confusion? • Does the interference result in decrease effectiveness or efficiency of personnel because they are forced to pay attention to foreign conversations to assure that an important transmission is not missed? 11. In your experience, has monitoring of public safety radio channels in Anoka County: • By the general public resulting in sensitive information becoming public knowledge that probably would not otherwise have occurred? If yes, do you consider this type of occurrence to be: A critical problem? A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? - A minor problem? No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. By the general public resulting in a large number of gawkers at interesting events that hampered your operations at the scene? If yes, do you consider this type of occurrence to be: - A critical problem? A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? A minor problem? No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. By persons involved in criminal activities so that they are alerted to law enforcement response underway? If yes, do you consider this type of occurrence to be: - A critical problem? A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? A minor problem? No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. 12.One of three main law enforcement dispatch radio channels in Hennepin County is frequently rendered unusable by a hacker that jams the channel for up to 15 minutes at a time. If this occurred to one of the police or fire dispatch channels in Anoka County would you consider this type of occurrence: A critical problem? A very serious problem? An undesirable problem? A minor problem? No problem? Please underline one of the above answers. APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF RETURNED FIRE RADIO QUESTIONNAIRES Ronald Vegemasl Engineering, Inc. - APPENDIX B - Report Anoka County RGV:299:5/31 /00 ANALYSIS OF ANOKA COUNTY FIRE RADIO QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS CRITICAL CONCERNS 1. Failure of the radio system for up to three hours is considered unacceptable for safety reasons. 2. Potential jamming of a fire channel, especially the paging channel, is considered a critical issue. VERY IMPORTANT TO CRITICAL CONCERNS 1. Congestion is a minor problem, however, freedom from contention on a fire scene channel is very important to critical. 2. The ability to communicate with dispatch using a portable radio indoors is rated a very important to critical need. Ramsey and Linwood Township have difficulty with coverage indoors, and Linwood has difficulties in some outdoor areas. VERY IMPORTANT NEEDS 1. Covering of transmissions by two simultaneous radio users is a very important problem to overcome. DESIRABLE NEEDS 1. The ability to communicate with others beyond shared channels and the state mutual aid channel is desirable but not a very important need. MINOR INTERESTS 1. There is some interference, especially on the main fire channel, but that interference is considered a minor problem. 2. Monitoring of fire channels is considered to be a minor problem. APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF RETURNED LAW ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES Ronald Vegemasi Engineering, Inc. - APPENDIX C - Report Anoka County RGV:299:5/31/00 ANALYSIS OF ANOKA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIO QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS CRITICAL CONCERNS 1. Congestion is a major problem, the main dispatch channel is oversaturated during busier periods. There are fewer reports of car stops and fewer reports of out -of -car during busier months with safety concerns as a result. There are also fewer reports to dispatch of on- the -scene during busier periods which is an operational problem for dispatch operators. 2. Coverage is less than desirable which is rated a critical problem. Fifteen of 17 rated communications with dispatch using a portable radio inside as a critical need, but there are widespread reports of poor in- building coverage. Poor outdoor coverage is reported in the Bethel, East Bethel and Linwood areas and generally in the northeast part of the county. 3. The potential for a single point failure causing loss of the radio system for up to three or more hours is rated critical by 13 while four rated this as a major concern. 4 Interference is mentioned as a critical problem on Channel 2 by nine of 15 (60 %). Interference covering or garbling transmission - seven yes and three at times. Interference causes confusion — seven yes, one at times and one no. Interference causes less effectiveness or efficiency — ten yes and one at times. 5. The potential jamming of the main dispatch channel is rated a critical concern by 15 respondents while two rated potential jamming as a very important concern. 6. Monitoring of law enforcement radio channels by criminals is rated a critical problem by 15 while two rated this as a very important concern. A number of respondents indicated that use of Mobile Data Communications was a way to relieve this problem for persons in vehicles. ANALYSIS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES CONTINUED VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES 1. The ability to intercommunicate with other agencies within Anoka County is rated critical by six, very important by seven, and desirable by two. 2. The ability to intercommunicate with agencies outside the county is rated critical by eight, very important by three, desirable by two and of value by two. The MINSEF channel was mentioned often as a means for intercommunicating. Three respondents indicated that more than the MINSEF channel is needed. DESIRABLE ISSUES 1. The ability to intercommunicate with other departments of the same city (or the county by SO personnel) is rated as desirable. 2. The ability to eliminate channel monitoring that results in sensitive information getting out or in gawkers arriving at a scene is rated desirable. APPENDIX D MOTOROLA GUIDANCE QUOTE FOR THE ADDITION OF ANOKA COUNTY AS A SUBSCRIBER FOR SERVICE FROM THE Mn/DOT 800 MHz, DIGITAL MODULATION RADIO SYSTEM Ronald Vegemast Engineering, Inc. - APPENDIX D - Report: Anoka County AUG. 28. 2000 3:05PM MOTOROLA NO, 7834 P. 1 FAX Cover Sheet • o r, . rM3r For. � 11J V � Fax: 6 IL- 3 ) From: Dave Eischens Business: 612- 942 -3554 • Pages: - Including Cover Memo: lotir ,v w XTS sOo 260i atc r nevi EL I' - zl Lief XTS2 'bob rnl1 N( re omtlt' ASPAKC Co/JOEA) ?ij44-- Q . - Pi ce 'j )Bo soe &Tb Enu cEng oN— d (LTUER -Y EN, aoo - • MOTOROLA 11000 West 78th Street Suite 150 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Fax: 612- 942 -3560 0 rn • 0 0 U PO ‘"' 0 Z N U 0 .� 0 .,z z , 2 ad C' w o pA ' w bA ObH‘- - 4ra 0 .5ro 1. � Ct) O 0 , V 8 p 0 - 6 o b ? o�j �+ N E , I O S z . a 4 Q p 8 O F 0 _, cJ . 0 Ct 0 Q a) 0 v 0 U' .� o � wv) ' a� ,4 t cn U v ► • • • • Z 'd PEE ON d70H01AN Nd50 :0 000Z '8Z 'Ofld . , . . O o 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 00 G o N o 01 d o c r N M Y co N f0 ea IC '6 co N M er 2 N Q 0 R 0 N 0 0 T r N N N N 7 " . � W M , 0 00 0 0 L o O o t N o 4 0 0 o e7 N N d o •• o ri o 03 i N o , • m � ;a s 15 o % . m 2 g a o0 c L i's ! 4:1 C A LL r o - No 0 c m ° N r _. 7 > G S 1 0 ' WW M .) Ci ° kr, . 2 b a d Az o 0 0 0 w -O 0 °0 06 W 7 `— a m W a 0 N w ' N 0 c io a 0 0 0 p -1C Eav M W ...- o 2-0 o wr ° a yC S W L 0 N V ea N Cro F- i. w c c N 0 0 N 2 O n 9 v m CC V W 0 t N V m • I. 2 • .... , d E a t = 0 , } eero -? Si G7 o. —' e . LL =2 e E 'd tEBL ON V10E11011 ?(d90 E 0002 'B2 '9IlV ' IWV• 6Vr LVVV J•VVa na uara v.... r.a - i Y • ANOKA COUNTY 800 MHZ DIGITAL TRUNKED BUDGETARY QUOTE , 800 Mhz Digital RF Components 10 Sties 11 Channels $ 5,128,667.00 Simulcast Mater Controller $ 811,250.00 30S3 Microwave Six Hops $ 2,828,115.00 Channel Banks $ 201,000.00 Console Equipment CEB & 7 Positions W/O Fumfture $ 484,881.00 Logging Recorder $ 88,750.00 • SZ Mauer Equipment & AMBI S 87,500.00 Smartlone Manager Terminal $ 22,500.00 Digital Interface Units $ 37,500.00 Loop Switch Equipment $ 16.250.00 Does Not Include Civil Costs $ 9,688,393.00 , Contingency $ 968,640.00 Infrastructure Total $ 10,855,033.00 Mobile & Portable Units 752 Portables©$3310 Each W /Charger Spk -Mlc & Programming $ 2,489,120.00 561 Mobiles @ 53300 Each W/Programming, and Mtg Hardware $ 1,851,300.00 Does Not Include Installation Subscriber Costs For 1313 Total Units $ 4,340,420.00 System Totals $14,995,453.00 Motorola Confidential 3119/99 Page 1 Lv L VVV V•VV.n. „ . • EXHIBIT D: PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES Fixed Infrastructure Equipment and Services Percent Milestone Deserintiou 10% Due upon completion by Motorola and approval by Owner of Detailed Design. Document (D.D.D.) o point in Minnesota 13 /o Due upon delivery of Microwave equipment to Customer's F.O.B. po 40% Due upon delivery ofRF equipment to Customer's F.O.B. point in Minnesota 17% Due monthly upon completion of installation, on a "Site-by-Site" basis 5% Due upon completion of Acceptance Test Plan (Excluding 30 Day 'Burn-In" period) 5% Due upon Initial Acceptance 10% Due upon Final Acceptance Subscriber Equipment: (Mobile, Portable and RF Control Stations) For units to be used during 30 -day burn -in period (Maximittm of 700 units) 90% Due upon delivery 10% Due upon Initial System Acceptance For Subscriber units purchased AFTER Initial System Acceptance: 100% Due upon delivery Motorola will issue all invoices at the time of milestone completion. Payments re due net 30 days from receipt of invoice These payment terms are applicable only to local, county, and state governmental agencies. Pay,nent terms for any private entities will be determined based on their financial information. 8mer resnoa a +1 MEMO DATE : November 2, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Woiak Sewer Reimbursement Included in your packet is a copy of the bills that Larry Woiak (6925 Centerville Road) has paid in regards to sewer problems with his residence. As you may recall, Mr. Woiak was one of the residents that had protested his proposed assessments in conjunction with the Hunter's Crossing subdivision. Mr. Woiak has since stopped in to City Hall and paid for his proposed assessment. Mr. Woiak indicated that he would not be contesting his assessment, however he feels that it is unfair that he had to pay to clean his sewer line when the problem was not with the line in his property, but with the line in the City right -of -way. Mr.Woaik is asking for reimbursement for this sewer cleaning in the amount of $630.50. /t -3v C /7y o/ Ce /Vrat jzcF Sear FA eL E- f},fr/N ' -/ Rct7- ,nAys7oe. %bete 4 b z 7.Oa 7Q-Ots 'St fj e1. » *i4 c, ( -1 -00 Kew s 3 ElufS S e/ wct = goQ.oa ©ff$ /A lS ,N e- 3- oo — 72.5 s /- 3 -00 ` 39. 2 -. irTA'- 0 30-45 hnirg/� /06/in Gaps e 6 v /tlr . c /w R t./t e:Au i d ,n'D a :0 0 P w, 9 NO ( R CI 4 V 0.8 aa c no no in L z coat ,�` I W ��'ti�e v , D 6 a a lei ♦ 0 o � 9^ ��11 r W • . — fi ) �cam ey --et ...,,....., , ,_ y 1 o r g ��(Jy� ., 3. a E S Q« m — J ,{7._ !' i Pr in N N E ca g < U LARRY A. WOIAK 174pD - 83 ALICE RANDALL WOIAK 5851499280 3 031 6925 CENTERVILLE ROAD PH. 612 - 653 -4390 / ..- / ` CENTERVILLE, MN 55038 PAY TO THE ' , - yn, J e ORDER • /C« 111.XXr IIf D o t� , /. /mot / _,�...r t C'2[7 DOLLARS /j' TCF BANK Minnesota fsb L+_ � �� .. 1Lr : , 1059 AfuduN.n4 Dive t:.[YRESs ° a »^ s _ gr� -1 059 BanLete. 5IIJ55191 -2519 /P SS / FOR ,� .. ' 44 / /�a4: • � 1 "9107000LI: EESi4992B'• s�f �s1 00i20900,1' Residential eside tAIN KING . LAIN KING c I MUNIC P SEWER & DRAIN CLEANING VD DRAIN CLEANING 1 7 4 7 Mainlines • Floor Drains • Toilets Bathtubs •sinks 92, BLAINE, MN 55449 -0092 Water Jetti • S dine elevising 8E Loca v 612) 786 -3000 WE 24 Hour N1Ce E / STATEMENT North Office 588 -2100 788-3000 Free Estimates ��� Date 1 ^ 7'ad Address 9 .2 r -- r M. et Phone 6 S f - 4 s - 93 Fa City ( C-+ r e fO "t State Zip Phone Serviced at Time In S /-- Time Out - 2 ` / C Referred by Serviceman's Signature --S � 1. ESTIMATE My estimate for performing this work is for $( / hr(s). Additional labor is $1+0:1 ) hr(s). For C4 fr .(ot 2. ESTIMATE My estimate for performing this work is for $S?Z /3 hr(s). Additional labor is $_/ hr(s). For i'ot -t br 3. ESTIMATE My estimate for performing this work is for $ / _ hr(s). Additional labor is $ / hr(s). For WORK AUTHORIZATION I authorize Drain King Inc. to perform the described services and I agree to pay the amounts indicated. I understand the Drain King Inc. is not responsible for broken, settled, rusted, deteriorated, or lead pipes, fixtures, or clean outs and any damage resulting from cleaning such lines. (Print Name) (Signature) _ SERVICES COMMENTS COST O Hydrojetting -Line Inspection )-G64 j n%1 J,a/o:� , ,...4 of—L, O Mainline P' Floor Drain H / -1,11 ret;uJ LoY7c L.0 Kitchen Sinks elm, :if 011 +4,'elp c t - :o .f- c'/ rra O Bath Tub C–F 2 )7 ' Rn O Bath Sink O Toilet O Urinal O Laundry Tubs O Other PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (10% discount) 0 6 Mo. 0 12 Mo. SUB TOTAL LABOR 0 18 Mo. 0 24 Mo. DISCOUNT GUARANTEE 0 30 Days 0 6 Mo. (roots only) 2e --None TOTAL LABOR PAYMENT TYPE 0 Cash TOTAL PARTS Check 0 Discover 0 M Card O Visa 0 Other Terms `-633 TOTAL 2 SG 00 Credit Card # Expiration Date Signature PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING • Our company is not responsible for deteriorating plumbing or leaks caused by deteriorating plumbing and we are not responsible for any damages caused by back -up during guarantee period. • A $20.00 charge will be added to all dishonored checks, and you will be responsible for any legal costs incurred in collection of money. Commercial Accounts: Terms = Net 30 A finance charge of 11 % per month or 18% per annum will be assessed on late payments. DI (iceman: Provide satisfactory service? 0 Yes 0 No Offer 2nd line discount? 0 Yes 0 No i e sticker? O Yes O No 1 / f eaa ' I (Comments) (Cu .mer's Signature) a A -1 ROOTMASTER, INC. 175379 • Plumbing, Sewer & Drain Cleaning, and Septic Pumping P.O. Box 25068 • Woodbury, MN 55125 A St. Paul: 738 -8355 — 777 -3289 • Minneapolis: 888 -7341 — 544 -1201 Ask about our IREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INVOICE / STATEMENT Tax I.D. Number 41- 1716826 LIQUID DRAIN CLEANER Customer I Date —L i j Address / Phone City State Zip Phone "'.Cfki i i �j I I t F> r M. Serviced ` at - Services Comments Cost ❑ Hydrojetting ❑ Plumbing ❑ Septic ❑ Pumping ❑ Recall ❑ Drains ❑ Mainline rS ❑ Floor Drain 1 �; ' r, r Tr ❑ Kitchen sinks , -- 0 ; i 1 f t' / 1 f1 , n ❑Bath Tub ` v �%• ;i ce 4,°".Ait tat nt f 1.1 ? ? ❑ Toilet �?I �. y A d_, 1' n ,;y ^: er r 1 1 22-A f,. . ❑ Other i :tl �..4L ;! k' iF ;-- r"�.,�.J � C�> ; 1�,'1 S ` t - i -- \-/ cif. i +A }"?-- .- • • 1 ; i Time In `' . f CT Time Out& j I SITS TOTAL LABOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (10% Discount) DISCOUNT ❑ 6 Mo ❑ 12 Mo ❑ 18 Mo ❑ 24 Mo TOTAL LABOR GUARANTEE ❑ 30 Days ❑ 6 Mo. (Roots Only) ❑ None TOTAL PARTS Payment Type TOTAL Serviceman's Signature ❑ Cash p Check ❑ Discover ❑ Master Card ❑ Visa ' ` l PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING: • Our company is not responsible for deteriorated plumbing or leaks caused by deteriorated plumbing and we are not responsible for any damages caused by back -up during guarantee period. • Commercial Accounts: Terms = Net 30 A finance charge of 1 1/2% per month or 18% per annum will be assessed on late payments. • A $15.00 charge will be added to all dishonored checks. and you will be responsible for any legal costs incurred in collection of money. Did Serviceman: ❑ Provide Satisfactory Service ❑ Offer 2nd Line Discount ❑ Leave Sticker ' mments Customer's Signature • CUSTOMER KEEP YELLOW COPY - PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON CHECK a< A -1 ROOTMASTER INC. Plumbing, Sewer & Drain Cleaning, and Septic Pumping ''. 175331 P.O. Box 25068 • Woodbury, MN 55125 St. Paul: 738 -8355 — 777 -3289 • Minneapolis: 888 -7341 — 544 -1201 Ask about our PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INVOICE / STATEMENT Tax I.D. Number 41- 1716826 LIQUID DRAIN CLEANER Customer Date () —A Address / Phone (n`( -' EL iK5 T C -iig, Vi } L_L. E ?` () i/ Q , 513 — 4`370 City State Zip Phone - L.GjV i•= . ti, ti)!L-i_1 I+l!U , .4 (`) 3 K .. Serviced at -- Services Comments Cost ❑ Hydrojetting ❑ Plumbing ❑ Septic ❑ Pumping ❑ Recall ❑ Drains 0. Mainline ! 6'✓ , ;ti «n I o t-Aft_e[ cii F Kt_ =; 0 A ❑ Floor Drain i o^ ( n( C 0 lid <r /i _(tit 4 ' ./ t (,LP A .J6 . t — `.J ;9 0 0 ❑ Kitchen sinks i v., fr n / L � ` .el 1 ❑ Bath Tub 1 1 /1-1' X � y. e cc 7 , ? c ',. l i !7) s c,�i r ❑ Toilet T1 { 1 _ -.& f� v+, o r Kt ' ;2, t1 t 11 II0 (1. r - • ❑ Other ) �. ) - , G"4 (-Al 0 (t Av C � Time In } ," , Time Out ^ ; 4/ 5 SUB TOTS LABOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (10% Discount) DISCOUNT ❑ 6 Mo ❑ 12 Mo ❑ 18 Mo ❑ 24 Mo TOTAL LABOR GUARANTEE ❑ 30 Days 13,6 Mo. (Roots Only) ❑ None TOTAL PARTS Payment Type TOTAL i 1 -;1 ❑ Cash Q Check ❑ Discover ❑ Master Card ❑ Visa Serviceman's Signature PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING: • Our company is not responsible for deteriorated plumbing of leaks caused by deteriorated plumbing and we are not responsible for any damages caused by back -up during guarantee period. • Commercial Accounts: Terms = Net 30 A finance charge of 1 1/2% per month or 18% per annum will be assessed on late payments. • A 515.00 charge will be added to all dishonored checks, and you will be responsible for any legal casts incurred in collection of money. Did Serviceman: ❑ Provide Satisfactory Service ❑ Offer 2nd Lipe.Discount ❑ Leave Sticker mments Customer's Signature ,. T \::- ._ CUSTOMER KEEP YELLOW COPY - PUT INVOICE NOMBER ON CHECK --- - - - -- ‘ I e tr. s Tt 4.0 S TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members FROM: Administrative Staff SUBJECT: City Hall and Council Chambers Upgrade DATE: November 3, 2000 Staff requests additional time prior to presentation of the above upgrade proposal and will present same to Council on Tuesday. MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Ground Development — Pheasant Marsh PUD I am placing this item on the agenda for discussion purposes. Comments have been received from some individuals suggesting that this subdivision be delayed. The preliminary plat is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Committee on November 14"'. I would suggest that City Attorney Jim Hoeft discuss the reasons, rationale, etc. for a moratorium. I will also attempt to gather some input from the school district administration on this issue. rage i of i Jim March From: dc [dcapra @isd.net] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:09 AM To: Jim March City of Centerville Subject: Ground Development ' Hi Jim, Would you please forward this to the mayor and council members for me. I do not have all of their email addresses. Thank you, Mary Capra Memo To: Centerville City Mayor and Council Members I am aware Aimee Fairbrother has spoken to several of you concerning the development of 88 new home sites on the property south of Center Street. I have many concems has Aimee does with regard to the size of this development and whether this is the right time for Centerville to be adding 88 new homes to our community. I am requesting the council consider the community as a whole before moving forward with this development. I personally don't feel this is a good time to be increasing the population of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Mary Capra 10/23/00 • Peltier Lake Association Newsletter. October 9, 2000, Vol 12 #5 officers and Board Members: ;ident: Wayne LeBlanc (651) 426 -0168 Director #4: Paul Dentz (651) 429 -1823 oecretary: Jerry Lindner (612) 514 -3047 Director #5: Hal Wegner (651) 407 -8256 Treasurer: Steve Marcello (651) 426 -4679 Eurasian Water Milfoil Alert —This weed is now in Peltier Lake! • Background: It has been known that Eurasian Milfoil has been in Centerville Lake for the last several years. Precautions were taken (connection between two lakes was blocked off) to try to keep the milfoil out of Peltier Lake. In the last several weeks, the following items have transpired: A lakeshore owner on Peltier alerted a Peltier Lake Assoc. Board member, the DNR was contacted, the weed was confirmed as Eurasian Water Milfoil, and a lake survey was conducted by the DNR (see attached map on the back). The Eurasian Milfoil was found in scattered areas of the lake in depths from 2 to 5 feet. It was estimated that it just started growing within the last year. • Because of the harmful effects of this weed (grows in depths up to 15 feet, is very aggressive and overgrows all other vegetation, becomes as thick or thicker than curly leaf pondweed and lasts all year) the Peltier Lake Board has decided to start immediate action. Discussion has occurred with the DNR, Rice Creek Watershed District, and many options were identified. The Peltier Lake Board met on Friday, October 6 and after extensive discussion about all of the identified options has decided to recommend the following: o Lowering Peltier Lake (for the winter months this year only) a maximum of 5 feet in an attempt to "freeze out" the Eurasian Water Milfoil with the following stipulations: 1. Peltier and Centerville Lakes must be kept isolated from each other, 2. An aerator be utilized to help maintain the fish population over the winter, 3. Harvest the rough fish while the lake is lowered, 4. Conduct a fish count study before and after the draw -down to help assess the impact, and restock if necessary, 5. Draw -down is a one -time occurrence only (will not be done every year — because of the large impact to the environment and ecosystem), 6. Request that a screen be installed in Clearwater Creek (preferably at the outlet of Bald Eagle Lake) to help eliminate one of the sources of Eurasian Water Milfoil, 7. Request investigating removal of sediment deposited at the mouth of Clearwater Creek. In addition, the "draw -down" option was recommended by the DNR because of the early detection (growth in only 2 to 5 feet) and the scattering of the weed in many areas of the lake. Also, the DNR believes the drawdown will also help control the curly -leaf pondweed in depths down to 5 feet (we will still need to acquire a permit for cutting curly -leaf pondweed at depths below 5 feet next spring). • The Peltier Lake Board would like to stress that we have the opportunity to drastically reduce or eliminate the Eurasian Water Milfoil if we do something quickly. If we don't do something this fall/winter, it will spread over the entire lake within the next year or the next several years (based on wind and water conditions). Also, it should be noted that the DNR is working with the Centerville Lake Association to conduct some type of draw - down as well, but as stated above, we will insist that the two lakes remain isolated from each other during and after this draw -down period. • We plan to proceed with the above recommendations based on time constraints and unanimous board approval. If anyone has any concerns or questions, please contact any one of the board members. We are not currently planning on an Association meeting for this issue. However, if enough people want an Association meeting to discuss this, we will organize it. Please see the back of this page for the DNR survey and also attached is the letter sent to the DNR • If you have an email address, please send me your address via e-mail so that we can communicate the Lake Association information and newsletters to all more easily. (gerald.lindner@medtronic.com) Thank you. Jerry Lindner- secretary rage 1 Ot 1 f . .44•44 17. e...ictse,str'' I 4 lls i t kV- w 1. e , t 1 1„. I 0 .„.. 4..Z9 . AL I \ ci lia ■ ft id 4° "-- ft ot: S - . Is S A a 4.• C 1 t 0 N. 1 AL- i r .,,1/4 I 1 , r AL f i N ., 1 a i ..' I / I 9 . ..- /. I k ) , .. i ' • \ _ ___L sar.T., ■ i f • -.. .• . .." , 7 f / . ./..., .• ; : , ‘..._..._. I I r 1 •.. .......- . ... `. ; % 1 . i N ! .1 / - — - • I . 1 I ; 1 I t -.= =._• ! I , $ - at ..-- ===--- I / /- if /I t • 1 . $ / • I I. . 1 l : I . W : 1 fl ! . M A X i \ . 1 I ' i , i I ' I I 4 I 1 ‘, , ./. ... / / •t -, .. • ,•:---zik' ......_.. / 1 ' e . - / ar) - . . . ../ • , ---_. 10 \ \ ... : . . ..." •; • I . wens 1 .... 1 Alm ... ....-- • 1,1 • • e IlL. ( , ' I 4 0 ...-..r. r- -_, _ ..-, e ip • a / 4 r r i CENTERNALLE I. L i i LANE file://C:\WINDOWS\templpeltier.jpg 10/23/00 To: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wendy Crowell St. Paul Water Utility, General Manager, Bernie Bullert CC: Rice Creek Watershed District Anoka County Parks, John VonDelinde, From: Peltier Lake Association Board Wayne LeBlanc, 651- 426 -0168 Gerald Lindner, 651 -407 -0855 Steve Marcello, 651 -426 -4679 Hal Wegner, 651- 407 -8256 Paul Dentz, 651- 429 -1823 Subject: Peltier Lake Drawdown Recommendation for Eurasian Watermilfoil Date: October 6, 2000 On Oct 6, the Peltier Lake Association Board met and decided to recommend a one time draw -down of Peltier Lake over the coming winter (starting in Nov or Dec, 2000 perhaps) to attempt to further control the recently introduced Eurasian Watermilfoil. The Board believes its association members will support the draw -down recommendation and will inform everyone on the lake about the operation. The Board is not happy to make this recommendation because of certain side effects, but feels it seems the best course of action at this time. The following are REQUESTS and FACTORS for this rather drastic action. REQUESTS We request that the draw -down be about 5 feet (we also would like to hear input from the DNR on a draw - down level) as the DNR said they found Milfoil at a 5 foot depth. We realize that the water will freeze deeper but thought a safety margin reasonable. In addition, we seek further control of Curly Leaf Pondweed which lives deeper. It seems the draw -down should be complete in Nov or Dec, 2000. Again, we'd like input from the DNR on the timing of the draw -down. We request that Peltier be drawn down via the dam (as opposed to pumping through Centerville Lake — in general, Centerville lake is trying to avoid getting Peltier Lake water because of nutrients, and also, we think it best the barrier remain in place to prevent Centerville Milfoil from spreading). We also request that, if Centerville Lake is to be drawn down, that it be drawn down by pumping via the St Paul Water pumps and that the barrier between Centerville and Peltier lakes remain in place. We do not want Milfoil from Centerville Lake going all over Peltier Lake. (Observations of Centerville Lake show Milfoil fragments everywhere! In Peltier, the Milfoil is all still underwater and very few fragments can be found on any shores. We request that the aerator be put in place right away, as the water is being drawn down to help maintain the fish population through the winter. To further improve Peltier Lake, we request that a harvest of rough fish be done during the winter. The rough fish should be nicely concentrated in a smaller amount of water. We request that if there is time, a fish count be conducted before and after draw -down to help measure the effect on fish population. Based on this study, if necessary, we request Peltier Lake be restocked with fish after the draw -down. We request that while Peltier Lake is drawn down, that the growing deposit of sediment at the mouth of Clearwater Creek be removed. We request that the barrier between Centerville Lake and Peltier Lake is inspected to be sure it is Milfoil proof. MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Appraical — Turcotte Property Included in your packet is the formal appraisal on the Turcotte duplex provided by Lake State Realty Services, Inc. The appraisal is still being worked on for the vacant agricultural property owned by the Church of St. Genevieve. Also included is a budgetary analysis for the home values of the three remaining single family homes on the old public works block. As we previously discussed, the City would have to pay relocation expenses for any of the homes that the City purchases. An estimate for relocation services is also included in your packets from Wilson Development Services. Lake State Realty Services, Inc. 2140 Otter Lake Drive White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651- 653 -0788 Fax 651 - 653 -1381 E -Mail lakestate@goldengate.net November 2, 2000 Mr. Jim March, City Administrator The City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, Mn 55038 RE: Estimated market value ranges for budgetary purposes of: 1688 Sorel St.; 1680 Sorel St., & 7060 Goiffon St., Centerville Dear Mr. March: Pursuant to your request, we have completed an analysis an estimated fair market value range for the above referenced properties. We have obtained physical data related to the properties from Moore Data, which indicates past listing history, as well as some basic county data. Please note that this does not serve as an appraisal for each individual property, rather mass appraisal techniques similar to that which Assessor's use, were employed. Therefore, it is possible that any of these properties may have a slightly higher or slightly lower value than stated, once a physical inspection and re- analysis would occur. These estimates have been prepared primarily for budgetary purposes only. Please note, that the below values do not include relocation expenses, as compensable under law. Below we will indicate the property, the data obtained, and an estimated value range. PID #: 23-31-22-23-0011 Legal: Lots 8 & 13, Block 7, Village of Centerville Address: 1688 Sorel Street Owner- Occupant: Judy Olson Estimated Value Range: $85,000 to $95,000 This property is a rambler style. According to county data, this property has 776 square feet and was constructed in 1949. There is no basement other than a crawl space. The house is assumed to be in good condition. The assessed market value is $56,000. This property was last purchased in 1981, for an unspecified amount. There was limited market data for a house of this vintage with only a crawl basement, and small amount of square feet. From the data, the subject would likely fall into the $85,000 to $95,000 price range, and possibly, even less. The upper limit of value was established by the sale of two residences at 1982 and 1983 Cardinal Drive in Centerville, which were constructed in 1986, had 1,022 to 1,316 s.f., and a crawl basement. These sold from $102,900 to $105,900 in early 2000. Another similar property at 1966 Robin Lane in Centerville, which sold for $99,700 in 7/00, also supports the upper limit of the value range. This property was constructed in 1985, has 1,116 s.f, c and a crawl basement. Some properties supported the lower end of the value range. A property at 16463 Harrow in Hugo sold for $74,500 in 10/99. This was constructed in 1958 and had only 590 s.f., and no basement, and was on 1.5 acres. Another property which sets the lower limit of value is 14063 Lake Dr. NE, in Forest Lake. This sold 3/00 for $70,000. It was constructed in 1948, has 972 s.f., and is on 1 acre. It was listed as a fixer - upper. The final property which sets the lower limit of value is 8281 Lake Dr., Lino Lakes, which sold for $86,000 in 6/00. This was constructed in 1938, has 768 s.f, and a full basement. This is the most similar property as compared to the subject. PID #: 23- 31 -22 -23 -0012 Legal: Lots 9 & 10, Block 7, Village of Centerville Address: 1680 Sorel Street Owner- Occupant: Paul & Paula Miller Estimated Value Range: $110,000 to $120,000 This property is a rambler style. According to county data, this property has 1,112 square feet and was constructed in 1922. There is a full basement. The house is assumed to be in good condition. The assessed market value is $80,800. This property was last purchased in February, 1997 for $85,000, and prior to that, was purchased in February, 1993 for $58,900. The historic listing data for the subject when it sold in 1997, indicates the following: "This one's nice: cove ceiling, dark woodwork, large lot only 1 block to Centerville Lake. No work stucco siding, excellent condition, newer central air, newly painted and landscaped." Please note, that the subject property was again listed in January, 2000 for $114,900, before the listing was canceled after 20 days. There was limited market data for a house of this vintage. From the data, the subject would likely fall into the $110,000 to $120,000 price range, and based on condition, possibly even more. One similar property is 1981 Main St., Centerville, which sold 2/00 for $126,900. This was constructed in 1955, has 1,212 s.f., and a full basement (with one den finished in the basement). Differences between this and the subject were size (100 s.f), the subject's lack of a fireplace, and one garage stall (subject has one, comparable has 2). The estimated value for the subject from this comparable is $121,000 + / -. Another similar property is 1716 Heritage, in Centerville. This property sold for $131,000 in 4/00. It had 1,187 s.f., was constructed in 1963, and has a full basement. Differences between this and the subject include the year built, the subject's lack of a deck, sauna, and additional bathroom. Additionally, there is a size difference. After accounting for the differences, the subject's estimated value from this comparable is around $118,000 + / -. We have tempered the value for the subject downward slightly to reflect the seller's willingness to sell the subject in January, 2000 for $114,900. Additionally, other data in competing Lino Lakes and Hugo, would support a slightly lower value. More than likely, the subject's value is from $115,00 to $120,000. PID #: 23- 31 -22 -23 -00131 Legal: Lots 11 & 12, Block 7, Village of Centerville Address: 7060 Goiffon Street Owner- Occupant: Terry Shipley Estimated Value Range: $130,000 to $140,000 The subject property is a rambler le. According to county data, this roe has 1,056 square P PAY � tY g ty property rh' uare feet q and was constructed in 1979. There is a full basement, and it is not known if it is finished. The house is assumed to be in good condition. The assessed market value is $96,800. This property was last purchased in 1987 for $69,900. This was more difficult to estimate value, as there are many unknowns about the interior of the subject. We do not know how many bathrooms, or how much basement finish that there is. Again, we have assumed the interior to be in good condition. Therefore, we have not attempted to adjust comparables for differences, and fortunately, there were similar properties that could be located. One similar property is 1716 Heritage, in Centerville. This property sold for $131,000 in 4/00. It had 1,187 s.f., was constructed in 1963, and has a full basement. Another similar property is 7232 Mill Road, Centerville. This property sold for $133,000 in 6/00. This was constructed in 1980, had 1,008 s.f., half of the basement area was finished, and it was located on a heavily wooded lot. It had new flooring throughout. Another property is 1963 72" St., Centerville. This sold for $137,000 in 5/99, and therefore would require an adjustment for the passage of time. This was constructed in 1991, has 1,120 s.f., a newer finished walk -out basement, and newer carpet and interior paint. The final similar property is located at 1568 Peltier Lake Dr. This sold for $140,000 in 5/00. This was constructed in 1982, has 1,104 s.f, and a full unfinished basement. There wooded lot has a lake view to Peltier Lake. With the information known about the subject property, all of these comparables support an estimated value range for the subject from $130,000 to $140,000. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions related to this analysis. Sincerely, A de/ s ulie Rey -S ;r , Certified General -•' -er 31 -OCT -2000 13:57:02 #1 ANOKA COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT }PID # : 233122230011 PROPERTY TYPE: RES HOMESTEAD PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 1688 SOREL ST CITY /TWN : CENTERVILLE ZIP 55038 -9716 SUBDIV LEGAL DESC: CENTERVILLE - VILLAGE OF- LOTS 8 & 13 BLK 7 CENTERVILLE -VILL OF- ACRES 0.00 LIVING AREA: 776 TOTAL AREA : 776 YEAR BUILT : 1949 STRUCTURE : RAMBLER CRAWL OWNER /TAXPAYER INFORMATION OWNER NAME: OLSON JUDITH A ADDRESS : 1688 SOREL ST : CENTERVILLE MN 55038 -9716 TAXPAYER : OLSON JUDITH A !MARKET VALUES TAXES - EFFECTIVE 2000 LAND : 20000 BASE TAX 728.43 BLDG : 36000 TAX W /ASSMT : 728.43 TOTAL: 56000 SALES 'RECENT DATE : 11/01/81 PREVIOUS DATE : RECENT PRICE: PREVIOUS PRICE: INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. Prepared by: Julie Jeffrey- Schwartz on October 31, 2000 r 31 -OCT -2000 13:57 :18 #1 ANOKA COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT IPID # : 233122230013 PROPERTY TYPE: RES HOMESTEAD PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS : 7060 GOIFFON RD CITY /TWN : CENTERVILLE ZIP 55038 -9719 SUBDIV LEGAL DESC: CENTERVILLE LOTS 11 & 12 BLK 7 CENTERVILLE ACRES 0.00 LIVING AREA: 1056 TOTAL AREA : 1056 YEAR BUILT : 1979 STRUCTURE : RAMBLER BASEMENT OWNER /TAXPAYER INFORMATION OWNER NAME: SHIPLEY TERRY L ADDRESS : 7060 GOIFFON RD : HUGO MN 55038 -9719 TAXPAYER : SHIPLEY TERRY L MARKET VALUES 1 TAXES - EFFECTIVE 2000 LAND . 20000 BASE TAX 1392.53 BLDG : 76800 TAX W /ASSMT : 1392.53 TOTAL: 96800 SALES RECENT DATE : 02/01/87 PREVIOUS DATE : RECENT PRICE: 69,900 PREVIOUS PRICE: INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. Prepared by: Julie Jeffrey- Schwartz on October 31, 2000 31 -OCT -2000 13:56:51 #1 ANOKA COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT IPID # : 233122230012 PROPERTY TYPE: RES HOMESTEAD PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS : 1680 SOREL ST CITY /TWN : CENTERVILLE ZIP 55038 -9716 SUBDIV LEGAL DESC: LOTS 9 & 10 BLK 7 CENTER- VILLE; SUBJ TO EASE OF REC ACRES 0.00 LIVING AREA: 1112 TOTAL AREA : 1178 YEAR BUILT : 1922 STRUCTURE : RAMBLER BASEMENT OWNER /TAXPAYER INFORMATION OWNER NAME: MILLER PAUL S & PAULA C ADDRESS : 1680 SOREL ST : CENTERVILLE MN 55038 -9716 TAXPAYER : MILLER PAUL S & PAULA C MARKET VALUES 1 TAXES - EFFECTIVE 2000 LAND : 20000 BASE TAX 949.74 BLDG : 60800 TAX W /ASSMT : 949.74 TOTAL: 80800 SALES , 'RECENT DATE : 02/20/97 PREVIOUS DATE : 02/05/93 RECENT PRICE: 85,000 PREVIOUS PRICE: 58,900 INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. Prepared by: Julie Jeffrey - Schwartz on October 31, 2000 Lake State Realty Services, Inc • APPRAISALS Fie No. 20098 APPRAISAL OF A Duplex LOCATED AT: 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) Centerville, MN 55038 FOR: The City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 BORROWER: Owner: Helen Turcotte AS OF: October 18, 2000 BY: Paul G. Schwartz 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 _4/11111111S Lake State Realty Services, Inc APPRAISALS Fie No. 20098 November 2, 2000 Mr. Jim March The City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 File Number: 20098 Dear Mr. March: In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at: 7073 Centerville Road Or 7071) • Centerville, MN 55038 The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as improved. The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of October 18, 2000 Is: $138,000 One Hundred Thirty -Eight Thousand Dollars The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Sincerely, r' Paul G Schwartz . S hwartz MN. #20002323 Lake State Realty Services, Inc. 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Lake State Realty Services, Inc. Property Description UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 20098 • ProbedyAddresa 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) City Centerville State MN ZtpCode 55038 Legal Description See Attached Addendum. County Anoka Assessor's Parcel No. 233122230008 Tax Year 2000 R.E. Taxes $ 1,214.73 Special Assessments $ 0.00 Borrower Owner: Helen Turcotte Current Owner Helen Turcotte Occupant: ix{ Owner 1 1 Tenant ( 1 Vacant f Pro p erly ri g hts appraised ix) Fee Simple r 1 Leasehold 1 Patted Type ( 1 PUD 1 1 Condominium(HUDNA only) HOA$ Mo. Neighborhood or Project Name Map Reference 66 - Census Tract 502.14 Sale Price $ N/A Dale of Sale N/A Description and $ amount of loan chargeslconcessions to be pail by seder N/A Lender/Client The City of Centerville Address 1880 Main Street, Centerville, MN 55038 Appraiser Paul G. Schwartz Address 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Location ❑ Urban X. Suburban U Rural Predominant Single family housing Present land use % Land use change Butt up El Over 75 °b ❑ 25 -75% ❑Under 25% occupancy 3 FUCCE AGE One Tardy - 85% 13 Not likely ❑ Lindy Growth rate ❑ Rapid 13 Stable ❑ Slow © Owner 85 Low 10 2-4 family 2% ❑ In process Properly values ❑ Increasing © Stable ❑ Declining ❑ Tenant 150 H' h 70 Multi-family - To: Ove a r " Demand/supply ❑ Shodage 1 I nbdat ❑ ppy © Vacard(46°,6) M. Predominant � % +a Commercial 10% _ Marketing time n Under 3 mos. n 3-6 mos. n Over 6 mos. n Vacar (OM 5%) T« 130 1 35 Opn/Pk) 3% Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Neighborhood boundaries and characteristics: See Attached Addendum. 0 0 2 Factors that affect the marketability of the properties in the neighborhood (proximity lo employment and amenities, employment stab$ity, appeal to market, etc): mo See Attached Addendum. m 1 Lo w z Markel conditions in the subject neighborhood (including support for the above conclusions related to the trend of properly values, demand/supply, and marketing lime - - such as data on competitive properties for sale in the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions, etc.): See Attached Addendum. il Project Information for PUDs (If applicable) - • Is the developer /builder in control of the Home Owners' Association (HOA)? U YES U NO Approximate total number of units in the subject project Approximate total number of units for sale in the subject project Describe common elements and recreational facilities: Dimensions 100' x 100' Topography Basically Level Site area 10000 Sq.Ft. Corner Lot U Yes U No She Typical for are? Specific zoning classification and description B - Commercial Shape Square Zoning compliance lla Legal � ❑ Legal nonconforming (Grandfalhered use) U Ille U No zoning Drainage Appears adequate Highest & best use as improved: Inv Present use n Other use (explain) legal conform. use View Average Utilities Public Other Off -slte Improvements Type Public Private Landscaping Typical Electricity © Street Asphalt X ❑ Drveway Surface Poor condition concrete Gas © _ Curb/gutter None ❑ Apparent easements 1 on legal desc. Water ❑ shallow well 46'7 Sidewalk None U Sanitary sewer ❑. ❑ FEMA Spedal Flood Hazard Area U Yea X No San ry r © 3 Street So © ❑ FEMA Zone X Map Date 6/2/99 Stone sewer n Alley None fl n FEMA Map No. 27008001 - Comments (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, special assessments, slide areas, illegal or legal nonconforming zoning, use, etc.): See Attached Addendum. GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT INSULATION No. of Units Two Foundation Concrete Slab No Area Soft. Roof Cncld la No. of Stories One Exterior Walls Wood Carl Space No % Finished 0% Ceding Cncld Type(DeIJAtt.) Attached Roof Surface New Asph. Sh Basement FUJI Ceding Paint. Tin Walls Cncld DI Design (Style) Dbl. Bung. Gutters & Dwnspts. Galt'. Steel Sump Pump Yes Wads Exposed Floor Cncld 2 Existing /Proposed Existing Window Type Casement Dampness None noted Floor Concrete None ❑ w Age(Yrs.) 35 Yrs. Storr/Screens Thermo /Yes settlement None noted Outside Entry None un,a.m 2 Effective AgejYrs.) 20 Yrs. Manufactured House No Infestation None noted Typ. for age O ROOMS Foyer Living Dining Kitchen Den Family Rm Rec. Rm. Bedrooms S Baths Laundry Other Area Sq.Ft. i Basement 851 — u. Levell 2 2 5 2 1,680 O Level2 z 12 a Finished area above grade contains: 9 Rooms; 5 Bedroom s); 2 Bath(s); 1,680 Square Feet of Grose Ching Area 2 INTERIOR Materials /Condition HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP. ATTIC AMENITIES CAR STORAGE: w Floors Carpet - Vinyl /Good Type FWA Refrigerator None ❑ Fireplace(s)Y ❑ None ❑ a Walls Painted /Good Fuel Gas Range /Oven Stairs ❑ Patio ❑ Garage a of cars Trim/Finish Stained /Average condtbnAvq. Disposal Drop Stair ❑ Deck ❑ Attached Bath Floor Vinyl /Good COOLING Dishwasher © Scuttle © Porch ❑ Delached 2 Bath Wainscot Ceramic Tile /Good Central None Fan /Hood ID Floor ❑ Fence ❑ Built -In Doors Solid Core - Hd.Wd. Other None Microwave ❑ Heated ❑ Pool ❑ Carport Average CondfionN /A. Washer /Dryer n Finished n n Driveway 4 Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.): See Attached Addendum. un Condition of the improvements, depreciation (physical, functional, and external), repairs needed, quality of construction remodeling /additions, etc.: See Attached k - Addendum. 5 2 8 Adverse environmental conditions (such as, but not limited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) present in the improvements, on the site, or In the immediate vicinity of the subject property: None noted. Freddie Mac Farm 70 6e0 PAGE 1 OF 2 Frmle Waken KIM sea IM 4m was produced on %BAG oavabprnes RapWFmma eyWm5100p34-8727 Lake State Realty Services, Inc. Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 20098 e ESTIMATED SITE VALUE = $ 30,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST.NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: site value, square foot calculation and for HUD, VA and FmHA, the Dwelling 1,680 Sq. Ft. @ $ 72.50 = $ 121,800 estimated remaining economic life of the property): Li 851 Sq. Ft. @ $ 20.00 = 17,020 The subject's construction cost is obtained from various local o = builders, and Is supported by the Marshal VAluation Service, a Garage/Ca:pod 506 Sq. FI. @ $ 20.00 = 10,120 a national cost estimation guide. The subject's physical a Total Estimated Cost New = $ 148,940 depreciation Is based on the age/life method, with an ut; Leas % Physical Functional External Est. Remaining Econ. Life: - estimated effective aqe of 20 years, and an estimated u Deprecation 20% 1 5% = $ 37,235 physical life span of 60 years. Functional obsolescence of Depreciated Value of Improvements =$ 111,705 5% is noted for the inferior basement ceiling height. Land •As - ie• Value of Site Improvements = $ 5,000 value based on extraction and vacant land sales analysis, as INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH = $ 146,700 based on the subject's commercial zoning. ITEM 1 SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) 7133 -35 Shad Ave. 7776 Lake Drive 1791 Highway 98 Address Centerville Centerville Lino Lakes White Bear Lake ProximyytoSubject gentanniiiil.:1 5 blocks northeast 3.5 miles northwest 7 miles southeast Sales Price $ N/A $ 140,000 .EMigMlia $ 133 600 `agog II $ 138 000 Price/Gross Lit Area $ 0.00 VI $ 70.07 p .;' : '; ,e $ ' 7a41 Pi ; .. e , 3 kE:` $ 70.91 0 s414; fl.3�„ Data and /or Inspection MLS & Driveby MLS & Driveby MLS & Driveby Verification Sources VALUEADIIJSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I .(-)s Aq DESCRIPTION I tp)smixi ms DESCRIPTION L tO$MliWnM Sales or Financing y. Conventional Conventional FHA Concessions ;<: a: ::<`?:;: :.::::;:. <.:<:<;:::. <.: <:N No concessions No concessions No concessions Date of sate/fare TtAMOSSO 5 /00 54 DOM 8/99 9 DOM 4,000 2/00 119 DOM Location Suburban Similar Similar Similar LeaselaldFeeB4le Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site 10000 Sq.Ft. 19800 Sq.Ft. -5,000 Similar 10578 Sq.Ft. View Average Average Average Average Design and Appeal Dbl. Bung. /Avg, Up- Dawn /Avg. Up- Down /Avg. SideXSide /Avg. Oualiyorconstnldien Average Average Average Average Ape 35 Yrs. 23 Yrs. -8,000 30 Yrs. -6,000 26 Yrs. -7,000 u , Condition Good Good Good i Good Y Above Grade Total ( Beim ) Baths Total : O6'm ; Oaths Total i Bhma ; Base Total I BeM : Baas G Room Count 9: 5: 2.00 9: 4: 2.00 8: 4: 2.00 9) 4: 2.00 C Gross Living Area 1,680 Sq.Ft. 1,998 Sg.FI. - 4,800 1,820 Sq.Ft. - 2,100 1,946 Sq.Ft. - 4,000 o Basement &Finished Full None -unit in 10,000 None -unit in 10,000 None 10,000 y Rooms Below Grade Unfinished basement basement a Functional Unity Average Average Average Average E Heating /Cooling Gas FWA Gas FWA Gas HW Gas FWA ra EnergyEflcientltems Typical Typical Typical Typical w Garage/Carport 2 Det. Garage 2 Att. Garage 2 Att. Garage None 3,000 4 Porch, Patio, Deck, None Fireplace -1,500 Fireplace -1,500 Fireplace -1,500 Fireplace(s), etc. Patio -1,500 None None Fence, Pool, etc. None None None None Utilities All by tenant All by tenant All by tenant All by tenant d Net Adj. (total) r C 1 r f)(1 , $ 10,800 t] r [ 1 ;$ 4,400 [X r , $ 500 Adjusted Sales Pnce Gross 21:0 Gtpss 1 i$ , Grp,, q o i s of Comparable �„ Net 7 ;33 i d % $ 129,200 Nets OJ ' , t $ 138,000 .Ni* s Q4k 1. % $ 138,500 Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject property's compatibility to the neighborhood, etc. ): See Attached Addendum. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 Dale, Price and Data N/A N/A N/A N/A Source fa prat sales whin year of appraisal Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or listing of the subject property and analysis of any prig sales of subjed and comparables within one year of dale of appraisal: The subject and all comparables have not sold other than as indicated above. INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH $ 138,000 II l INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH IfAp .table Estimated Markel Rent $ N/A IMo,x Gross Rent Mull . ler N/A = 0 This appraisal is made © 'as is' • subject to the repairs, alterations, inspections or conditions listed below In subjed to completion per plans and spec✓ri:alione. CondtbnsofAppmisal: This appraisal is made as - is. No other special conditions noted. Final Reconcaialion: See Attached Addendum. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the real property That is the subjed of this report, based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and limiting conditions, and market value definition that are staled in the attached Freddie Mac Form 439 /Fannie Mae Form 10048 (Revised Current ). I(WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT, AS OF 10/18/2000 (WHICH IS THE 0 OF INSPECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT)TO BE $ 138,000 . APPRAISER: /•�I (�`(� sUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): Signature a . -�„ J .. )a Signature ❑Did ❑Did Nol Name Paul G. Schwartz as Name Inspect Property Dale Report Signed 11/01/2000 Date Report Signed State Certification # 20002323 State MN State Certification # State Or Slate License # State Or State License # State Freddie Mac Form TO 0-93 PAGE 2 OF 2 Fula Ws Farm 1004 6e9 Tab ram was roamed on the AG Bewbpme,d RapnFam aphis (80012341727 Lake State Realty Services, Inc I Lake State Realty Services, Inc. Supplemental Valuation Section UNIFORM. RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 20098 • ITEM 1 SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.4 COMPARABLE NO.5 COMPARABLE NO.6 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) 1965 Eugene St. Address Centerville White Bear Lake Proximity to Subled sm :s =sa` 7miles southeast Sales Price S N/A $ 146,500 ` `e�`st``''` ... b ,�hr:ry r�. h $ Price/Gross Lk.Area E 0.00 fa $ 64.94 A ' i„ ......._,',.:',.,.:.;' $ 0 u,< <,..,.,.<.sr.` $ UI r Ste Data andlor Inspection MLS & Driveby Verification Sources VALUEADIUSTMENTS r! DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +(4$Aaluimea DESCRIPTION I .f.)Ualutmea DESCRIPTION I .f-lsmiumwr Sales Of Financing gfif vsi #'lr'4 Conventional Concessions #4' taiiNgtatink No concessions Date of Salerfime Tif1r kffli ' <' - €! z i 4/00 60 DOM Location Suburban Similar LeaselwldFeeSirple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site 10000 Sq.Ft. 6,750 Sq.Ft. 3,000 View Average Average Design and Appeal Dbl. Bunq. /Avq. SideXSide /Avg. Wa6ydConslmdion Average Average Age 35 Yrs. 47 Yrs. NMD N CondAan Good Good Above Grade Total i same ; sew Total Bams Bah Total ; 9ama saw Total soma ; Bath z RoomCount 9: 5: 2.00 10 4: 2.00 a Gross Living Area 1,680 Sq.FI. 2,256 Sq.Ft. - 8,600 Sq.FI. Sq.Ft. w Basement &Fi fished Full Full w Rooms Below Grade Unfinished Unfinished 2 Functional Utility Average Average O HealinpICoolini Gas FWA Oil FWA N Energy Efficient Items Typical Typical Garage /Carport 2 Det. Garage None 3,000 O Porch, Patio, Deck, None None Fireplace(s), etc. Fence, Pool, etc. None None Utilities All bytenant by tenants Nel Adi. (total) " ':< ) + [Xj I $ 2,600 JX� + � 7 $ • Adjusted Sales Pace s �sf s s , s t s ' ; AAA 117; 8 U "Yd a9s ttyis �s3'� ¢. .17.94%44;1i % _ omComparable , ;' t htAh 18 $ 143,900 Nei s : s:',. $ :a .,s f„g ; is', $ Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject property's compatibility to the neighborhood, etc. ): ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.4 COMPARABLE NO. 5 COMPARABLE NO.6 Date, Price and Dela N/A N/A Source for prior sales wilhin year of appraisal Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or listing of the subject property and analysis of any prior sales of subject and conparables vain one year of the date of appraisat h 2 W a 5 O U J 4 2 0 r= C O ADDENDUM Borrower. Owner: Helen Turcotte Flle No.: 20098 Property Address: 7073 Centerville Road (8 7071) Case No.: City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 Lender: The City of Centerville Legal Description Lots 5 & 6, Block 7, Village of Centerville, except the West 50 feet thereof, subject to easement of record. Neighborhood Boundaries The subject is located in a portion of Centerville which is near Centerville Lake (two blocks to the west), and one block south of Main Street (the primary north -south thoroughfare). To the immediate north of the subject, on Centerville Road, is the center of the downtown area where there a some commercial establishments, including bar /restaurants, and some office space. To the west of the subject is the public works site, which is an older building in poor repair. Beyond that are older single family residences. To the northwest of the subject is a church. To the southwest is a park. The subject's neighborhood is defined by the following boundaries: Main Street to the north; Progress Road to the east; Center Street to the south; and Centerville Lake to the west. The residential in the area is a combination of older lower- valued residences, and newer residential pocket developments with upper- bracket residences. Neighborhood Market Factors This area has always enjoyed market appeal due to its proximity to both St. Paul and Minneapolis CBO's, the numerous parks in the area, and abundant local shopping and services. Transportation considerations are good, and include proximity to 1 - 35E. I - 35W and 1 - 694 are proximate. There are numerous area county roads, and a grid - style city street layout. Due to the diverse economic base of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, employment is considered stable. Neighborhood amenities are numerous, and include local and regional parks, abundant lakes (with public launching and beach areas), ample shopping and professional services, and close proximity to many public schools. This area has market appeal due to its location, its amenities, and neighborhood qualities. Neighborhood Market Conditions The demand /supply ratio of the subject marketplace is considered stable, with an adequate amount of properties for sale, and potential purchasers. MLS marketing times for properties similar to the subject average typically about 3 months. As the subjects immediate marketplace is primarily single family in nature, there is not an abundant amount of two family dwellings. Due to the high demand of the area due to its market appeal, properties typically sell for something close to the list price. Seller concessions are few to none, and are typically in the form of points. Market values have been steadily increasing, at least equal or greater than the Regional CPI. Site Comments The subject site is typical in terms of size, shape, topography, and landscaping. The site appears to drain appropriately, and there are no slide areas or adversities due to topography. No encroachments noted. The legal description does indicate an easement. While it does not specify the type, it appears to be an overhead p power easement. The presence of this easement does not negatively impact the subject's value, as easements such as these are common and necessary in an urban /suburban marketplace. There are no special assessments noted on the property tax statement as supplied by Moore Data. Additional Features The subject does not have any additional amenities or energy efficient features. The following improvements have been done in recent years: new roof within 2 years; new kitchen appliances within 2 years; new vinyl flooring in kitchens within 3 years; new carpet on rental side within last 2 years; new garage and storm doors within last 1 year; new kitchen and livingroom windows within last 5 years. The subject has a partial basement and a crawl space which measures 10' x 18.5'. All utilities are seperate except one unit pays electric for the well pump and water softner. Condition of Improvements The subject is considered to be in good condition, having sustained an adequate maintenance plan through the years, and recent improvements (as noted above) within the last five years. The subject suffers from physical depreciation. It is estimated that the subject has 33% physical depreciation as based on the age /life method of estimating physical depreciation. Functional obsolescence is noted in the basement, where the ceilings are only 6.5 feet high. No external obsolescences noted. No repairs needed other than replacement of the concrete driveway, which is in poor condition. There has been some inferior bracing done in the garage truss system. Due to the age and overall contributory value of the garage, the bracing is adequate. The subject has average quality construction. Comments on Sales Comparison Primary emphasis for comparable selection was duplexes which sold since 1/1/99, and were located in Centerville, Hugo, White Bear Lake, and Lino Lakes. Due to the lack of data, a wide geographic range had to be used. Also, some of the data transacted over 6 months ago. One comparable has a time adjustment applied of 3% per annum. The remaining comparables have transacted within recent time, and any time adjustment would be nominal, and as such, not measured through the market. The subject is located on a 10,000 s.f. site. This is similar to comparable 2 and 3. Comparable 1 has a significantly larger lot, and a - $5,000 adjustment. Comparable 4 has a smaller lot, and a $3,000 adjustment. No design and appeal adjustment has been applied, although the subject's style /appeal (curb appeal) may be Tess preferred than the comparable's. We have attempted to equate this appeal adjustment within an age line -item, as the differences of appeal are noted by age, with the designed appeal consistent with the subject's and comparable's era of construction. Therefore, each comparable has an age adjustment, with the exception of comparable 4, which while older than the subject, has similar curb appeal. The subject and all comparables are deemed to be in good condition, with no adjustments warranted. Addendum Page 1 of 2 • ADDENDUM Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.: 20098 Property Address: 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) Case No.: City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 Lender: The City of Centerville The subject and all comparables have similar room counts. with the subject having one additional bedroom (a small one). Instead of applying room count adjustments, we have applied size adjustments, based on $15/square foot. The subject has a full basement, which has inferior - height ceilings. Three of the comparables do not have basement areas, or have a portion of the living units in the basement area, and therefore computed in the square footage amount noted above. We have applied a $10,000 credit for the subject's basement area. Comparable 4, also with a basement area, does not have any adjustment applied. The subject's garage is credited at $3,000. Comparables 3 and 4, with no garages, have an adjustment of the same applied. Fireplaces are credited at $1,500. Patios are also credited at $1,500. All comparables, after adjustments, fall into a value range from $129,200 to $143,900. After removing the outliers (single high and low value conclusion), the range narrows to $138,000 to $138,500. We have assigned an estimated value for the subject of $138,000 based on this analysis, with most emphasis placed on the median values. Final Reconciliation The sales comparison approach most assimilates a potential purchaser's expectations and determination of price. The income approach has no reliance, since properties such as the subject are typically owner - occupied with the other unit rented. The subject's current rent is below market, and capitalizing the income stream from this rent would skew the subject's market value downward. The cost approach provides support for the value conclusion via the sales comparison approach. Addendum Page 2 of 2 17 -OCT -2000 13:01:40 #1 • ANOKA COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT IPID # : 233122230008 PROPERTY TYPE: RES HOMESTEAD PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS : 7073 CENTERVILLE RD CITY /TWN : CENTERVILLE ZIP 55038 -9712 SUBDIV LEGAL DESC: LOTS 5 & 6 BLK 7 CENTER- VILLE, EX W 50 FT THEREOF; SUBJ TO E ASE OF REC ACRES 0.00 LIVING AREA: 1680 TOTAL AREA : 1680 YEAR BUILT : 1965 STRUCTURE : DBL BUNGALOW OWNER /TAXPAYER INFORMATION OWNER NAME: TURCOTTE HELEN M ADDRESS : 7073 CENTERVILLE RD : HUGO MN 55038 -9712 TAXPAYER : HELEN M. TURCOTTE MARKET VALUES TAXES - EFFECTIVE 2000 LAND : 28800 BASE TAX 1214.73 BLDG : 57300 TAX W /ASSMT : 1214.73 TOTAL: 86100 SALES 'RECENT DATE : PREVIOUS DATE : RECENT PRICE: PREVIOUS PRICE: INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. Prepared by: Julie Jeffrey- Schwartz on October 17, 2000 F :: SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDUM Ii` Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.: 20098 . PropertyAddress:7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) Case No.: 1 • City: C enterville State MN Zip: 55038 q Cfz :' k ',' 1 ' " 4 e n F,: ' ' FRONT VIEW OF m ,;e. CPU lc' • I _ SUBJECT PROPERTY k Appraised Date:October 18, 200 ? Appraised Value: $138,000 » � : JGdiN i � j- 4 f a pt ' , , 1 ,u. REAR VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ;. ,:,1 , 0 6 till ■ v w `4 I ' ''.I. fit ' t t STREET SCENE III 1 . 3 1 1 I g : p '. , I, f y� � �,�' F . U.�- f , ., J A ; k Y 4 �.' A 'u t � t , y 4 M l . 4 I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS e s Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File Na: 20098 Prope'tyAddress :7073 Centerville Road (8. 7071) Case No.: < City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 : a ' �' r Looking north on Centerville Road at subject. . s . 4 7� c CITY � ��� °' PARK /21 R� y y Looking west on Sorel Street at subject. • r s d, to s �ar P k 9 s•itw+�l' St 4a4! %csi"' • + p t l {y ! " Fb 1 k g ` .1 i Looking west on Sorel Street J 6 ;I y It , from subject. r , ;rte *44' , I E ; • SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.: 20098 PropertyAddress:7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) Case No.: , City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 - g y r > , �, nk ' 1 el s i fi %' ; o - G arage ae r m a *r Y i ( _ ' -- :1 — 1 ��..- Interior of garage — inferior bracing. f { a iJ 15 as g _Et !slop "11- 7073 Unit kitchen .i I 01 ; 1 ' f a 44 .;74 Vi `j • I 5} ,� t y ,..�� SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ac Y-'; Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.: 20098 ` Property Address :7073 Centerville Road (8, 7071) Case No.: City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 7073 Unit living room I" ., 1 1 • ' i 1 . I V i : I V 1 t t I f , • 7073 Unit bedroom ro 'My rw ' t1 �y51rt ti' a� 7 , t j •. 4 - ' rs v ' 1 ,a f"' �S L 1 t t . : 1 f .�' 1 C r 1 :,--,2 1 i a , +r 1 i '� ., h �s° s n i's ,V fra $f z • E.: ^ S. . +'.j%1 1 : y. • P r "�"_g.4410' t mot'` y ny, 1 11, tt , re f . -- -c- fir} d)::.;v `¢s `', ` .. `.. ? ,, �i"ts.,f T ct sv . 1 ,. .1 ,. q � r 1' , �, 7073 Unit bathroom t4 - n — ' C. I a d4 ,^ t I , t i � i s 'k ( sJ C„ irtilli , Cfi'4 �� , Y 4Y T A a e. y 1 , SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS File No.: Case No.: i: Borrower: r ;Property Address: ' City: State: Zip: •} • 7071 Unit kitchen I ., r�T . J II i fa 1 is l t r.,,x. I )4U . I ° t 7071 Unit livingroom }e 1 }1 I$ `� f r ' o- Ii I I.n i 1 . , Y t d° E1 f /. 40 i' 4 }r t� i 3 t . A I 1 /... IC 4 .. i ce 4 d 7071 Unit bathroom • �L r �5 C 4 l I c ' -ISS.f {t t • r- i ce, , 5 ' 1 ° ' - r I � y �� �tT Axw. . 1 . ,. i6 j d Y i. 7 1 ' t L icy am lm wLll _ a. 1 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Borrower: File Address: Case k 'city: . State: Zip: » »\< >. . . . . . . . . \ s y „4-. \/ \ y — � y =.. / � � ~— w 2, . .«. >< « d � ,ue basement - -.� ... _ :. \ . I /. : . . y. g\ .. } § « ( §F 2 \ © ~«: I :�G j > ! . / . � . m. \ _ xZI � G y \ = i « � : q r R 4 e O � � i j 1 F � � \ j � 4 Comparable Sales Map T '" Pndeaa LAke f �C S ( ..., j T{ +arable 2 �► l'ePier• L . s� 86W - - -' "---' .: Geroge 0 a L<rke y T11T2 t aeE ( X 11 „,r vae iillaP W;Lake l "� ` i L `� 1 t. ._ i CO aP I able 1 �„ ; .4 t . � • . i . r� e� et ttidle ite ill 1 �" .1 1..�a r . 1 a rif k ake Lake d E ( ' C lhernranl nke { ... i 11/a- Reshanae LM } t , ' + t kfmdrLnke q R A _ t11 �.. i i s, .._j C_. �' ( 7 a 1.7 1, Y �wL�k�. m.L-�.Y 1 ,...,.... /....„ r ,1 a� ( t .l N L.'� i....._..L. .oe i r" �.s.. .,.v.... - ' _ A ,eeh lake _ , ` 36E w . ,.. .. vs l_._ Poyt Bake , • -E l Wlkbl.ake ( L \ D t k LLake ( *{ - ). ),,,, 1 North Oaks 1� _ x..._. 1 4 i T \ I Cha J s t ' 1 ] e l F 7'i lak 1'"' " ` �J ( % Pietism, Lade - '� Black Lake a6E l amry <m a P' Ci t I@ ' 0 �` a ' .I I.. t.. N olfh l aics i utileInb2.c.. . (` ' ' m ` a....l . ' .. 3 _...__ .._..l y -1) 3 1 1 F YY e E R' ! II O ..2 1 a`a!/ y B »6h1. w, is " � , 0 .' l-'--. �F t . p 0mparable3 t I o(i amp ._.... ,s, , r ' '''4,-' :,F e , i ' &fan'Lake C ._ � � . _.._. No i i .#T i Gnv r J Be v. • t V ii 'ids He P t Gem =Lk j —� } .l 1 ^•; Gra ss Lake 33 f' E l7 1 ' _ ` - ^ ._ IslandlaF.B 691 ! • £ _: _.._.........� .. ® "rdiganJunction .. - kii- if 1 Y L _._.. , � H.ffmans afl � '� .. _ , + �" l.�ya� e, S> 'n fse -USA d 366 t F y i . x _ . , 4 'l_a t v ' r. COMPARABLE PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDU -,1 t l Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.. 20098 4,•; : PrgpertVAddress:7073 Centerville Road (& 7071) Case No.: $;:' ` City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 I fib! nka p n% , . ` - r 4S iL Itic i sr �2t 11 e , , ' 41 A � ;4 „1 x , COMPARABLE SALE #1 1 s Js A' .5 . ' t !t; , ar •'” �rf I gr ff . s ; # in 5= 3 � 'v 4f 7133 -35 Shad Ave. Centerville y Sale Date: 5 /00 64 DOM k Sale Price: $ 140,000 1 I l 1� s x .E___I � 7 k x4 } 4 f f n Y t , - ' $$ �� - 4 v ` t '''+ �„1 � ,,;„?*”.f h�rt r y _ r 4 ? n 1 I r i 1� fr ° 1dv„^ j YI� L t G r Al * lig" t ,v : iL K 1 }Y j'_ ♦ . Ll+r to.; C , 4 ; -0, I W,: t o F ..t, { 9 }ffi '1 di @ : < . 0 , * a + „ ' ' COMPARABLE SALE #2 r Mb . ie `�; , kr ' "K. E ..i iA „ �y 'f v' ,`+,q '4‘ ,, r ,` 'r°" i q^x e' J <, y * [ s -' 1gvr, � ' 7776 Lake Drive � f° ' "� i � � ?' Lino Lakes Sale Date: 8/99 9 DOM —— 1 F, �',,_ Sale Price: $ 133,800 r �`c'v "' �, �.,. tl e u -_ ' 'L 1 �r W. qq � x rid. .. s • ,. e Y"FN , ,}tr. R o L. 1 a wle+, 4 i ] x ,' a S ' , , COMPARABLE SALE #3 1791 Highway 96 a. ,x ` i White Bear Lake • Sale Date: 2/00 119 DOM ;, Sale Price: $ 138,000 1 el ' F ® r F ' .. = • r' °-B ^aY`4 aTs. tr COMPARABLE PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDUM Borrower: Owner: Helen Turcotte File No.: 20098 Property Address: 7073 Centerville Roa {& 7071) Case No.: 1 , ` City: Centerville State: MN Zip: 55038 r 31.;; E, ';. t A c F l i m y,.A4 Y a ., e t r T 1 <r r h 0 , S{ �,, r � b r e .? i . 4 ➢ °n 4 n [ �Y W4 .. , - !-".'� 1 5. 1 , ,: t a l A + V b, ' n k it ti ,i - B� s pa � ,. z r x � 3 t n. "' . t G S 1 Y - [' Ah mu ,, . COMPARABLE SALE #4 '' � 4 t'2 R a `Y 'ice � ' � .: ?a x to ✓ F , " 1965 Eug. r, l ,' ' , " ,. W hite Bear Lak � � r *� '', r7�I j � Sale Date: 4 /00 60 DOM � U � \ Sale Price: $ 148,500 r t �L i f+ ltd'. -I a0 i 'i yl ._ �- ," L ^; '" y y� - �_'. E v *? be , r �e F -. c .a f .{ ,.J s . e . ,. , a!t C 16.' x,,,... '' .. _ COMPARABLE SALE #5 Sale Date: Sale Price: $ COMPARABLE SALE #6 • Sale Date: Sale Price: $ — Hs No. 20098 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions' granted by anyone associated with the sale. 'Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily Identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the Appraiser's judgment. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc. ) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc. ) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true.and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender/client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated ) to anyone other than the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent. The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Form 439 6 -93 Page 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 100413 6 - Fie No. 20098 r ' APPRAISERS CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: 1. I have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation. If a significant item in a comparable property is superior to , or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from appraisal report 9 Y Y g m the app p and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 3. I stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form. 4. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 5. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. 7. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report, unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables In the appraisal report. I further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. 1 personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any Individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item In the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, I will take no responsibility for it. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 7073 Centerville Road (& 7071), Centerville, MN 55038 APPRAISE SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only If required) Signature: i �,.,..P .. Signature: Name: Paul G. Schwartz Narne: Date Signed: 11/01/2000 Date Signed: State Certification #: 20002323 State Certification #: or State License #: or State License #: State: MN State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: 8/01 Expiration Date of Certification or License: ❑ Did ❑ Did Not Inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6 -93 Page 2 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6 -93 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS PAUL G. SCHWARTZ Certified General Appraiser EDTICATION General Lakewood College, various college course Course I, II, III, and IV (Real Estate Sales), Prosource Brown Institute, Electronics Various computer- related courses (main frames, personal computers and networks) Appraisal Appraisal 101: Introduction to Appraisal Principles I, Prosource Appraisal 102: Introduction to Appraisal Principles II, Prosource Appraisal 103: Introduction to Appraisal Practices I, Prosource Appraisal 104: Introduction to Appraisal Practices II, Prosource Appraisal 105: Introduction to Appraisal Standards and Ethics Appraisal 204: How to Perform FHA Appraisals within HUD Guidelines, Prosource Appraisal 205: Residential Appraisal Regulatory and Legal Update, Prosource Appraisal 206: Case Studies in Residential Appraisal Problem - Solving, Prosource Appraiser's Guide to Residential Construction, Prosource Investment Property Appraisal, Prosource Investment and Financial Analysis, Prosource Houses from the Ground Up -- Part 1, Prosource The Business of Real Estate, Prosource Real Estate Investment and Taxation, Prosource Investment Cash Flow Analysis, Prosource Numerous Seminars Several Real Estate Sales/Brokerage Courses EXPERIENCE Vice President, Lake State Realty Services, since 1991 -- perform appraisal and brokerage services Real Estate Appraisers License since 1991 Real Estate Sales License since 1992 General contracting experience and some property management experience IJCFNSF$. COMMISSIONS. MEMBERSHIPS /AFFILIATIONS Certified General Appraiser License, Minn. #2002323 Real Estate Sales License Member of St. Paul, Minnesota, and National Association of Realtors Member of the Multiple Listing Service Member of the National Association of Realtors Appraisal Section Member of the National Association of Real Estate Appraisers (NAREA), CREA designation Member of the Minnesota Association of Professional Real Estate Appraisers (MAPA) Member of the International Right of Way Association (IRWA) Received Hammer Award for reinventing a federal government that is more efficient and costs less from Vice President Al Gore (1999) PROPERTY TYPES APPRAISED Appraisal experience in metropolitan and out -state Minnesota in numerous counties, cities, and towns. Clients include the Government (Federal, State, and Local units), lenders, insurers, attorneys, and private clients. Residential: single family, town homes, condominiums, mobile homes, twin homes, and multi - family of all types and sizes Rural: crop land, farmsteads with all buildings Land: residential, residential subdivision analysis, wetlands, rural, lakeshore Commercial: medical clinics, offices, investment, retail Industrial: warehouse, light and heavy industrial, manufacturing Other: special use including post offices, U.S. Customs Border Stations, Reservation- owned properties, right -of -way (eminent domain), railway terminals, lease analysis, and various others lima WILSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES D1 ° "Providing Acquisition and Relocation Services" October 18, 2000 Jim March City Administrator 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 -9794 Dear Mr. March: At the request of Julie Jeffrey Schwartz, the following is a proposal to provide acquisition and relocation assistance to your City. Lake State Realty and Wilson Development Services have had the opportunity to work together on multiple projects in the Centerville area, such as Forest Lake, North Branch, Fridley, Columbia Heights and Chisago County. We are confident in our ability to move your project ahead in a straight forward, fair and an economically prudent way. Company Background Daniel Wilson, Principal I have thirty years of experience which provides me with a unique perspective and practical working knowledge of the acquisition and relocation process and respective regulations. I have an understanding of the fundamental intent of the Act, as well as the current interpretation of the regulations. I have appeared as an expert witness in condemnation and relocation appeals, as well as a training leader, for the Department of HUD and NAHRO seminars. Additional Staff Michele Kaltved, Associate Michele Kaltved, a licensed realtor has been with Wilson Development Services for five years. Ms. Kaltved specializes in owner and tenant occupied residential displacements. She has been particularly successful in relocating the "difficult to house ". Ms. Kaltved has attended MNDOT's residential and advanced residential training seminars. Penny Rolf, Associate Penny Rolf is a licensed realtor and appraiser. Ms. Rolf has successfully handled commercial and residential displacements. Ms. Rolf's appraisal experience has made her an effective property acquisition negotiator, as well as being very skillful in determining replacement housing. 510 Chestnut Street, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318 Office: (952) 448 -4630 • Fax: (952) 448 -4676 Email: wilsondev155 @cs.com We are known for ability to handle difficult displacements. Clients are confident that we are in compliance with the Uniform Act, while abiding by the least cost approach. We use our expertise and depth of experience to solve problems, rather than increasing claims. Attached is a list of current and recent clients and references for your review. Scope of Services We provide all acquisition and relocation services necessary to successfully complete the project. We would provide these services in compliance with the `Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federally Assisted Programs ", Public Law 91 -646, Number 49 C.F.R., Part 24, codified and published by the Federal Register, March 2° 1990. This is the Federal Law adopted by Minnesota Statutes 117.52. The following identifies typical acquisition and relocation assistance provided by Wilson Development Services. (a) Property Acquisition 1. Maintain file on each parcel to be turned over to the Agency at completion. 2. Document all verbal conversations with a written memo. 3. Coordinate activities of engineers, appraisers, and attorney and agency staff. 4. Review written real estate appraisals and review appraisal. 5. Prepare and present written letter of intent to acquire property. 6. Prepare resolution establishing just compensation. 7. Prepare written offer to buy. 8. Negotiate acquisition within applicable rules, regulations, and laws. 9. Provide documentation for any deviation in acquisition terms or conditions from original officer. 10. Obtain signed purchase agreement or easement from property owner. 11. Obtain property abstract or title certificates from property owner for review by City Attorney or Title Company. 12. Coordinate closing between property Owner, Agency and Title Company. (b) Residential Relocation 1. Maintain relocation file on each displacee to be turned over to the Agency at completion. Copies of all letters to displacees initiated by us will be forwarded to the Agency. 2. Meet with Property owners and displacees to explain procedures, program benefits and responsibilities under the Uniform Act. 3. Determine eligibility for relocation assistance. 4. Prepare preliminary relocation budget after initial contact. 5. Prepare General Information Notice to all displacees. 6. Prepare Notice of Relocation Eligibility. 7. Establish comparable housing, prepare corresponding notice and make site referrals. 8. Prepare 90 -Day and 30 -Day Notice to Vacate. 9. Prepare moving specifications and secure competitive bids. 10. Prepare all claims and provide proper documentation as required by the Uniform Act. 11. Inspect replacement sites and determine if Section 8 Housing Quality Standards have been met. 12. Maintain a log of all contacts with property owners and displacees. 13. Certify that the amount of benefits due are correct, so that payment can be authorized. 14. Meet with staff/attorney on a timely basis to maintain communication and keep staff and boards informed of each individual claim. Project Workload Acquisition 3 Single Family Residences 1 Duplex (assume the owner occupies V2 the house) 1 Church Land Exchange Relocation 4 Owner Occupant 1 Residential Tenants Cost of Services The cost of acquisition and relocation consultant services needs to be considered in the context of total settlements. First, we see ourselves as an alternative to the condemnation process and are known for our ability to reach negotiated settlements, thus avoiding expensive and risky court battles. Second, we use our experience and expertise to settle difficult problems, rather than throwing money at a problem in order to solve it. The cost of our services can be significantly influenced by factors beyond our control, such as displacements of persons with credit problems or criminal records. We would propose a time and materials contract based upon the following charge rate: Year 2000 Charge Rates Principal $75.00/hour Associates $65.00/hour Secretary $40.00/hour Mileage $0.35 /mile The City could budget $9,400.00 as the total cost of our services, calculated as follows: Acquisition 4 parcels @ $800.00 each $3,200.00 1 Church Exchange at $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Relocation 4 owner occupant at $800.00 each $3,200.00 1 tenant occupant at $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal: $8,900.00 Mileage: $ 500.00 Total Estimate for Services: $9,400.00 The total cost of the acquisition and relocation assistance may be reduced to the extent that all acquisitions and relocations proceed at the same time. ,• • Timing We are available to assist you in the acquisition and relocation process upon acceptance of our proposal. Again, we are confident in our ability to assist you with a successful project. I sense that our community development activities structuring public private partnerships and my own extensive experience working with church boards would be of benefit to you. Please call with any questions or if you need additional clarification. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Sincerely, Q cs A.Q _ Daniel H. Wilson Principal • ATTACHMENT TO CITY OF CENTERVILLE ACQUISITION & RELOCATION PROPOSAL PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIENCE Wilson Development Services, previously named Wilson Management Service, has provided acquisition and relocation assistance since 1981. Prior to that, Dan Wilson provided acquisition and relocation services to the Cities of Waconia, LeSueur and Minneapolis as a staff person dating back to 1970. The following is a list of current and recent clients who have utilized our acquisition and relocation services: Client List School Districts - Austin School Delano Grand Rapids Farmington Minneapolis Forest Lake Moorhead Fridley LeCenter Golden Valley Non Profit Agencies Grand Rapids Lutheran Social Services Hopkins Perspectives East LeSueur Wayside House, Inc. Maple Grove National Handicap Housing Monticello Institute Inc. North Branch Eden Program Osseo Re -Entry Services Rogers Highway Dept. Rush City Chisago County Sauk Rapids Scott County Savage Hennepin County Waconia City/HRA's Watertown Scott County HRA Wyoming Carver County HRA Zimmerman Austin Federal Agency Belle Plaine US Dept. of Interior Buffalo Private Entities Brooklyn Center Larkin, Hoffman, Champlin Daly & Lindgren Chaska Real Estate Equities, Inc. Columbia Heights MSP Real Estate, Inc. Crystal 0 , REFERENCES FOR DANIEL H. WILSON D.B.A. WILSON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Larry Blackstad Hennepin County 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 612 - 348 -5859 Jim Kerrigan Econ. Development Director City of Hopkins 10101St St. Hopkins, MN 55343 612 -935 -1834 Ann Norris Community Development Director City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr. N Crystal, MN 55422 612- 531 -1000 Julie Frick Executive Director Carver County HRA 500 Pine Street, #300 Chaska, MN 55318 612 448 7715 Jeanne Andre Assistant City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 612 - 593 -8014 Il i MEMO DATE : November 3, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Jim March RE : Notice of Substandard Building —7121 Centerville Road I have received a petition from the neighboring property owners to 7121 Centerville Road. They are concerned with the appearance and upkeep of the property. I am in the process of creating an itemized notice of substandard building. This notice will be available for distribution at the meeting, along with pictures of the property in question. Northeast Metro Trail Plan (Draft) ) October 4, 2000 Centerville Park and Recreation, 651-429-3232, Wayne LeBlanc, 651 -426 -0168 Centerville, Lino Lakes, Hugo, Anoka Parks, Anoka County, Washington County, Ramsey County, and the surrounding Metro area benefit from the trail plan in Figure 1. The trails connect the Hugo trail that will eventually go to Duluth to other trails connected to the Chain of Lakes Park and south to Otter Lake Park in a future recreational park at Birch Street and Centerville Road. The trails in and around Center are desi to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle routes to parks, commercial areas other nails homes an pl ace s of interest. In addition loops in the design enhance flexibility and appeal. The purpose of this plan is to 5 coordinate the participating d s organizations. Please contact 3 " t Centerville or Wayne LeBlanc to � .. � � �,� coordinate actions. PS` ; Y om ' , -aB O Sep 25, 2000, people l €a l repre sent ing Centerville, Hugo, Lino L akes , Anoka County Parks, St Paul n County r sr rc Water and Washingto . v Parks met and agreed to pursue this lan. - s H i te Considerations for particular areas ta d ` ' are identified with the large letters um and described below. ` .. 1 n t 4' _ ti: ,. n s . P Area A: :ant to Pedestrian p �, Bridge at 35E ` � � Hugo, Washington County, Lino Lakes and Anoka County plan to i ®° 7 coordinate the route of a trail from `�' the existing Hugo trail to a proposed 4 N ' ti j , pedestrian bridge at Area B, where i1 35E and Clearwater Creek intersect. With Hugo's planned reconstruction of the road from Area AtoH ug o in Figure 1. Trail Plan the next con le inc � P Y f it follows ears naturall the . The o the g`a o y — urgency here is to include the trail in the forthcoming reconstruction. Hugo is also looking at the potential of providing an attractive trail along Clearwater Creek all the way to Bald Eagle Lake. Area B: Pedestrian Bridge at 35E Area B was chosen for a pedestrian bridge to cross 35E because there are plans in Hugo to provide a trail along Clearwater Creek and because it would more easily accommodate pedestrian traffic than at the automobile intensive freeway interchange at 35E and County Road 14 (Frenchman Road). The urgency here is to control development in the surrounding area on both sides of the free wya now to Qrovide a route for the pedestrian bri dge. At the meeting everyone thought this appears feasible. There may also be a possibility to request funds for a pedestrian bridge in 002. A small section of land west of 35E to 20 Ave needs to be coordinated by Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Anoka County. 1 Area C: Commercial Trail Area C is within Centerville and is currently zoned commercial. A trail through this area will accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and provide a route to either Main Street to the north or a route to parks to the west by going through area J. Area D• Main Street Area D is Main Street, well traveled by automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Pressure for a pedestrian route from downtown Centerville to the developing commercial area by 35E will grow exponentially and something will need to be done to protect pedestrians and cyclists. The Minnesota Design Team suggested a phased approach here with areas marked off for pedestrians and bicycles in the interim, and complete separation from automobile traffic in the future. If Main Street is redone, perhaps a trail could be included without affecting existing property owners. If one side had to be chosen, the north side of Main Straet better fo r a trail as there is vacant property, a strip mall aPP� P P�Y� P , and a convenience store on that side of the street. The one house that is close to the street on the north side will likely become commercial. The urgency here is that commercial property is being developed along Main Street and with proper planning, a separate trail could be built in sections as the developments were done. The current supposed trail at the strip mall was not built to any specs and will have to be rebuilt. Area E: "Sunset Park" Overlooking Centerville Lake The Minnesota Design Team saw this area as the "Town Square" of Centerville. A park and pier on Centerville Lake could coexist with a circular trail around Centerville Lake. The sketch in Figure 2 shows one idea The trail continuing around Centerville Lake also fits with the Anoka County Park plan. The urgency here is to acquire property when it comes up for sale. j ▪ } s y'$"x l+.ac { t t yr 5 _ J - t'. R4-F h A' 3 l+ t h. ▪ `k A�ykP p 2 g y..' 4 3 k t V y . y. -P un a £a Y cRC R i t ,. . ^ a . �. # " w +c*'x ^xw 'n c �* 9, xc Th - .. x$J Ord � �i Figure 2. Area E, Main Street and Centerville Lake (Design Team Sketch) 2 4.. r Area F: Circular Trail around Centerville Lake The best route for a circular trail around Centerville Lake is on the south side of County 14. Property in and around Waterworks may soot} be developed. other property just south of Mound Trail on County 14 may also be developed at some point, and when that happens, a trail could be designed and built with the development. The urgency here is to establish the specifications for the trail so that development of the areas is done consistent with the inclusion of a trail as shown. Area G: Wargo Nature Center Anoka County Parks already has a plan to construct a trail from area H to the Wargo Nature Center in phase 2 of their park plan. Area H: Trail Connections Area H shows the Anoka Chain of Lakes trail connecting to Lino Lakes to the west and eventually connecting to other trails that will run throughout the Metro area and beyond! Area I: Lamotte Park to Main Street. and St Paul Water Properly The largest park in Centerville is Lamotte Park located in Area I. A connection from Lamotte Park to Anoka Park has just been completed and is in heavy use. To complete the Centerville Lake loop, a trail is needed from Lamotte Park to Main Street. Just to the north of Lamotte Park is church property which offers potential for a trail off the road. In addition, the streets by the church offer potential to be closed off to auto traffic offering a trail free of automobiles (in addition to a nice pedestrian space). At Area I, the St Paul Water Utility has property that may come up for sale in a couple years. This area, being right across the street from Lamotte Park would make a great lakeshore park and pier, possibly jointly owned by Centerville and Lino Lakes. Area J: Centerville Trail South A current easement through Area J is perfect for a trail to be constructed as this land is developed. A trail from I to Centerville Road was just completed. This would complete a loop through the heart of Centerville. Area K. L. and M: Water Utility Easement Trail to Future Lino Lakes Recreational Park Area K has a St Paul Water Utility easement that could provide a trail between Lamotte Park and a future Lino Lakes Recreational area at Area L. St Paul Water Utility would allow such a trail with certain conditions. This trail could continue south on the Water Utility easement to parks and trails to the south, and the advantage is the trail is separate from the road. A wildlife area offers potential at Amelia Lake, in addition. Summary As a follow on to the Minnesota Design Team visit in Centerville, a "Trails, Parks, and Lakes" committee formed and considered numerous alternatives. The plan described is the result of a year's worth of citizen discussions and participation and another year of coordination with surrounding communities. The plan fits well with the existing plans of surrounding communities and governmental units. Centerville, Hugo, Lino Lakes, Anoka County, and Washington County are poised to provide a fabulous trail system that would benefit everyone. Contact the City of Centerville, 651- 429 -3232 or Wayne LeBlanc, 651 -426 -0168 for further details. 3 60NES1ROO KOSENE ANDERLLK3 ir 0 1030131/ IU /31.//1.1U 14:,0 ty : /Ve NV :ULU • •oMamN, Samna, Andorilk matt A•sl•tol. Inc. la an AINrmPtla Action /Equal Opportunity /IA Bones • L roo Employer and Empleyaa Owcl•tl ■ Principals Otto G. Bnnerboo. PE. • MRMA L. W WIA PE. • barn R. Look. PE • - itOSene tobert 0. Stlmnlrht. P.K. • .Iq,y A. oeutdo.% PS. A nderiik 6r SanM Con.ultanN: Hobart VA Rosen, P.E. • l•opb C. Andedil. PE. • rncnard E. Tantr. P.E. • • Susan M, Peer". t.KA A ssociates Awoel•to PruNIpPW Nownrd A. Sanford PS. • KPlth A Gordon. PE • Robert R. Prefer:v. Pk • Renard W. Fester. P.E. • David 0 Loll•eta. Pal • Robert C. !WINK. A,SA, • Mark A. Nensort, AE • Engineers & Architects MILnnnI t RntRnwnn. PE. • Ted Niblick PE. • Kaman P Anderson, PE. • Mark N. Ronk PP• • 0010 A, Banntr o. M K,A. • Shinty P WIIIIPmaj,, Rt. LS. • Agnes M Ring. MH,A. • Akan Kirk Schmidt, Pt GPIIan St Paul, Sc Cloud, Rochata ant WiEmar W4 • Mt *akla, Shift wwwbontwroa.cnm October 30, 2000 Jim March City of Centerville • 1880 Main Street - Centerville, MN 55038 • Re: 1760 Center Street - Driveway Restoration Centerville, MN Our File 616 -Oen • Dear Jim: We have inspected the damaged bituminous driveway on the south side of Center Street. As requested by the City Council, a cost estimate to repair the driveway has been prepared. The repair will involve saw cutting the 16.5' wide pavement at the curb and at a point 16' south of the curb. This area will be excavated to a depth of 8" and the old material hauled away. The sub -grade will be compacted and new aggregate base material placed and compacted. A 2 -inch thick bituminous pavement will be constructed to match the elevation of the existing street and driveway. The estimated cost to patch this 16' X 16.5' area of the driveway is $1,200.00. •ii Call me at 651-604-4868 with questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIX It ASSOCIATES • Thomas W. Peterson TWP:crw • copy: Paul Palzer !i Dan Schluender • Il i 1 %I 233s West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 . 651 -636 -4600 • Fax: 651 - 1an • szyx c9t, Anoka County MW 2 2000 Department of Parks & Recreation PARKS Bunker Lake Boulevard NW • Andover, Minnesota 55304 Telephone (612) 757 -3920 • FAX (612) 755 -0230 John K. VonDeLinde Director MEMO TO: Gty of Blaine - Jim Peterson, Parks Director City of Centerville - Jim March, City Administrator - City of Circle Pines - Jim Keinath, City Administrator City of Columbia Heights - Ken Anderson, Community Development Director City of Coon Rapids - Bruce Thielen, Parks and Recreation Director City of Fridley - Jack Kirk, Parks and Recreation Director City of Hilltop - Ruth Nelson, City Clerk City of Lexington - Mike Delmont, City Coordinator City of Lino Lakes - Rick DeGardner, Parks and Recreation Director City of Spring Lake Park - Barbara Nelson, City Administrator FROM: Ron Cox, Park Planner DATE: October 31, 2000 SUBJECT: City Trail Plans Meeting in Coordination with Anoka County Parks and Recreation Trail Plans The Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department would like your city to participate in a lunch meeting at the Bunker Hills Activity Center on Wednesday, November 29 from 11:00 a.m to 1:00 p.m. This meeting is to get your input into a coordinated trail plan network throughout the county. By getting together with the county park staff each of your communities has the opportunity to share with each other and county staff any existing, proposed and future trails and how they could connect to the proposed Anoka County Regional Trail corridor plan or other adjacent community trails. By developing a coordinated trail plan together, the public demand for more trails for walking, biking, in -line skating, and other non - motorized trail usage can be met In the future. This is the second meeting with local communities. Another was held two weeks ago with north Anoka County communities for their input into trails plans within their cities /townships. After these two meetings It Is hoped that a trail network plan can be developed that will serve all of Anoka County and adjacent counties and communities. You will be able to review and comment on the total county trail plan In early 2001. Although the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department has received numerous trail and park plans from many of you, please bring any trail plans you may have to make sure we have the most recent ones. The county park staff will supply a current regional /county trail map that was Included In and recently upgraded from the Anoka County Parks and Recreation 2020 Vision Plan. This trail plan shows possible regional corridors through the county to connect to adjacent counties. Please try to send representatives from your community to help all of us determine a comprehensive trail network In Anoka County for the present and future. I would like to hear from you as soon as possible if your city representatives will be attending the November 29' lunch meeting. Complementary pizza and beverage will be served about noon during the meeting. Please call Ron Cox at 763- 767 -2865 to let me know if and how many will be attending from your community. Ron Ron Cox C cc: John VonDeLinde, Director of Parks and Recreation Nick Eoloff, Landscape Architect Jon Oyanagi, Park Operations Manager Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer rage Ioft Jim March To: WIR Subscribers Subject: Week in Review Week in Review October 27, 2000 Building Permits this Period = 8 Building Permits YTD = 164 New Homes Year to Date = 44 *****..********************A****, t*** * **************,rt. * *.***�*Itint*****Irk***** *** * * *** * The Planning and Zoning Commission has had two workshops and has two additional workshops scheduled in regards to creating a new sign ordinance. It is expected that this ordinance will be completed and ready to present to Council by the end of November. We got a lot accomplished at our last meeting. * The Park and Recreation Committee held a successful informational meeting last night. The Council Chambers were filled to capacity by those interested in providing input on a BMX park, skateboard park or in -line skating park. The committee is continuing to work on a solution for this demonstrated need. * The Lion's Haunted House is operating tonight and tomorrow evenings from 6:00 -9:00. We have hayrides and free refreshments. A bonfire is also operating each night with the community-wide bonfire scheduled for Saturday night. Bring a lawn chair and enjoy some small town fun! * The Centerville website has been completely updated with current information. We are also planning to place approved minutes on the website as soon as possible. We have been experiencing some technical difficulties with our community access channel. We had Alpha Video come out to address the problem. We are planning to run the two candidate tapes every hour on the hour up to election day. We plan to rebroadcast Council meetings after the elections. We only have two tapedecks available for playback, so we are limited in the number of tapes we can playback over the system at one time. We are ordering a new supply of quality tapes to be used for recording meetings and events. The ones that we have are old and are producing a Tess than desired end product. We will order the tapes through the media center to receive a more favorable price on these tapes. * The trail was paved this week in Acorn Creek Park. It turned out great. Arcade Asphalt has always done a good job for the City. * The County Bank is scheduled to open on Monday. Our local businesses are getting very active right before winter starts. New landscaping is being completed in front of the Northern Forest Products building. Goetz Landscaping is doing the job and is matching the landscaping to the theme that they have in front of their own building. It looks great! 10/27/00 Automotive Driveline has picked up a building permit for a 4000 square foot addition to their building. The public hearing is set for the tax abatement hearing for the proposed 25,000 square foot expansion to the Northern Forest Products building. * 1 was having lunch today with my wife and daughter at Embers. 1 saw Mary Capra and Lori Dorn from EDC drop off a plant for their Open House. After Mary and Lori walked out, I saw one of the owner's (Kathy) place the plant on the table at the entrance. She had a grin on her face from ear to ear. 1 am glad that the EDC is doing this important work of business appreciation. Anyone looking to open a business in our community is going to stop at other local businesses to assess our local business climate and we need to continue to work towards postive promotion. Nice Job! * Enjoy your weekend! 10/27/00 Page 1 of 2 Jim March To: WIR Subscribers Subject: Week in Review Week in Review November 3, 2000 Building Permits this Period = 10 New Homes YTD = 47 Building Permits Year to Date = 170 **************************************************************************** * *** * * ***** * *** * *** * **** **** * ** * The Met Council forcemain broke yesterday near Cedar Street. The Met Council's construction crew accidentally hit the old line while they were digging for the new line. The spill was contained in the hole, cleaned up and the line was repaired. * The sewer forcemain along Mill Road should be operational today. The contractor did not run into any major problems with the project. * There were some concemed residents near the intersection of Peltier Lake Drive and Mill Road this last week. One of the residents was concerned that the sewer forcemain break could have contaminated their well. The resident alerted the surrounding neighbors and they all took their own water samples and sent them in to a lab to be tested. I received calls from two residents that said their test results showed that their wells were contaminated and that is was the City's fault. I discussed the Issue with the City Engineer and our Public Works Department. Both agreed that it would be nearly impossible for the sewer break which was contained and cleaned up to contaminate the wells. !regardless, I asked public works to take seven water samples around the intersection and send the samples into our own lab in Fridley. All samples were returned absent of contamination. We immediately notified the residents of the testing results. The lab that the homeowners had used admitted to having a contaminated batch of samples. Their never was any contamination and public confidence has been restored. Two of the residents have now expressed interest in being provided with City water in the future. * A demolition permit has been issued for the home across the street from City Hall. The home is supposed to be removed within the next week. * The Council Chambers has been set up for the general election on Tuesday. Remember to vote and good luck to all candidates! * The Lion's Haunted House was a success. Thursday night was a little slow, Friday was better and Saturday was great! The Haunted House was busy from start to finish on Friday night with people having to wait for hayrides. People were gathered around the large 11/3/00 rage c at L bonfire all evening. I estimate that there were 400 -500 people in attendance throughout the evening. Donated food is being delivered to the foodshelf. The Haunted House made approximately a $500 profit. Funds are being accumulated towards a shelter house in LaMotte Park. Watch for upcoming fundraisers. The Lion's Cadillac Dinner is the next big event along with a benefit steak fry that is scheduled for December 16th. * 1 received the appraisal on the Turcotte duplex this morning. The appraised value is almost identical to the asking price. 1 will be providing this information to City Council at the next meeting. * I have been informed that all of the City snowplowing equipment is ready and operational in advance of any future storm. Hopefully this first big snowfall will hold off until well into December! * Enjoy your weekend! 1 1 /3 /00 ACCAP ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC. 1201 89th Avenue NE • Suite 345 • Blaine, MN 55434 • Phone 763- 783 -4747 • FAX 763 - 783- 4700.TTY 763 - 783 -4724 E -mail: accap @accap.org REPOR' SENIOR OUTREACH PROGRAM n Ageenncy ay AREA: Centerville Annual Report MONTH: Totals-for Program Year 9/1/99 - 8/31/00 FROM: Cathey Weidmann, Director - Senior Programs & Volunteer Services 1. NEW CLIENTS (not duplicated) HOUSEHOLDS: 1 INDIVIDUALS: 1 * Income Level (# of Households) * Age (# of Individuals) 150% Poverty Below: 1 Under 59: 0 70 -74: 0 Above: 0 60 -64: 0 75 -70: 0 HUD Section 8 Below: 1 65 -69: 0 80- +: 1 Above: 0 Income Unknown: 0 * Sex (# of Individuals) * Size of Household Female: 1 Male: 0 One: 1 Three: 0 * Race (# of Individuals) Two: 0 Four+: 0 Asian: 0 Black /Afr. American: 0 * Female Head of Household: 1 Caucasian /White: 1 Hispanic: 0 `* Type of Dwelling " Native American: 0 Other: 0 Private Home: 1 Mobile Home: 0 Senior Housing: 0 * Disability (# of Individuals) Apartment: 0 Other: 0 Hearing: 0 Mental: 0 Speech: 0 Visual: 0 Emotional: 0 Other: 1 Orthopedic: 0 2. ON -GOING CLIENT VISITS: 1 3. REFERRALS MADE /AGENCY CONTACTS: 3 to 3 different programs /agencies Energy Assistance Program 1, ACCAP Housing Rehab Program 1, and Property Tax rebate assistance 1. 4. GROUP CONTACTS: 459 (Duplicated) (Senior Clubs, Centers, civic groups, city leaders, service providers, etc.) 5. REQUESTS FOR OUTREACH VISITS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCE: N/A An Equal Opportunity Employer f/ 2 2600 ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC. AL , ` , 1201 89th Avenue NE • Suite 345 • Blaine, MN 55434 • Phone 763- 783 -4747 • FAX 763 - 783 -4700 • TTY763 -783 -4724 E -mail: accap @accap.org A United Way Agency TO: CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CATHEY WEIDMANN m Director of Senior Program RE: SENIOR OUTREACH ANNUAL REPORT - DATE: NOVEMBER 2000 Enclosed please find your community's SENIOR OUTREACH ANNUAL REPORT. These reports provide client data as well as statistics reflecting referrals made . to different program/services. These referrals indicate the type of problems encountered by these members of your community. The Senior Outreach Worker would welcome referrals whenever a concern exists regarding one of your senior or disabled adult residents. Please feel to call me with referrals (or if you have any questions or comments regarding these reports) at 783 -4741. As always, thank you for your support of our program! An Equal Opportunity Employer