The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005_0321_Packet�'iF�� c�f �� 1�u�ic�c�t�, L'S,� Citizen Advisory Commission Interviews & City Council Study Session Monday, March 21, 2005, 5:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 2660 Civic Center Drive Contact Information: Councilmembers can be contacted in many ways. To set up a personal meeting or to obtain their phone numbers, please contact Margaret at 651-792-7023. E-mail addresses for Councilmembers are avail- able on the city's website, www.citvofroseville.com Purposes of this Meeting: Informally share information and discuss policy issues of City concern. Transact City business as needed. Desired Outcomes of this Meeting: Better informed Council, Community, and staff. Councilmembers share their policy preferences about the agenda items. Help create a foundation for good decisions about City business. Meeting Guidelines: Please treat people the way you would like to be treated - • Be Fair and Open-Minded about Other People's Views. • Separate the People from the Problem. • Be Respectful to Everyone, Especially if You Disagree with Them or They Aren't Present at This Meeting to Listen and Respond. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION INTERVIEWS Time Applicant Commission 5:00 p.m. 5.10 p.m. 5:20 p.m 5:30 p.m. 5:40 p.m. Ann Keeney Robert Venters Laura Mirsch Mary Jean Turinia Anderson Edward Merriam Human Rights Human Rights Human Rights Police Civil Service Police Civil Service Note: Scott Higbee, Human Rights Commission applicant, is unavailable to inter- view this evening. Be a part of the picture...get involved with your City.... Volunteer.i For more information, feel free to stop by City Hall or call Carolyn at 651-792-7026. You can also check-out our website at www.cityofroseville.com Volunteering, a Great way to Get Involved! � Over, please.] STUDY SESSION AGENDA Call Roll (Voting and Seating Order for March: Schroeder; Ihlan; Kough; Maschka; Klausing) Approve Agenda 1. Receive Public Comment about City Issues. Possible Timeframe: 10 minutes. 6:00-6:10 p.m. 2. Act Upon a Consulting Contract relating to the OVAL. Possible Timeframe: 20 minutes. 6:10-6:30 p.m. 3. Update re: OVAL Task Force. Presenter: OVAL Task Force Vice Chair Scott Nelson. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 6:30-6:45 p.m. 4. Briefing about the Proposed Projects for the Parks and Recreation 2005 PIP (Park Improvement Program) . Presenter: Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke. Possible Timeframe: 20 minutes. 6:45-7:05 p.m. 5. Further Briefing about a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Roseville City Code relating to Animal Control (Dangerous Animal Ordinance from 2/ 14/05 Council Meetin� . Presenter: Police Chief Carol Sletner. Possible Timeframe: 20 minutes. 7:05-7:25 p.m. 6. Public Works-City Hall Building Project: A Recap. Presenter: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 7:25-7:40 p.m. March 21, 2005 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 2 of 5 7. Briefing about Municipally-Owned Broadband Networks, such as Wi-Fi Technology and a Municipal I-Net. Presenter: Finance Director Chris Miller. Possible Timeframe: 30 minutes. 7:40-8:10 p.m. 8. Disposing of Retired City Vehicles & Equipment. Request of Councilmember Kough. Presenter: Finance Director Chris Miller. Possible Timeframe: 20 minutes. 8:10-8:30 p.m. 9. Briefing about a Proposed Ordinance relating to the Term of the Chair of the Planning Commission. Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 10 minutes. 8:30-8:40 p.m. 10. Discuss Draft City Council Rules of Procedure (Draft based upon Council Direction from 2/ 19/05 Council Meetin� . Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 25 minutes. 8:40-9:05 p.m. 11. Discuss and Direct Staff Regarding the Format for the City Council's Community Town Hall Meetings. Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 9:05-9:20 p.m. 12. Council Determines Interview Schedule for Remaining Citizen Advisory Commission Applicants. Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 9:20-9:35 p.m. March 21, 2005 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 3 of 5 13. Update and Discussion on Pending Twin Lakes Litiga- tion, and Payment of Attorney's Fees. Request of Councilmember Ihlan. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 9:35-9:50 p.m. 14. Update and Discussion on Park Dedication for the Tar- get Redevelopment Request of Councilmember Ihlan. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 9:50-10:05 p.m. 15. Adjourn. A Look Ahead: Some Upcoming Public Meetings Monday, March 28 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Citizen Advi- Council Chambers sory Com- mission Ap- poi ntments Tuesday, March 29 7:00 p.m. Public Works, Environment & Council Chambers Transportation Commission Tuesday, March 29 7:00 p.m. Housing and Redevelopment Sandcastle Park Authority (HRA) Neighbor- Shelter hood Enhancement Meeting Tuesday, April 5 7:00 p.m. Parks & Recreation Commis- Council Chambers sion Wednesday, April 6 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Council Chambers Tuesday, April 7 9:00 a.m. HRA Business Meeting — Skating Center, Realtors Fireside Room Monday, April 11 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Town Hall National Guard Meeting Armory Gym Tuesday, April 12 7:00 p.m. Human Rights Commission Council Chambers Monday, April 18 6:00 p.m. City Council Study Session Council Chambers March 21, 2005 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 4 of 5 Tuesday, April 19 7:00 p.m. HRA Neighborhood En- Council Chambers hancement Meeting Monday, April 25 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Town Hall Central Park Meeting School Tuesday, April 26 7:00 p.m. HRA Neighborhood En- National Guard hancement Meeting Armory, Room 2 Tuesday, May 3 7:OOp.m. Parks & Recreation Commis- Council Chambers sion Tuesday, May 3 7:00 p.m. HRA Neighborhood En- Centennial United hancement Meeting Methodist Church, New Loun e Wednesday, May 4 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Council Chambers Thursday, May 5 10:30 a.m. HRA Neighborhood En- Skating Center, hancement Meeting: Fireside Room Business Meeting, Multi- Family Owners & Represen- tatives March 21, 2005 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 5 of 5 Date: ��1/OS Advisory Commission Interviews Mayor and City Council: Please bring your copy of the Human Rights Coa��.ission and Police Civil Service Commission applications. Enclosed is a chart for you to use to record your rankings after you've heard all of the interviews. Neal f � r C'. O ... � � .� � O U � r.., � b0 � C� � x � �--� � � U � � � "d � � N .'. U � U � � N N � r--� � � ,� � O .'. � � .� O U � � � � � � � � � U � .� � N N N � N N b4 �i � �bA �i bA cd ,� � � � � � � H � �� --� � � .� C'. '—' C� �" � ..�•i cd � N �. 'C � � C'. � O V �� .� � �U � � � O � U O � � v � •� ,�' � y O � � v .� �� O �U A� H Date: 03121105 �t�z�: 2. O VAL Consulting Contract Message Date: 03114105 Item: 7.a �'—; Councilmember Koug� � Engineering Services for OVAL , r '.i ,. .� �� F. From: �in:_r, �,�f� �9��9�3-G�f� C�'47� —f� y ,� � � — — - � �� v�k; '�'•'edE��-Sk 1�1�i t:i i �,, }��.i 9.�� `Sf.i � ��, � 4�r•;�� __ � To: Rob Hal6um � �� f i� � - �° , � . '• ' �" � { �_'f �•`f?�5�'F-= U4�J:"L�11 iai9LTb '�Ro: �I'�� Y. r �,r � I am writing the city of �os�;nT4 #��d�r er��a u�� for the Roseville Skate Ger�terlQval and provide !�7L 8i" Or�;Y1i'w71"p [�s �•ri� I iFi;�xiui a:. rr.�ni I�� i u�f I M.it: •��,��r �; •i�t�t��iru7 A''.I ur. ��Fi rr; � r.:�i �a�:.l i�. �'.r. ;� i i� :,;� �;• ;h�e� :.irt;ur�l ic�r��.,i��' Irir �r��,ri��l c��lfi�;. '�a�.r. rr.c:e�ir11•1 :x�a�.. iri�:7�n•�:i �j �n�: ;7rpjr�rl ��d r�e��irlv:: rn �rii�;;.^_�,+. x SO � � •C'1 "h3" 5�"ISF!ea C" � �0�5 8 �f la •t �:d 4 as �5+t�ll �i5 I ��',fili i �:u�l �•'f�;.l iur �i ir�� FY��i� �� ,� ��• ��•� w� ��. � "t�ihti � reason I have decided to present this solution is the city only received �� proposal back from an engineering firm, which may not be in the best financial interests of the city. Our cornpany views this project as a textbook recommissioning project from beginning to end and not necessarily a"fully redesigned project. A rewmmissioning project entails the same front end investigation, analysis, and pre-design services as are outlined by Stevens Eng.; however, addressesthe failures ofthe system specifically, including some design work for maintaining the high integrity ofthe project remediation. Our cornpany, BEM Corporation, utilizes funds set aside from the Xcel Energy Recommissioning Rebates for these types of recommissioning projects, which allows the city the potential to take advantage of established grant money to pay for up to 50% of the professional services or in this case approximately $14.000. This means the city of Roseville would only be responsible for approximately $14,000 of the $28,000 contract; however, would reapthe recommissioning and engineering benefits of a$28,000 proposal! Nothing else changes with respect to the scope of work for the engineering analysis and engineering design services, only the city gets a 50% discount on these services. In addition, once the chiller system is recommissioned and repaired, the city will continue to benefit financially from higher energy effeciency and potential control strategies for effecient operation of the system providing a financial payback of 5-10 years. Ifthe city is interested in accomplishing the goals of repairing the chiller system and at the same time saving approximately $10.000 from the City Building Replacement Fund, we would be interested in meeting with the city to discuss these options. Thank you for your consideration Slade K. Smith President �eM Uc-po;a4zcn 4506 SE 109th Avenue Clear Lake, MN 55319 Ph: 320-743-4769 Fx: 651-286-2665 SladeCc�r hem-coro.com www.bem-carp.corn �rww.F�.,:14'�9d�.�ur,r healthier environments from the inside } out �� . . � �� _ � 2 _._ � .� �� r� �� r � � � �� . �� • � r �•.'.�,..". . . . ..� �� I .'� i:i'. . �... .. ..� r • r•.. . :. _..��• :t�.i•:I"�.` �v1' us' �L': ' • :}�'�7i •.. ..: • E•�.'.'.k iry`'= ='�1:-^.', . • .�:i�... -. F C•rN4..:1..�:. J. i... �r _.:iyr �-I.� U.�'�r II... fr,.� .�- , .ia¢��yii�y��lii�y {x�5r4�•la � - �ri�**�� tlrrr a�o�n. enpnrsrd �r� • �:�� mad�calrrs,+ww ms.gn -'• �g� hcari l: w-.s� r�krv.�a v� �s«ri�xrr ih� �wnr�r�.rnn� C��.I�1`� � �' •� ' . i � � : t� i •� t: L . � � �.ii.�;: •• :.Ia• � +y�clxu: v• � I �.Y��. �, .�� f ,�I.i� ��rrn � r r*��:Y'rhi� �hj4� � �� -• . ••M..ilf� •'f 4'1� . �' �F.i� US'I'rI�Y Ci S�'�� '1}: . F �� _..-: � 1�� rr,r•.r inrlua�r, rt„�i� , ....trn�nx�x �rn�rrr�r�r��-•� ., iui I wi1 t ti:j i i f� rY3 I i M}i , . �y. --. .� �i x..,..� � �... �•:. i . � ,��.� ��.�_.. � { -,.�.�— r� � ��: � � '' .� , �,_ . � �, , � ��a� � �J • 0 r ' £j..,.,. .��•-ir � �., , F•r,t.�� . I� . �•.,-.��.� -i. iy..•r�;�_•.-,•r� � � i•I C77'rY' - r�� cworr�irr r�• Is St� G4fi . -,��r��arn�a�r��xr�i-,r,R,��-�• � t�.,• : ensv�._I._. �.�.� �.n •rr:r•a�i:eni •� 2:.i �H� • v� 1 - _�f�L pq�� N� lur tir�r �� L�IkS �� • � 1 dq } ��'��f��r�L+L�� fr�m �� rr��'�p.ti,� �e�o�xrr�ris�x��r�� ktiu.. .��T; 4':^.��' f"Ch �-�•^ ��,�ILf�';� r�i� � r��m�=� Recommissioning, brought to you by G'artsert�qti�lzlYrise fmm Xcel Lrter��s"', � siinilar to a"tune-up" for your btaildin�°s existing inechanical systeins. When your building was new. the systeins and equipinent �e3'e new and in top condition. As your building ��ges and as personnel changes, �:cy equipinent inay be Eun��irig diffea�entl}J or less efficiently than in tlie past. In addition, systetlZS m,��, have I�_• i� inadvertently inodified during reinodeling or lenant-finislZ proj ects. All of this -.^.�;;ITI� you could be losing inoney to unintended inefficiencies.You can �Gt your building back in sl7aip� �} I 7 help froin our Recoimnissioning �ro�rain, �"AK� ll-E Ri��'� � � F:�� '�k ��fa ��"�� P�� a�� €��s� Kect�n�n�issi.oning your facility is a tu-o-s[e� process, diagnosis and iinpleinentation: 1. Dia�losis X�1 L'i� will pmvide a snuly rebate for up to 50 percent of the cost of a recoiTr inissionu�g study. notto exceed $15,000, to review the coixlitions of the existimg inechanical systeins in your facility.'Il� writ ten study includes recoiTUnendations, Uased on the dia�losticassessinent,and detaiLs how I�est to rehun your buildir�s c�urent inechanical systeins to peak efficiencyYou can select your own conhactor, or choose from our list of providers w� l� coinple�d a snuly in the past. X�1 ri� w�Il review the shady pre-approvalapplication and proposal, and detennine what le�l of snuly rebate �z �nIl pn�vide. 2. I�nplementation 41�11�1T aE�aM�'IlS�M�� CAN DO �G� �€��;R ��C�L� e�' Earn electric and nah�ral gas rebates, up to half of the cost of nnpleine��ting recoiTr n��cled chauges. Yat aLso will realize on�o- ing ener�y sa�u�gs o�r the life of your equipin�t and building systeins. In addition, RecoiTnnission�u�g pn�vides ech�cation far your slaff and guidance for i�rringthe efficiencyof your Uuikin��s inechanical systeins. B�C:�t�sc energy loss froin inefficient systt�xn.s and worn equipinent is often difficult to detect, the valti� of Rt:c•orninissionin� can : 7t• unc��r�sti�natcd. '. I, •r.� i•�. ti•i _ custoiners typically see j percent to 15 pe3-cent potential €-ed�ictions in �ilei�- energy costs. AEtl�vug[� inost huildings can benefit Froi�� Recoimnissioning, the ideal building is rn�m� tlaat� five years old, and Itas : Sr•�; I itx'.i � la.rge mechanica[ systezns and controls that do not need t�e�lace�nent. Additional ��ene.fits of our Rc�comissioning program for your facility indude: . Loi��r equipinent life, which sa�es the cost of premahu�e equipinent replaceinent . Rech�d inaintei�u�ce and repaircosts d� to longer equipin�t life and more efficient �e of systeins . A i�ae cnmfortable and pmch�cti�ve environ- inentfor tenants and einployees, due to better air circulation, nnpmved air qualiry, temperahu�e control, etc. . Financial incentives, whi� can o�set the cost of making efficiency n�veinents. When your facility is running 3� its peak perforinance,your ?xisiness gains a competitive edge hec`<�usc� your equipment and your staff �: f�' operatin�; aY inaximuin efficiency. � � a_ ` . # ' - r .: � -�� _,� • {: ;' , ��:�. • � ��. �� _ �: ..�, I r � ,�,� , - . .. .. . . .. . E � tiaJLJ�.r.��rir: i. � .. �� ►�� tl��. � ; .� h+VI2F1 �0�4FPEifTfU� FlFF�4lYCI�JO AMAAL�59lE. WH4 1f4�1r, Xcel Energy also offers Financing to help you ��aa�Ce enea•gy and process ii��rave�nents that will give your business a competitive edge. Financing is subject to bank approval. Once approved, you can take advantage of tllese benefits: • No down payment required . Loans cover qualifying equipment and contract labor or study costs over �I ��. �411;15 dYOUr' �0 td� ��.4F�TCJ� • Competitive interest rates and terms up to five years . Flexible loan amounts to meet your needs . Make payments on an Xcel Energy bill Call us at our Business Solutions Center 1-800-481-4700, e-ia7ail us at bsc@xcelsnergy.comor call your Xcel Energy E•eps-ese�at�atiee directly. Your study gives you a thorough assessment of potential energy savings, E�elps you build a business case for project approval and identifies rebates for energy improvements. � XcelEnergy P.O. Box 840 - BSC Denver, CO 80201-0840 1-800-481-4700 w.xcelenergy.com v.lYli}ti.IYl�� 1_ !cc k�r:5 u ��i�: mu2 r 5c� krr, :+: M�ih�+� S•Nu i-y+� C»�rr iL+� �c� krr{y R} I: £7 1'rJ� ta5� ".i.' �a Printedwititsay�6asedinksonirrrtLdpaper Program restrictionsmay apply. Please contacitf�e Business Solutions Centerfor details. � 'r{•� .•• �r r,� . � ' -- ' ' .� • ''-xr' J �'-- �Y �r � ' r�'� r� ��11�1� �� f�� .�..� I � � !� 1��_ ,�'��Jr'rF�� 1!.� - - . � ' ! � •r r + ; ' "— ' — � �� J.r`�J�'�� +j-- - .�- �� .. �� r�r ��t��E�� I�� 0 �. � ��nsi d�r � • Notice that your building doesn't run as well as it used to. R��rnmi��i�nin� ' Suspectyournewerbuilding justdoesn'trun right. • Think your energy bills run higherthan they should. ��-�p �� • Want to ensure that your building systems are running their best. �ir�y_i.a �nLr��.e�� _�.E� �r ��L.�ra��3� ��s � c� �� t �� r� �I �� — ��+=f f "�1{' �i•� k�� :'.'�' ��"��:��: . � i �� -- ii •i � • . ��6I�:�'�. What; Recommissioning is a tune-up for your building's cxistin� systems that makes tl�erri: �m � Ir' way they're me:ti�t to 3��n - efhcien[[y ;t1td c:ffectivcFy. Recommissioning Sritclies identify areas t�vherc low- o r no-cost xt}�em tweaks could savc yott ntoney, � d�t Iti with m9 �>ayhacl;s. ltecamrrfi5sic>rti��g, l�y �:,,r�i;,J�M� I�}- jrUrrt �ee1 �',i� r.£; •"'_offers study finding and addit3cn�aE rebates far im�[errfcnting study recr�mn�ci�datic�ns_ Where: Any bi�ilct€n� can c�ualify,€�ut offce I��iil�li�•4y, �lotels, hospitals a��d €nedical facilities, s�nrCS aa�d r�ereation ce�itet�s, ed�ic:�tional faciliEies, gov�nunent and fargc rctail builc�i�igs arc cs�7ccialiy suiEable for Kccommi5sic�i�ii�g. Why: When: Rcmtntnissio�araa� a CxiiEding's sy�stc�ns can 5ave an �zT� aC 1() percce�t c:m ener�,� bilk, oftei� just I�ti adjusting �IVAC and otl�er s}�seerns. Submit your Recommissioning study prx�ak��'crvat application ?�k• Ylarcfl �1. :LFf�. to quati€y for a 25 percent study rebate bonus*. C��. t'�� 7, ��I—�� Q��f��,� �i��.�� :;;��[ ��a��-�:.��?.•, Your f�uildin� doesn't have €c� he old to need Rcconimiss[o�tit�g • t7�.any t�.civ�r faci3ities i�avcn'[ 1��cr� commissioned and have �lx �c�tcntiai far si�tificat�t savings with very fact �?:�yhacks_ Iici�:'s :i look at real c��stc�mers who recently took advanCa�;e of our Recorn€nissia�zing: hl8t�cfaGWrinp�+��6y �;`!{r hiiddu �oho4� '�li J.qD ddFUe buiYirw #If�Bd �$ I-��s W i� I $ i 7'�,'�ip �' � � • � �.C)C��' c 1. f;hoose a Recommissionan� �rc>vider (ctitl�er from our List or of your chaic�). 2. Befare tiv� study begii�s, suhmie our itecommissic�ni�lg study pt'eapprovaf form (availahie fnMl : your Xcel �nee�,*yAccount Manager ar �iy c�[litt�; (�300} 481-4700). #3T.� �1� �(i} S�IS,AS3 �Id? �R9 �� , ��`- '�I �.5�' �775 s�- am �.a a� 2.' 4� nRa 3. Follow tlx ��rocedure fc�r Rccon�missioning study rc€�ates; as shown �in [kte preap�iresvai application form. 4, l�t�[cment stud�}r €�cce�inmenclatioiis,earn mrm• rebaees and et�jny your savifZgst � ��. � �, � _=n � "Rebate and 6onus ►ules and requirements: . Our Recomnvssioningstudy fund- ing nonnally pays up to � percent of the cost cf a Recoirmii.ssionu�g sludy with a cap of $95,000. Wflh the limited-time 25 percent study rehaYe bonus, we'll pay � to 75 percent ¢f tl�e sludy cost, na# Yo exceed $18,750 per build'mg. . Iarr�4 tw o study bonuses per customer leach customer can only receive two bonuses, regardless of the numUer oF potential facilities.) • We must receive your complete study preapprovalapplication between Jan.1,2005,a�r1 Ma��h 312005,to quafifyforYhe bonus. • Yo-u must be an Xcel Et�gy business customer in Mnuiesota. • Xcel Et�gy w�li verify efigibility. . Yai may not combine this oifer with any otherXcel Et�gy bcmus offer, • 02her restdctions may apply. See the Recoirmii.ssionu�g study preapprova� f�n for full Recomnvssioningrules and requirements,or calE [$D�} 481�100 fardetails. . `--. kr:.k- -. _'. "'� �n� • ' . . :•f '.. {+4�r—'�� '-- • � — ��-+ -- . . .-• --- : F�r'�: �� ... _a . _ _ ¢.—�T , _ _ --_ —�_�•- •-- - – — •-- —y—�–+� —. —•— - —•<- - - - '�--: -• v��tie±�:.r: �t--,�:: M�av- {----• -�'��='��•�yd� I � REQUEST FOR COUNCILACTION Date: 03/14/05 Item: 7.b Councilmember Maschks Engineering Services for OVAL DATE: 1 /31 /05 ITEM NO: 12 Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: Item Description: Approval of ��rp�rn�r�iuikh Stevens Engineering for professional engineering services for the Roseville Skating CenterlaVAL. BACKGROUND Over the past several months staff has been working with information from varying sources on the chiller barrel repairs at the OVAL. There have been numerous discussions regarding the best, mast cost effective approach for repair options. The City is now at the point of requiring professional engineering services for the refrigeration system repairs and improvements at the Roseville Skating Center OVAL. There may also be additional work necessary because of the downtime that has occurred, i.e. on motors, pumps, etc. In addition to meeting with numerous engineering firms over the past several months, Staff has solicited two firms qualified in this area to submit a proposal and have received one. Attached is a detailed proposal from Stevens Engineering that outlines various service options and the costs. They are as follow: Step 1— Collect information on existing system Step 2—Analysis and evaluation of existing system Step 3— Prepare final documents and assists with bidding Step 4 — Construction Services Step 5— Evaluate the option of a plate and frame chiller type system Step 6—Evaluate the feasibility of connecting the Arena to the Oval's refrigeration system. Stevens Engineering has substantial experience in this area. In the proposal steps 1-4 are necessary to put the chiller back in operation. Steps 5 and 6 evaluate other options not only for the OVAL but involve the indoor Arena as well. The indoor Arena chiller and piping system is nearing the end of its useful life and has been included in the Capital Improvement Program for several years and is currently identified as a 2006 project. If steps 5 and 6 are deemed feasible, then a revised design would be required before step 3(preparation of final documents and bidding) would occur. The decision to be made at this point is to determine the scope of engineering work necessary andlor desired. The issue at hand is the repair of the OVAL chiller barrel, a component of the refrigeration system (steps 9-4). The OVAL refrigeration system cannot operate without it. It is necessary to engage in engineering services now in order to professionally analyze and evaluate, develop the necessary documents, advertise and accept bids, order the materials, perform the work and any other necessary repairs, test the system and be prepared for start up next season. Given the arena needs in the near future it may be prudent to analyze step 6 option now as well. The attached proposal details the work that would be performed and the estimated costs. If authorized to bid, the final bids would be brought to the City Council for final approval. POLICY OBJECTIVE � The proposed project and the use of consultants are consistent with city policy on = performing repairs necessary for the safe operation of the City infrastructure. _ FINANCIAL IMPLICATION - The cost for engineering services for steps 1-6 as outlined in the attached letter - provided by Stevens Engineering is an hourly amount not to exceed $28,500, plus ._ reimbursable. The funds for the consultant services are proposed to be taken from the - City Building Replacement Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the need to repair the existing mechanical failure in a timely and cost effective �- manner and the nearing need to replace the Arena system staff recommends that the �� Parks and Recreation Department enter into the proposed agreement with Stevens - Engineering for steps 1-6 as outlined in the attached proposal. _ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to enter into an agreement with Stevens Engineering for an hourly not to exceed amount of $28,500 plus reimbursable for professional engineering services for steps 1� as outlined in the � proposal with the funds to be taken from the City Building Replacement Fund. a January 26,2005 Mr. Lonnie Brokke, C,P.R.P Director of Parks and Recreation 2661 Civic Center Drive Roseville. Minnesota 55113 �� .� � fr �� I�� , ti Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services (REVISION 2) John Rose Oval - Refrigeration System Repairs and Improvements Dear Mr. Brokke: Thank you for taking the time to meet with Jim De�enedet and myself. Stevens Engineers is pleased to have the opportunity to present a proposal to provide professional engineering services for the reirigeration system repairs and improvements at the John Rose Oval. We have the necessary experience in designing refrigeration systems and ice systems for ice rink facilities to successfullycomplete this project for the City of Roseville. Project Understanding The City of Roseville is seeking an engineering fim� to provide design and other engineering related services for the rehabilitation of the refrigeration chiller vessel and refrigeration system improvements at the John Rose Oval Skating Facility. — The John Rose Minnesota Oval is a skating facility that host — international competitions in addition to sewing the local — skating enthusiast. The 110,000 square foot ice sheet — includes a 400-meterspeed skating track, a bandy rink, — hockey rinks and recreational skating. The construction of the �- facility was completed in 1993. -_��--�I:�'�� ` v�� =�l�J-,�"��'� ��r ��.,�'...� �:,�. -� The existing refrigeration system is an indirect ammonia and �� -�� caicium chloride system. The capacity of the system is - -r. ��'• �� N � approximately800 tons. The chiller, surge drum and screw � ��'� � r compressors are industrial grade refrigeration The John Rose "..,= has one _"the largest equipment manufactured by Vilter Manufacturing. ��rigerat'°" S''Ste"'S Se�"g a"'ce S�b"g "°k �r The brine pumps circulate the calcium chloride brine through several i�ip�ng zones in the concrete i� rink floor with a total Row rate of approxim�teEy 5500 gpm. The refrigeration system at the John Rose Oval is one of the largest systems serving an €ce skating faci[ity, For r,�rnp�ns�r�, a typical single ice rink refrigeration system has a capacity of around 100 tons while the Super Rink in �laine operates a 315 ton refrigeration system to serve four ice rinks. C:IMarketingt2�04 PropQSalsl,�ohn Rose C3val.d�c 1656 �i=,�ingstt;tae Road • Hudson. illf! 54016 715-386-5879 . 651-436-2075 . 800-822-7670 • fax: 715-386-5879 . www.stevensengineers.com After leaks were found in the system several years ago, on-going repairs have been required to keep the facility operational. The City suspectsthat a small leak in the polyethylenerink tubing allowed air to enter the refrigeration system. The air then reacted with the calcium chloride forming a corrosive chemical that corroded and degradedthe steel walls of the chiller tubes. An attemptto repair the system was made by plugging several of the chiller tubes that were determined to be leaking. IJn�artu�nately more leaks were found. The City then hired a firm that specialized in testing pressure vessels of this type. Tests were completed last month. The initial testing session found 31 of the 800 chiller tubes had a 70% or greater wall degradation. Follow up testing found leaks in additional tubes. The number of degraded tubes continues to rise with each testing session. Testing was also performed on the shell of the chillertube to determine if the steel wall was corroded, and if so, to what extent. Preliminary results of the testing showed that the vessel wall was not corroded. Since it is likely that the number of degraded tubes will exceed 10%of the chiller capacity, typically regarded as e�ra capacity, the City has determined that the entire vessel shall be re-tubed and a thorough inspection of the vessel shell shall be conducted. As part of the chiller renovation project the City would like to consider improvementsto the refrigeration system that will aid in future maintenance and monitoring of the system. Such improvements should include flanges on each side of the chillervessel, corrosion coupon rack, pressure gauges and other recommended improvements. Access to the chiller vessel is very limited. Tube replacementwill likely require some modification to the building wall and or temporary removal of the existing access window. Once the tubes are removed the interior surface of the chiller vessel shell will be inspected to determin� the condition of the steel shell. Repairs to the existing shell may be required atthat time. So far, tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on attempted repairs to the chiller vessel because of the massive size of the refrigeration system and serviceability constraints. It is essential that the proposed repairs and improvements address monitoring and serviceabilityto aid in preventing future problems of this caliber and to assist with servic��g when required. Design and construction will take place early in 2005. The refrigeration system will not be operational this winter. As part of this project the City would also like to evaluate the feasibility of the following options: � Install one or two plate and frame type chiller systems in place of reconditioning the existing shell and tube condenser type chiller system. The City is interested in the potential redundancy capability and increased system efficiency. ;} Connectthe existing RSVC At�n� to the John Rose Oval's refrigerationsystem, The RSVC arena has a separate direct refrigeration system and floor that has reached its useful life. System efficiencies are typically increased when more than one ice sheet is served from a common refrigeration system. However, in this case, the John Rose Oval's ice surface is much largerthan the RSVC Arena's ice surface creating a large difference in refrigeration demand between the two systems. The challenge would be to serve the RSVC Arena during the summer months when the John Rose Oval is not in operation. Replacing the existing single chiller type system with two smaller plate and frame type Mr. Lonnie Brokke, Director of Parks and Recreation January 26,2005 Page 2 of 7 chillers will allow more flexibility in matching refrigeration demand swings and may make this �pfion more feasible. Scope of Services As Ice Rink Engineers and ConsultantsStevens Engineers will provide the specialized design required fo� renovating the existing chiller vessel and improving the monitoring and serviceability of the sysi�m. Stevens Engineers w��l provide a step by step design approach as described below Included in this proposal is a separate fee for evaluating the option of installing a plate and frame chiller type chiller system in place of reconditioningthe existing shell and tube condensertype chillersystem and for evaluating the option of connecting the RSVC Arena's ice rink floor to the Oval's refrigeration system. Step f— Collectlnformation on Existing System We will meet with the City staff to: ■ Discuss overall scope of the project # Discuss E��tory of problems with the refrigeration system. Discuss desired improvements to the refrigeration system ■ Obtain a copy of the report regarding the chiller tube evaluation. ■ Obtain a copy of the record plans of the ice system. ■ Obtain a copy of the refrigeration equipment sh�p �1raw+n�s. Walk through the facility �ifh� City Staff. ■ Verify the accuracy of the shop drawings and record drawings of the refrigeration system. * Verify the accuracy of the room layout and clearances around the chiller for replacing chiller tubes Step 2 —Analysis and Evaluation During this step we will: Evaluate the information we gathered during the site visit. Evaluate the feasibility of renovating the existing chillervessel. � Write a letter report including and discussing the following: � Steps involved in the chiller renovation process including tube replacement, vessel shell insp�ckiar� and potential repair, and building modifications required for chillertube access. c� Options for renovation including standard steel tubes vs, stainless steel tubes, and any other materials recommended by the manufacturer. Compare heat transfer efficiency, cost and life cycle of each material. �; Advantages and disadvantagesof renovating options vs. replacing the vessel including life expectancy, efficiency and cost. ,; Estimate of probable construction costs for the chiller renovation. ,:: Estimate of probable constructioncosts for a new chiller vessel. -� Estimate of probable constructioncosts for system monitoring and s�rvicin� improvements. �ti Reviewtesting results of the existing brine soiutiqrr and recommend cleaning or replacement. -� Recommend routine testing procedures for the brine solution ' Reviewthe reportwith the City priorto finalizingthe constructiondocuments. Mr. Lonnie Brokke, Directorof Parks and Recreation January 26,2005 Page 3 of 7 Step 3- Final Documents and Assist with Bidding A�er we have reviewed the report with the City we will: � Prepare final design documentsincluding drawings and specifications for the Oval's chiller renovation and refrigeration system improvements. Specificationswill include general project conditions, construction contract, form of agreement between the City and the contractor, bid proposal requirements and forms, and technical sections. The documents will include an alternate bid item for replacing the existing chiller vessel with a new vessel. Provide a final estimate of probable construction costs. Provide recommendations on bidding and award schedule. � Answer questions during the bidding phase of the project. �e present at bid opening Review bids submitted by the contractors � Recommend award of contract. Prepare construction contracts for review by the City. Step 4 - Construction Services We will pr�vide Construction Engineering Services as requested by the City. We will perform site observations throughout the duration of the project. The number of inspections and involvement during construction �i�l vary depending on the experience level of the selected contractor and condition of the chiller vessel. If the chiller vessel shell is found to be corroded we will assist the City in selecting a materials testing firm to the level of corrosion and thickness of the steel wall. The cost of the material testing will be paid for by the City. We will also perform contract administrationtasks such as shop drawing review of all materials and equipment, processing pay requests and change orders and will answer questions irom the contractor. Step 5—�valuate the Option of a Plate and Frame Chiller Type System If this option is selected the evaluation will be performed between Steps 2 and 3 listed above. During this step we will: ■ Evaluate the feasibility of installing a plate and frame type chiller system in place of reconditioning the existing shell and tube condenser type system. Write a letter report including and discussing the following: � A description of the plate and irame system that would best fit the existing refrigeration system including space needs and code related issues. f1 Discuss the feasibility of separating the single refrigeration system into two separate systems to create redundancy in the system. �� A comparison of the existing shell and tube chiller design to a plate and irame chiller system including efficiency, capital costs, life expectancy, operational and maintenance costs and any other advantages and disadvantages for each system. Reviewthe findingswith the City. If the City approves this type of system in place of renovating the existing shell and tube chiller system we will provide the City with a revised design proposal to include this change. �Ir. Lonnie Br�kke� Director of Parks and Recreation January 26,2005 Page 4 of 7 Step 6— �valuafe the �eas�}�i?ity of Connecting the RSVC Arena to the John Rose Oval's Refrigeration System. If this option is selected the evaluation will be performed between Steps 2 and 3 listed above. Duringthis step we will: ■ Evatuate the feasibility of connecting the RSVC ice rink floor to the John Rose Oval's refrigeration system. ■ Write a letter report including and discussing the following: �ti A general description of the finro facilities (RSVC Arena and the Oval) and the refrigeration demand requirements includingevaluating the existing refrigeration capacity of each facilitiesand the required refrigerationcapacity if the two facilities are combined. :� Evaluation of physical obstacles such as the distance between the Oval's refrigeration system and the RSVC Arena and its effect on system efficiency and construction costs. ; Evaluation of seasonal demands on the common refrigeration system including determining if the Oval's large refrigeration system can adequately and efficiently serve a single ice sheet application during the summer months. ,-� Estimate of probable construction costs for the piping connection between the Oval's refrigeration system and the RSVC Arena and all required modificationsto the Oval's refriger�lior� systemto accommodatethis addition. : Evaluation of the existing direct refrigeration system package currently serving the RSVC Arena and recommendations for improvements or replacement options including improvementsto the existing package system, replacement with a like system, and replacement with an indirect system. Estimates of probable construction costs for all of the options discussed will be provided, This information will allowthe City to evaluate all of the options for renovating the RSVC ice rink floor and equipment. �:; Estimate of probable construction costs for the ice rink floor replacement in the RSVC Arena with a like direct system design and an indirect system design. � Reviewthe findings and cost estimateswith the City. ' If the option of serving the two facilities with a common refrigeration system is determined feasible and the City approves this option we will provide the City with a revised design proposal to include this change based on the determined scope of the project. If the City approves other recommended improvements to the RSVC Arena we will provide the City with a revised design proposal based on the scope of the project�sj. Mr. Lonnie Brold�e. Director of Parks and Recreation January 26,2005 Page 5 of 7 � Compensation We will provide the professional engineering services as outlined in this proposal for the following compensation: Design Phase Services (Steps 1 through 3): Construction Phase Services (Step 4): Evaluation of Plate and Frame Option (Step 5): Hourly, Not-to-Exceed$16,500 plus reimbursable expenses. Hourly, plus reimbursable expenses (Estimate of hourly fee = $6,500 � reimbursable) Hourly, Not-to-Exceed $2,500 plus reimbursable expenses. Evaluation of Improvements to RSVC Arena (Step 6);H�urfyF Not-to-Exceed $3,000 plus reimbursable expenses. If the improvements in Steps 5 and 6 are approved after the evaluation phase of the project we will provide the City with a revised proposal for Design and Construction Phase Servicesto incorporate the desired change in the project scope. Other required design services will be provided on an hourly basis in accordance with the General EngineeringFee Schedule in addition to the fee stated above. Reimbursable expenses will be charged in accordance with the attached fee schedule. The City will be responsiblefor all application and permit fees. We will bill the City monthly for services and Reimbursable Expenses. We will also provide such additional services as requested by the City. These services will be billed at our standard hourly rates in accordance with the attached fee schedule. This fee schedule is valid through December31,2005. AnyservicesfurnishedafterDecember31,2005 willbechargedinaccordancewith our 2006 fee schedule. We will not increase any iter� on the fee schedule bv more than 3.5% for work performed in 2006. Additional Terms and Conditions If there are protracted delays for reasons beyond our c�ntrql, we would expect to negotiate with the City an equitable adjustmentof our compensation taking into consideration the impact of such delay. We request that the City furnish us with fult information as to their requirements including any special or extraor�inary considerations for the Project or special s�ruice� needed, and also to make available all pertinent existing data. We propose that our s�rvices will be provided under the General Provisions consisting of two pages and one page of General Engineering Fee Schedule which are attached to and made a part of our agreement Mr. Lonnie Brold�e, Directorof Parks and Recreation January 26,2005 Page f of 7 for services for the design and r�onst�aclior� phases of this project. A copy of our 2004 fee schedule is attached. This proposal, the General Provisions, Exhibit A and our Engineering Fee Schedule represent the entire understanding between City of Roseville and Stevens ��tie�r� in respect of the Project and may only be modified in writing signed by both parties. IF this satisfactorily sets forth the City's understandingof our agreement, we would appreciate you signing the enclosed copy of this letterin the space provided below and returning one copy to us. V1k look forward to working wit� you and City of R�sevifle on this project. If you have any questions about this proposal, our qualifications or the project in general please do not hesitate to call us at 651.�36.207�. Very t�uly yours, STEVENS ENGINEERS, in�. -�� ' ��- � � — Scott A. Ward, P.E. Project Manager r�� r � L � �� - _ � � s �. [�eBenetlet, P.E. President Accepted this � day of ,2005 �� Signature Date Printed Name Title or Position Enclosure Mr. Lonnie Broldce, Director aF Par16 and Reaeation January 26,2005 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PROVISIONS Fo r Study and it.epor� Phase 8ervi�es SECTION 1- BASIC SERVICESOF THE ENGINEER 1.1. Scope of Servi�ss � � �. �N�iM1�ER at�a� �xc,ric� sen�s �a mc 4�1�41ER� acaorda�cew.�phu�� s�rop�of��ns{':'tJnine�dtyu agreement 1.1.2. The standards of service shall be those in oensral f��f[�e � Ihr t�+e 2�Q�I4ts �rE"4�eflt �17 �' � b�3� ul �he ENGi�ER's ph� ¢' Ausn�ss �� tne tocal��r. rrt'�e project. 1.2. Study and Report Phase After autt�orizalion to proceed, ENGINEER shall: �.21 ��uir5�i1�4ifn�lh'MEf�4Dtl�r�}anC�deEr,eflaliti�+i's feq�7emE�rLS «f � Pr�BC' t"7 -T.s�C� �v�: 7•� Eala ? : -�y,nn �d�l2 Q�y�.� � �� tIhl1e� ��* 4f OV1'l�tER} �s � PrQYn+�"y L' �I�I��"v� �'M Y4I� I3r 52iY'PPrS � I�I: �!!n"' arf:-n4�� i n paragraph 3.2, and assist OIIVNER in �6t�inir€g such data and service& 1 t.3. t9�n1��1 ana�y�e�r�rements�g�rr�:rs�'� aulhont�s �� 'rt3CrGd�n z.8pprsl��:`{ �G:'}' Gi >'9� Projecf �1q participatein consu[tetiaRS w�it� such authq�liss. 1.2.4. Provide analyses af bV►fNER's needs, pfanning survers, si!� eraaalion9 ard toe�fyae�ativc sL�4.es d praspeehve sdes:r� sa�uans 1.2.6. Preparea ReportconlaininQSChemaliclayouis, sxeta�$s a�a c�ncepr�a� cae��en #+��,�!►� �rs�na�$ �ah�?s !o �n•]ce',e �:��-•r !� rr:0er�;ens�nmisad i:��aJ{fl� it�.�IL' F� �f@ffl6ftL6 Y�DVf'�A+T'lBfdB d��F�[� ��urc��r�� G? dfvresafl� a�,l !ne.;�l�+dSly� s41��77s svS�Vnbfc I:: �1++rT�ER rL sett:ng (e�fl EMG;r�t�r��s ��'='�s and�eocmmendarons. [4�,Sf6tpF�t55+;�iiG�ropav►;�� E�Irat=Ks opirran �:! �roba;xet�sls k�'he ��y. +�I�uk'r� 4'h�toie�r�g wli� wib D� separ2tefj �ri�sd Consi►uCTionCA;?, ilc f�•eng�l�eerir�catl�m�d O��CiCS. � 1911 IftE �� a' �41:�11 i4�ii�'I� ��i f'fi�iR£F�' �IOili�11W3'a 1'if 6iK:1 �$f �'n5 3i ��B$ @f }l D1f1�I �FD:6g5101+3i,S o-� r�: i ra, � � i I�"�, �0` Lh@ rr`]EL nJ. �� :i i i�nts+3f-,roap. �r ��irin �w [a� d�mages � p�q� � ws �f �IlI9f@S� •Tf:�IR211C113� Gh�'� oMl 4X Olil� 5{�t�l"! IC � provided bX �a^rrs �� r.•�T�E� D��ant x� pa��ap� ��;�� Ifl!a' rf � SuCi� G'ASiS, 21'OhYZnePS, r.S-. �7� �Qlp�f C�142� 'Total Prnjeci Casts.' ].i� F�� v@ ��p1� � r� Sfu�F n�l Reppr� dar+xn�ds anQ tCw�e+M B�EA11lI �er.ti� +r�t �F�Fc SECTION 2-Af1tiITlC�NRt� SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER 2.1. ADi�ITfC3NALSERVIC�SDEFINED 2.1.1. For the purposes of this agre�rr�ent, it is �,��titxi that nArRSa! 5�+� �k�E4+q'�Pf ��"�� 6w1:v-� ;� re!?:ll�' ��,�� in �.�err of �Fn: �.�rin� �F� �vranc aa� � � .�i��t� tita� "� az d,tk3ltritf �nei�E Gf � ah� 4w*M 2.1.1.1. lf OWNER wishes ENGINEER to perf�rm ary of the #alaMn� �4� �Y�ti�. �ti�� S��'1 t�:�:�� -M1ir;�,�C�i�w�ng,��]I�+�IM:ER 5'w��'�arCT3�� from others, such services and will be paid as providedin the Lelter Agreemeni: I�iL`paf�¢�dk �� f{i'-�W� �+�aiAlAfr�sr�!.��4� �?��ri ��4�3. a+r.i �i51� �! 9Ul�nirx� C�+►prlfdilrlt8�A�0��J4. •�i'i�� 17 9�'Pbe Or'a'�m,a a a�1Fi§kt�F .xYld�ifi49§ :R �ti} �11�f1oFi a+Cl!'d�ii Grq�h�r �) � �flfA�:E�I►I� ��fl� except where required as pari ai Basic ��, -Preparation �° pr�lirninary a�for final desion documents $uCn 5en�,e5 �� be pravidcd q� :rg�+Ee� �^�.� [I�@� s�� cancaians 2[ � sepmr�pe Prop� �o�;l�:c+�� -Services during the construction phase of the projsci except asspecificallyinciudedunderthisagreement. S�chse�rvf�s may be provided by Engineer under the terms and condilions t� a separate proposal and agreement. SECTION 3 - i3WNER`S RESPi�NSi�ii.IT`IES 3.1 �merProvides Full lnfnr��fiqn �.f.1. �4kN� � �•r�iJ: �I ��eRa an� FJ� iAfOlrn�Fpn �c b QK"tdE;R�s +�G�T4men{s m� �r Drs��, �na1e s (sn.•ir.- �r. �C•: xa Ih �lhor�y �'� ��tiraE R'x G�� iespec�. cf �I aspeusv tr�P•�:i.��:�:��►eearn�rc�pcn�prarr�p�i�� : ��EE�`s �,tamsswr�. i-r. ��r� A'�;.� �y�,tten � I+t =s:�4=�s� w�e�r Q�4NEFl =t�s�,�: �, 4+r�5� be0�ts�s ah-r;; Sr �y 4�!BL' �4 Sp8 �YiuJc 32. Ov�nter Provides 5e�vlces 3.2.1 OWNER shalt also do the foll�ing and pay all costs incident thereto: �-Fumish to ENGINEER �rit�gs, prabings and g�p-�urfac� ez�ora:�s #a�nrograpn;;surv�eys.labo�2to�9tte��:+�s FnSpeC'�15 .? 4��. �+df� 3!5 �:7� rr,u �r•7pnl� �€�@ �;_^ sana! i�der}uElataons oi �: af tt+e leres,�'�. environmentalassessment and impaet siatem�t, properiy, boundary, easemenl, righi�i-way, t��rographic and utility surv�Ys: �roper�y. laau�dan�, easemenf, nc�ht-af-way, �+�'� ��u��'��e:wei�Cf30�±�Y�r�r,�::;.iu,��G � r�ti:�r�d•rs; �t G[�NIWG�1 �P��:hE�R.'�'r f+?r 4K� I R performingservices hereunder. Guarantee access ta and make all provisions {c�rENGINEER to enter upon public and private property. —F'rovide such legal, accounti�g, independent cpst estimating and insurancecounselingservicesas may be requiredforthe Project, any auditing s�riC� required in respect of a i4�,�,_,-�•^�rara��crt Ga++.�l f�4•�!!ii fii�ri � wyt 1 q�� I �r.4-�;G}•ixj' a',Y�CaA0n6�G1 �iXR�enl, �n'S �irT nS�Ct� sqtv�cca � dr.lerrrerp� if �ad�;r�.��;Y] arc po�'m' � trtewal� legally. --F�mish approvals and permits'�c�n ali governmental authorities having juris�icfior� over the Pr��t 4,0 PAYMENT OF FEES 4.1. Fees Are t�, Accasda�ce With L,ett+�'Agreement �.1.1. The ENGINEER's fees sh�1C be in accordancewith the L�+* Agreement. Unless sEated othervtis£ in the L�li�` Agreemer�, fees do not include reimbursable expenses which are billed direct in �ccordance with par�raph 4.2. �� 5112'i � �.�1' in � v4�1G1 `L7B EN�INF.�R's serY�s .,fi oam�e�e �r rne a�o� � suspendedformorethan9a'��+tior'•^�+n,�� ih= ENGINEER shall be paid his completefixedfeeoron the basis of his time sper� on the work at his standardhaurly rafs5, whichever is less. }'• � f{ �1114��+f2�ls la rr•3Y.9 e�X ;:3�in�= d��e Eh�th1FE�R rcr s�r.ces ana ��e1 y��n�, ttnny ��3 ahcK f�rp�tr• �N4��eii S si�lcKr=ent �hr.rp•�'C, xr �;ME � �NGINE�Ft �nil'€�c inCrEast.�d a� k�e ��c 2� !.59! RR'' ;rarl'� r� � hs �a �S tna ��e�ca, a�� m acfdfian, �lVG;SSE�R T a� aff�r g�v�ng s8.en days'wri�en nolice3G �T.tiT�E� t. s_�s;t� �+erv,�es unr�r �is �,�er�r.l �npl E�tt�lFEE�t rtas beer c�� in �rll all arF€W�ts due for seruioe&, expenses and charges. �WP4�R s�`r�' �':` D�' 81 G dl� GP �6i.'GS�►Cf unpa+(f t�esand ��, urc.uWmsg a?t4mer's k�s �� 1� r�a50�akde kme [� r�;.�F 2�-� �� embb'��s basQG � T� �'r,ii�� = schedule. � ' 4-1.4. Th� owner shall review engineer's invoices piOrT�pf�y when received and shall nq�{y engineer of any af�jecfi�n to sa� invoices. It is agre�d that ii in the Qw1n�f 5opinion, said invoice is in�ilSislEntWlf� this ag��rt�etit, he shall object to said invoice within 30 days of the date of the invoice. After 30 days of the date of th� invoice, the ownerwaives his rightto o�BCttosaid invoices. 4.,�, Reimbursable Expenses 4�1. �e;e�6ursaale£s�er�se3nr^_:r�yR acluareapeases rtx,1Je� b�i33C�lraft�2 r�F�;INEE�S ��OC�r pro��w�^�i associates or consultants directly or indirectly in connection with the Project, such as expensesfor: ��5�c�.'��i, fepfOd�lCt�0�5 G� �QpDt1S. ;'� �ri��s, 5p�dfoca�vns, 9�d�ng �'.c�_-�c+�ls �rd Sirrilar Pre�ctre�ated items: charges levied by othersfor materials w i re d t� �am p►e wo�k (copies vf npcord �rs. maps, d�eds, 5peGi�liEC� GoL'Uf7lents, 2aG �� f�ng'ie�5; pfitmit a(1p�11r1' �R5 efc.; and if authCx'izet! in advanee by OVIINER, overtime vuork requiring higher than regular rates. SECTION 5 — N�t5CE1_i:AN�t3U5 5.1. Genera}Requirements 511 SinceENGINEERhasnoC4�ittptoverlheCOStof labor, m�tei'181s, equipment or Seivi�e� iur�tis�7ed by othe�s or overthe Conlr�Cftl!(s,�' methods of dst�rmsning gtice5, or over cam�efil� 6idd n� � raae�e! 4�1�"�t EIYGINF'�Ti'� opaaons ��{AOOra�e 1�IB��ri� �'�s � �}hbht� �bst propide+� forherein are to be made on the basis of EN�I�EER's erper'ente ,-r: r,�,�n� 6tiI�f�1EE�� bes: �uagr�enl' a� E'��REfii �na! �e does rr_i guar�suae�r,; �f�58�5, �L'� Lf aL�;rt Taf� � aP::: �.I l,trs�� _r'�tv7'_I:!L.Y wi! ��. vat� f�un a�r� �Y pitbablc 4�t pgpa�ua Cg ENGINEER. 5.i.2. Theobliqationtoprovidef�trtlterservicesunderthis y�IEYfIII:III �=,?� E918i�t1�l4t] }7��;'�;� �y I� u;rr i.}4ri11 rayxi w[�lP�R u�i� a� G1# ekenCpt SuL��a I;�Lr$ tr� :'a� pl� p�ySp,�c*��^n =n aC44raanGe uinFl� t�� ?`+�Exr��ta4«� �4 fat�lt oP �:� terminatingparty. 5.1.3, This A��ement is to be gQVernea� by kh� 1aw� of ki�e project location. �.1; Noiirir� u��: !'+� ��,y,yreelnen! she � be ear�frvc�s! h� ��e �:+ rigt�s r�: t��elas.�: m s�+��:�.I I� a�}rone aahcr It�ar+ GU� � ar.i ��yGt�ER. �d aa ri;R:es a+�! �■x;st,�l�s UnderlakQn p�,$rrr i�t'� ��cnl'��1! pa 14rt�e #ue �7J �v ��cv?bd��Fil OF QiiME� �h! �kf�lMF�Fr and not forthe benefit of any other party. 5.1,5. Any h2z�rd4u9 waste. undemround slora�e tanks, �'f 7�'��Y'y�v� fl'�.l�f.L�i44CfCRUY�.K��'+o�SU�J��S{']��'C�NS� t�►Wmeddr+tng �'�ovu� � ihs pr�acat�ridL�aie��a�04, Qracaps�,aled •f oAlety�:c' PDi+ta�ned a= fFr�lrh�p bt �aw►. rules. regtrla�ons c� �'�eet5 t�• �'i�'��R. aCtir� Ihra.rgh �.�ai�ed prol�5sicsnalS and contractors. S tSl�ttda� �� ,��LGeneral F�rl� 9�p dac �n � d2 DAJ E: RE �r:�,.� ��1 �� ' �'r � � � � �• I • � ' ,3 � January 1,2005 General Engineering Fee Schedule for 2005 The following Engineering Fee Schedule is fumished for your information. HOURLY FEE SCHEDULE Personnel: PrincipalEr�gin�erlProj�ct Manager Projeci Engineer Civil Engineerl Senior Technician Technician Clencal Survey Crew MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Item: Mileage: Black & White Photocopies: 8%" x� 1" or 8%" x 14 Black & Wh�e Photocopies:11" x 17" Color Photocopies: 8%' x'� P' or 8/" x 14" Color Photocopies: � 1" x 17" Blue(ine Pnnts: 22" x 34" or 24" x 36" 8luelin� Prints: largerthan 24" x 36" Out-of Pocket E�enses: �,Q� • $1119_�[i�Ihr ��,0�- �10P.�9u, S5�.U� - �f.�1hr, 55� �- ��.�, �44_{�1- �fi�.Q�fh�. �4�.��ht, ��34,�hr, $ 0.40�/mile $ (3�47Ieac� $ f}.1 �-isac� � �.501�ach � 1 �O+eech $ � A�Ieac� � �.40��a� actual cost Engineering Sennces may be on a fixed fee basis when prior arrangements are made. ��k�L;FE� C� *1�u1 1656 Livingstone Road. Hudson, W� 54016 715-366-5819 • 651-436-2075. 800-822-7670. fax: 715-386-5679. www.stevensengineers.com Date: 03/21/OS Item: 3. OVAL Task Force Mayor and City Council: OVAL Task Force Vice Chair Scott Nelson is expected to give a short summary of the progress made during the first and second meetings of the OVAL Task Force. Neal Date: 03121105 Item: 4. 2005 Park Improvement Program Proposed Projects for the Parks and Recreation 2005 Park Improvement Program (PIP) BACKGROUND The goals for the PIP are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To repair and replace any park facilities and related amenities that is in need of repair because of their age and condition. To bring all park facilities up to city code and to meet recognized safety standards in all city parks. To insure that all parks are used to their fullest potential while protecting natural resources and open space. To increase the aesthetics of all Roseville parks. To make upgrades, enhancements and replacements without incurring unusual costs for rehabilitation or redevelopment. To make improvements based on the most up-to-date professional standards. The PIP process is as follows: �. All improvements will requirements, municipal standards. meet the latest appropriate safety and state codes and professional 2. Staff will work with the Parks and Recreation Commission in reviewing the PIP. 3. Improvements will be designed to meet required standards and minimize andlor reduce maintenance procedures currently required. 4. The majority of the reconstruction labor will be contracted allowing park maintenance staff to concentrate on regular maintenance concerns. 5. An environmental analysis will be conducted before a redevelopment proposal is completed. 7. Standard procedures will be used for drawing specifications, advertising for bids, receiving quotes and awarding contracts. POLICY INFORMATION The City previously made a substantial investment that needs to be protected and enhanced. . PIP monies will be spent to redevelop present park facilities rather than construct entirely new projects. Projects will be recommended by staff, reviewed and referred by the Parks and Recreation Commission and adopted by the City Council. Additional funding may be used from participating groups to enhance the project. . Regular ongoing maintenance will continue to address these problems that are not a part of the adopted current PIP projects to insure completely safe facilities. FINANCIAL INFORMATION $150,000 has been approved in the 2005 City Budget for implementation of the PIP. PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR 2005 Based on the completion and analysis of the PIP evaluation process and the unanimous recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the following projects are recommended totaling $150,000: ITEM Park Signs Playground Equipment (Sandcastle Park) Rosebrook Field Lighting Tennis Court Resurface (Victoria) Athletic Field Upgrades Victoria Dredging Landscaping Amenities Picnic table, grills, Bleacher Pads, Victoria 2, Legion Field AMOUNT $20, 000 $30, 000 $50, 000 $15, 000 $15, 000 $1 �,{}0[} $ 5, 000 5.000 TOTAL $150,000 Date: 03/21/OS Item: 5. Dangerous Animal Ordinance Mayor and City Council: The City Attorney and Police Chief will speak to the definitions and appeal provisions that were questioned at the February 14, 2005 Council Meeting. Neal � � � � 1 � 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ROSEVILLE CODE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE FIVE, SECTION 501.16 VICIOUS ANIMALS THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS: Section 1: Section 501.16 of the �.oseville City Code is amended to read as follows: ��} � �. ��`��:��r��'; .� ��par�� Rrr�tr►e�� rg,-�a��r�r�+�i-r�� ati�€r-��r7--�� ,ePS��r,��li ��it� in� I �r�� be d�e ix�ed t4� �,e r� ica�ru ��'or t�i� �,�r�se��rf� �hi� �r�i�,�r_ -�� h �y7 Ein�a �7ti�}� l�e � �37 pr�iiE�� i�s t��e �' i[�' ��uEai� or� �� t�r��.i��at��•��E �.5�}' �r'�ikF�il�tf ��}� �:t�y A4ar�g��d��g� fc�r � �eri� �f` ten � 1 �M� d�y� o�� a�� t�7e ��e37 5� �f �E�e ��w�ti��t'sq i �l �� f�. ��l�se �f�er �rtsp��t�n� �'t� �a7it�ti�] slti�� n,�t l� r�]�sa�i €r�ar� TT�,'r`ll'TR'„"_l�,'_I�f_R ��_',T�,'T_RITTI'"�_•��R�j'�Tr..��TV V�-CC7L��k�l�• r _ _ _ r �xc��-�l�e� �E��-{�t��--E�Fl��-kti��i�� _' ==., _..,.,a: _., _�._,� �..= '-- - -r - _.a..... :�i.. c....�:.... �r,r i r ..a cr��}3' L�1J1J1'!1114Li1� t1�L ��l� �ihCf'I I It�l� Flfti�klll}II IIF 2kti:i}�'ikklF�t� �'r'IF�k �E9FN �-C��iilF3-��i13�F �e � �3i�d�e�. C. ��r+�� E i �� T�' �hr� �� tnti�l i� ��i n�d �# ��e ,�w�tar' � ��eFy,� o Et,� ��t��+rit��l i� �€tl��j,•�iie�, �;�� r �reQ.ani� �i��. �h� r�wa7�r �rr t��E�� F��s m us�-��F �'�+ tla� €��9 E� � le�r#�a��a#_ � f tl� o r�� r�7�� G��atiti r�� hs��s i.jLi110F�� k�.l35 �l.k��Sih�'�•(�t'��,��-oF�i��r�r�� k+�l��,� ��h i�; ��, �st� it�t i�i�7. � � � r�. 1 [ i � �, f�-? �-��w; �3 it7�: � � �;�� 'cx�E�� 501.16 Dan�erous Animals. A. Definitions. (1) "Dan,gerous animal" means �n�- animal that has: � � � 5 �i (al without provocation. inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; ��,} killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or ? fr� been found to be potentially dan eg rous, and after the � � owner has notice that the animal is �otentiall� �� dan�erous, the animal a�gressively bites, attacks, or ]�1 endan�ers the safetv of humans or domestic animals. �L ]� ]3 ]� ]5 ] �fi �� "Potentiallv dan�erous animal" means anv animal that: (al when unprovoked. bites a human or domestic animal on pubiic or private property; �� h� when unprovoked. chases or a�roaches a person, ]� including a person on a bicvcle. or other wheeled ]{J convevance such as skateboards. scooters and the ��a likel u�on the streets. sidewallcs. or an,��ublic or � E private propertv. other than the animal owner's �� propertX, in an a�arent attitude of attack; or �� has a known propensitv, tendencv, or disposition to �� attack unprovoked, causin� ini��v or otherwise �� threatenin� the safetv of humans or domestic animals. �� _ . r �� (�� "Prover enclosure" means securelv confined indoors or in a �� securelv locked pen or kennel suitable to prevent the animal �� from escapin� and to provide protection for the animal from � I the elements, to include adequate food and water. A proper �� enclosure does not include a porch, �atio, or anv �art of a �� house, �arage. or other structure that would allow the animal 3� to exit of its own volition, or anv house or structure in which �� windows are oben or in which door or window screens are the 3� onlv barriers which prevent the animal from exitin�. Such 3� enclosure shall not allow the e�ress of the animal in anX �� manner without human assistance. A ben or kennel shall 3� �� ] �� A� meet the following minimum svecifications.: (a� Have a minimum overall floor size of thirtv-two 32 square feet. � l (b� Sidewalls shall have a ininiinuin height o f five (5 ) feet � � cmd be const�ucted o f 11-gauge o� heavie� wi�e. ?� Openin�s in the wi�e shall not exceed two (2) inches, �G su�po�t posts shall be one cmd one-c�ua�te�-inch o� 5 la��e� steel �ipe bu�ied in the �ound ei hteen 18) �i inches o� ino�e. When a conc�ete.�loo�is not p�ovided, � the sidewalls shall be bu�ied a ininiinuin o f eighteen inches in the g�ound. i'� l� ��,ti A cove� ove� the enti�e pen o� kennel shall be I� p�ovided. The cove� shall be const�ucted o f the saine I? �ge wi�e o� heavie� czs the sidewalls and shall also l� have no openings in the wi�e �eate� than two � � � inches. l� l6 Zr (d) An entrancelexit gate shall be p�ovided cmd be const�ucted ofthe saine inate�^ial cs the sidewalls and t� shall also have no o�enings in the wi�e g�eate� than 1�) two (2) inches. The gate shall be ec�ui�ed with a � i] device capable o f being locked cmd shall be locked crt � E all tiines when the aniinal is in the pen o� kennel. �� fa �� '� ;3�:� �l �� B. Regist�ation. �i.�,��e�son inav own a dan�e�ous aniinal in the Citv unless the aniinal is �e�iste�ed as p�ovided in this Section. �� The Citv will, upon application bv the owne�. issue a � ce�tificate o f�'egist�ation to the owne� o f a dange�ous aniinal i fthe owne� ��esents evidence that.• (n 1 a��o�e� enclosu�e exists o�the dange�ous aniinal: , �� (b) a warnin��n. including a warnin�svinbol fo� � 5 child�en, has been placed info�ining of the p�esence o� � � the dange�ous aniinal; 3`�' 3�? �� the owne� has p�ocu�ed a su�etv bond issued by a 3�� su�etv coinpanv autho�ized to do business in �� Minnesota. in a fo�in acceptable to the Citv in c� least �] the suin o f$50.000 �avable to anv �e�son �ni�red b� �? the aniinal o�. alte�nativelv. the owne� has in r�lace a �� policv of insu�ance ��ovidin� the saine ��otection; � �d} the owner has �aid to the City an annual fee of $500 in addition to the re�ular license fee for an animal} � � (e} the owner has had microchip identification implanted f} in the dan�erous animal, and the City has been - provided with the name of the microchip manufacturer � and identification number of the microchip; a� �� L�� n�gr�no�� imal ��c�� ct�� antifiahla } 1 standardized ta ig dentifvin� the animal as dan eg rous, l� which is affixed to the animal's collar at all times. 1� !� �� C. Registration of Potentiall,�gerous Animals. 1 f7 (1) An animal that has been determined to be potentiall,y I r dan�erous mav be required to complv with any or all of the i � followin�: I �� 1 �� (a� the animal owner mav be rec�uired to com�lete animal obedience classes. �3 �h} the animal may be required. at all times outside an �� enclosure. to be restrained bv a chain or leash not to �� exceed six (61 feet and under the control of an ��a individual 18 years of a�e or older. 2? �� 2� �[� �L �� 5 ��i �^ �� {? �{I �7 �� the animal owner ma,y be required to provide proof of current vaccinations. D. Re�ulation of Dan�erous Animals. �� 1 An owner of a dan�erous animal shall keep the animal, while on the owner's propertv, in a proper enclosure. If the dangerous animal is a dog. and the dog is outside the �ro�er enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash. which mav not exceed six (6) feet in len�th. The chain or leash must be under the control of an individual 18 vears of age or older. �?� An owner of a dan�erous animal must renew the re�istration � of the animal annuallv until it is deceased. Renewal of registration must include proof of up-to-date rabies vaccinations. (3} An owner of a dan�erous animal must notifv the Citv in writing of the animal's death or transfer outside the City within 30 days of death or transfer. and must execute an affidavit of death or transfer as brescribed bv the Citv. (4� The City may require any dan¢erous animal to be sterilized at the Owner's expense. (51 A person that owns a dan¢erous animal and rents �ro�ertX � from another must notify the property owner,�rior to signing the lease a�reement, that a dan�erous animal will reside at the pro�ertv. (6) A�erson that sells a dan¢erous animal must notifv the purchaser that the animal has been identified as dan eg rous, and must also notify the Citv in writin�providin� the new owner's name, address and tele�hone number. (7) The City mav seize a dan�erous animal if anv of the requirements contained in this subdivision have not been met. A seized animal rnt�� be reclaimed upon payment of impoundin� and confinement costs and proof that the requirements of this Ordinance will be met. An animal not reclaimed within seven davs will be destroyed. and the owner will be liable for all costs incurred in confinin� and disposin� of the animal. (R�� ig nnin¢ six months after an animal is declared a dan eg rous animal. an owner may request annually that the City review the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the animal's behavior has chan�ed due to the animal's age, neuterin�„ environment, completion of obedience training that includes modification of a�gressive behavior, or other factors. If the City finds sufficient evidence that the animal's behavior has chan�ed. the Citv rr�av rescind the dan�erous animal desi ang tion. � 1 �ql Notwithstandin� anythin� in this subdivision to the contrary, �? the City r�� destroy an animal that has inflicted substantial �� or �reat bodilv harm on a human being on public or private � .# � � � � � ? 9 ID �1 �`' � I; I� property without provocation. Destruction of the animal may occur after the animal owner has had a reasonable o�ortunity for a hearin� before a decision-maker appointed by the City. (� p} Nothin� contained in this Ordinance shall apply to do�s used for law enforcement pur�oses by a law enforcement agenc� Source: Ordinance No. 307, Third Series Effective Date: 3-15-02 D. Determination of Status. ��Z Whether an animal is "dangerous" or "�otentially dangerous" � as that term is used herein shall be determined bv the Chief of I{ Police or his or her designee in consultation with the Citv ]�i Attornev. sub'tect to a�eal to the Citv Council as �rovided ]� below. The owner and �ersons that have suffered injury or ]� damage due to the animal shall be �;iven written notice of the 1 �k determination. �� If the animal owner. or other person that has suffered in�u �? or dama�e due to the animal. wishes to appeal the Chief of �,� Police's or his or her desi�nee's determination, a written �� notice of a�eal must be filed with the City within 10 days of �� receint of the written determination. The Citv Council mav � f� hear the a�eal itself. a�oint a committee of the Council to �� hear the appeal and make a recommendation to the Council, �S or a�oint an Inde�endent Hearin,� Officer to hear the a�.peal 24� and make a recommendation to the CounciL The hearin� 3 ia shall be o�en to the �ublic. The City Council shall make a � I final decision. If an Inde�endent Hearin,� Officer is a�ointed 3� bv the Council, the a�ealin��part. s��ay the costs of the 3 _� Hearin� Officer. 3� �� 3�� SECTION 2: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and � �'� publication. 3� �� Passed by the City Council of the City of Roseville this � ] 2005. � day of Date: 03/21/OS Item: 6. City Hall Building Proj ect Mayor and City Council: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz will do a final recap of the budget for the project and our construction experience. Neal �� _ � _ , � �_ � ' ! 1 To: Mayor and City Council Neal Beets, City Manager - • — From: Chris Miller, Finance I'�ir�::.L�r��.�� Date: March 21,2005 '� Re: Discussion on Municipal-OwnedNetworks Date: 03121/OS Item: 7. Municipally-Owned Networks Introduction Over the past several years, various media outlets have been reporting about the establishment of municipal-owned networks to provide broadband internet service and enhance existing public service networks. Communities such as Chaska, Buffalo, Philadelphia, etc., have all embarked on the delivery of information-based infrastructure/services that are commonly delivered by private-sector firms. Locally, the City of Roseville has been researching and testing available technologies for the purposes of providing citywide internet access and to enhance City programs and services since the mid `90's. More recently, the North Suburban Communications Commissions (NSCC) sponsored a retreat to talk about potential opportunities. While much of the media attention has been focused on the end result, there has been less shared on the reasons why municipalities have entered into this foray. Attached to this memo are a series of articles that address the pertinent issues. While some of the articles are written from a particular viewpoint, they nonetheless touch upon why municipal networks have emerged. In addition, the articles also highlight the downside of these types of networks and why opponents are against them. To gauge whether the City Council wants to expend resources to further study municipal-owned networks, Staff suggests that the Council conduct an exploratory discussion on the whether to pursue such an initiative. To assist the Council in this discussion, the following talking points are submitted: L1 �� 3) 4) 5) Talking Points What common factors are present in current municipal-owned networks? Do they apply in Roseville? Is the current level of broadband service insufficient to meet demand? How have we measured this? If the current level of broadband service insufficient, what is the timetable for improvements? Is this acceptable? Can the City compete long-term with the private sector on this platform? Why or why not? Should the City compete with the private sector on this platform? Why or why not? 6) What do we stand to lose by competing with the private sector on this platform? 7) What enhancements can we make to city services with a publicly-owned network? At what cost? 8) What factors should be looked at to determine the co�tlbenefit to Roseville? 9) What factors should be looked at to assess the ris�lreward relationship? Attachments C� Various articles on municipal-owned networks Final Comments Staff will be available at the meeting to facilitate the discussion. - • ��r. ,��L• �• '. _ s•• � • t- _ _'r•.x••' ��, _ _,., ' _' .�•.4•�'M1�' ��`+N:.};..�y�.��.,'{Jk'+•� •�, , _' :y� •_.. •~y.}�� r��: r' �'!r�• •'}' •, �� .i�. �� •, : SE�n��_�!�.• ,-. ' 'r%,.,i: r �` h � M1 � j �- - -t-�Yr • � . � � -?� . _ _ •'�=�ti_ . •F •F _ r V.y ' �. • • -. l' •:M � �'• k+o-�;� � , R;�'r= �`Yy�+ +R •t,..i'4 .__�[�itiL_sl.nn2�i`S��_�__•�.� _.L__.�_ � ��..._ _�._ ti. �--•�•. v��,'� •- -..-.x' ti .s _.x._��r_�R+::��._+i�4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I Providin Munici al Broa�band Serv�ces . g p -- � - � � • r „ ��. �, • . . �... ' - � � - . , �... ,, �. . , ,......, . t a recent senunar co-sponsored I�y the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and Iron Raa�ge Resources, ciry ofiicials reviewed technology being used to e��t•� local needs for liigl�- speed lntcrnct connectivity and voice coinrnti�nications. While some of thc information focused on big-ciry e�carnples like Philadelphia or Seattle, smaller cities throughout Minizesota are demonstrat- ing the valtFe of municipal Izaternet services. High-speed Internet projects in cities are often a direct response to needs identified by residents, bt�sinesses, schools, and service providers. Broader availability of r�i�anici�a� networks may i-educe the cost to subscribers for Inter- net connections, data transmissions, and related voice conmiLinication. Often, the ciry is only one of several partners in a community-wide project to improve connectiviry City officials might ;�: r! ��- •�• with schools, counties, health care facilities, and rural coop- eratives to get services to residents and local business, using a combination of wireless connectivity as well as �7�ore traditional cabling. Although state law delegates to cities 11 r: authoriry necessary to carry out their assigned functions, there is no explicit autho�-ization for the wide-ranging changes in the roles cities are playing as service providers. In those cities with home rule charters, the charter may pi-ovide more explicit authorization (or perhaps authority for the municipal utiliry) to provide such services. Regardless, competitors in the private sector have not been excited to see cities getting into the role of providing high- speed connectiviry and services. One approach that sail�e cities have success- fully employed is to obtain a certificate from the Minuesota Yubiic Utilities Comn�ission as a"local niche provider," which may provide necessary documen- tation that the city has been acknowl- edged as an eligi�le service provider. Cities were encouraged during the scit�i��ar to consider their authority to provide services as well as their s�ecific needs in terms of connectiviry levels, vendors and partners, operational strtiic- tua-e, and technology In n�a��y cities, more tiiaii one technology ��u}� be appropriate to meet community needs, and a coordinated effort to za�cet tliose needs m� build important alliances between public and private interests Finally, cities were reminded that sometimes the value of connectiviry is as n�Lich to the ciry itself as to thc communityApplications forlocallaw enforcci��cnt, real-time response from public works teams, and increased oper- ational efiiciency were cited as good reasor�s for a ciry to invest in newer technology—evenwithout the demand for more widesprcad municipal services. 5ozzae of the technology discussed at the seminar included: Broadband ovev Power Line (BPL). BI'L technology uses high-voltage dis- tribution infrastruct��re to deliver high- speed data and voice communication. Broadb��nd connections provide appre- ciably faster sea-vice than traditional dial-up, and can deliver m�tltiple signals at rnultiple fiec�uencies. Rochester Pub- lic Utilities praE�eci their development of BPL, currently in the testing phase. Fiber to the Home (FTTH). F T T H includes installation of fiber optic cabling to residcnts and bt�sinesses, providing reliable connectivity and substantial bandwidth to tral�snut large graphic and data f�les.Windor�-� began construction ofits FTTH systcill i��July 2004 and hopes to have it co��lpleted in early 2005. The ciry is encouraged by the wide acceptance of properry owners to allow preziuscs installation. HyLrid Fiber Coarial (HFC). Relatedto FTTH,alrybrid_�t•_� coax- ial (HFC) system establishes a core of fibcr optic cabling with coaxial cabling (often already in place),rnaking the connection between individual house- holds or businesses and the core. Some cities aze finding that HFC is a stepping stone to lar�cr F T T H goals. Wiyeless laetivoy�ks. Cities are also corlsiderii�g significant efforts in wire. less eechnolo�;y Buffalo has created a wireless mesh network that pz-avzdes both dial-up and broadband Iizteri�.et connectiviry, as well as a variery of applications for city use.The concept behind a mesh network is that it auto- matically repairs a connection point that fails by using other connections in the meshed structure.This pzovzdes sotlie important back-up connectivit�; as con�pared to a point-to-point system. Wireless systems bcii�g evaluated in cities so far are focused onWi-�i tech- nology, using the unlicensed wireless spectrum. Wi-Max is the next technol- ogy tivaire expected in the next several years and will offer iicensed spectrum options, which should reduce the level of possible interference. As cities look to the future, a com- bination oftechnoiogies that can help ex�and afforda�le access to broadband services might result in local of�`�cials finding it increasingly iinpo�tant for the ciry to play a niore active role in encoui-aging and possibly even provid- ing the iZieaias by which city operatioi�s and the entire community will have direct access to the benefits of broacl- hand coz�xntunications. � F�r�a2 Gerge��z is technology services clirector �vith the Lec�gase of Marar�Gesof.a Cikies. �'��.. ��•. (651) 281-1291. L'-innil: �.,,:�� t • �.:�. �� vi�q.Anr�a �iggiras is intergovernmental relations represer�.tafive �r�itFr tlre Leagtae of LYlinr�resota Cities. Pliorae: (651) 281-1257. E-mai1:.-�i:�Li:i: r�:�;.�::. •:L .-....-.�.r.r .!::- . , .�� .-�.� ;: . .�_�--�_._ .=.1 � CNN.�om - Cities find Wi-Fi future - Oct 18,2004 *�� Cities find Wi-Fi future More municipalities offering the service By Amy Cox CNN Page 1 of 2 �r'-�� Pf�I�TiTiWI� P�warad hy � �IC��f�f (CNN) -- It's not Silicon Valley, but Chaska, Minnesota, may be moving to the leading edge of Wi- Fi technology as it begins offering the service for all city residents. One of only a handful of cities in the nation to try it, Chaska --just southwest of Minneapolis -- plans to have most of the city's 15 square miles Wi-Fi operational by the end of October. "We firmly believe that the Internet is going to be just as much a part of everybody's future as the telephone or electricity � and we want to make sure that everybody has equal access to it," says Bradley Mayer, Chaska's information systems manager. "We wanted to ensure there was some sort of broadband activity that could be affordable by our residents." Currently, the city with a population of around 18,000 has signed up about 2,000 subscribers forthe service. Mayer says. While the city works on tweaking the 200 access points placed throughouttown, the service is free. When it becomes fully operational in October. subscribe— will pay $15.95 a month. The low cost is one of the advantages of having a municipal-run Wi-Fi network over a private company, Mayer says "We're not in it to make money. We're going to provide a service for the residents of the city. We operate at a much lower cost because we're not a profit center." Chaska joins a spate of other cities preparing for or launching municipal-run Wi-Fi networks I n September, Philadelphia officials announced a$10 million plan to transform all 135 square miles of the city into one Wi- Fi hot spot, placing cells on street lights and other devices. The service would be free or v�ry low cost, according to the city. San Mateo, California, operates a secured Wi-Fi network in the central part of the city for the police department. Officers can now access databases from their car laptops without driving back to the station. And in St. Cloud, Florida, residents and visitors can surfthe Web for free using a Wi-Fi network created by the city. Currently, service covers a 12 block square downtown, but will be expanded to include all of an upcoming planned 59Q- acre community within the city Jumping on the Wi-Fi bandwagon? Some industry experts, however, are wary of cities providing and maintaining a Wi-Fi service and believe many municipalities are jumping on the high-tech bandwagon. E�it�:rr'�:-i�_[��h:�t�lar�. priniLE�is. �1 i�k�L�ifiiw .�or:3: ��t� c�l _'a�t i oii-c}.tc�l i t�L -�: ��I. �c7m �-+�.' i i,e�,., 3;' ]?'�ili�� CNN.com - Cities find Wi-Fi future - Oct 18,2004 Page 2 of 2 "I haven't seen a lot of what I would consider real successes yet [with municipal wireless]." says Derek Kerton, found�� °t the wireless consulting firm The Kerton Group. "I'rr� watching the hype. More and more cities are announcing they're �on�� to do it, and I get concerned because I'm hearing more and more rhetoricthat isn't consistentwith the underlying technology." ��r�r, e��,s it�at Wi-F � iks irriende� vse -- a sr-rafl }eKal � neMnork -- worRS ?ir+G. Bul 6r�ring �� x;x�+� ['w� ►r�lo � �4}�WKie sysierrt wkl bAl� 1�1�194 �t$r'�2f2� fi4f� ��r �i F: fl�Kvy4r►F� ��S ��Y ar�aivid4�al� x busmesse6 �r a: an iram everyday objects like microwaves, baby monitors and cordless phones that run �n the same low frequency as Wi-Fi, "A Wi-Fi network over a wide area is like trying to run an airline industry without air traffic control," he says. "You're going to have planes crash into each other occasionally because no one's controlling it." He also questionsthe cities' capabilities for ongoing maintenance of such a high-tech service. "The access point that covers your house is down -- how long will it take the city to get out there and fix it? Or will they complain they don't have the budget to fix it?" Ultimately, widespread municipal Wi-Fi projects will fail. Kerton believes, as residents quickly demand new technology down the road. But Mayer says Chaska has planned for the inevitable wireless advances and fully expects changes to come to the network as new technology emerges. So far, customers are happy with the city's Wi-Fi start, he says. "1#'s been a fantastic opportunity for us, and the residents seemed to have embraced it with open arms ...I think iYs going to be a very successful story." Find this article at: http:Ilwww.cnn.com120041TECHIinterneV101181wireless.citylindex. html � Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. I,tE�� r�.rrn.t�clin�log��,Qrin�chis.�li�:kd�iilii}�.�an�.+pl�cp��ction=�p�sit64 �'�T],c:�m+-�C.iti��,., afl ��4� [print version] Intel to back broadband role for cities J CNET News.com Page 1 of 2 � �E1II��Q�1 h��tp;��www,ne,�� m� Intel to back broadband role for cities By Richard Shim �#t� -�fnf:w�_cc�rn �c�ra-a�knt��t��ba�c+��a��ar.-d ��+#�r+��e� � �� 4_ 3.-5532714..}�fiml Story last modified Tue Jan 11 17:47:00 PST 2005 Chip giant Intel on Wednesday plans to provide a high-level perspective on the ongoing debate over the role of the public and private sectors in providing broadband services. In a speech at the Wreless CommunicationsAssociation in San Jose, Calif., Intel Executive Vice President Sean Maloney is expected to encourage commercial service providers and public agencies such as city governments and municipalities to work together in building out new broadband infrastructure. Intel has a keen interest in the proliferation of wireless broadband technology and industries using it; by early next year it plans to produce WMax chips for networking equipment that carriers can use to sell high-speed Internet access to consumers. WiMax is a promising wireless broadband technology allowing data to be wirelessly transmitted across several miles at transfer rates of several megabits per second. "Sole responsibility, either from government or a single carrier, of a city's wireless network is not the best solution for growing the market," said a source familiar with the chipmaker's position in wireless broadband policy. "A sharing of responsibilities is what will encourage broadband adoption, and that will be a key point in Intel's policy proposal." P,ABF�ney will outline the company's high-level policy position and will speak out against efforts to ban municipally owned networks. In recent years, phone companies and cable providers have actively lobbied local and state governments to ban public agencies and municipalitie� from building their own communications networks. The commercial providers have been successful in some regions of the country. lr� �m� instances, commercial providers will be able to build networks and offer the best �network choice to customers at affordable prices. But in other instances, such as low-income ar��s ❑r rural locations, it might make more sense for a city or some other municipality to build infrastructure. "We welcome Intel's position and strongly support collaboration between the public and private sectors," said Jim Ball�r, a principal attorney for the Baller Herbst Law Group and a leading expert on municipally owned networks. Intel's position is partly in response to strong lobbying by Verizon Communications that helped lead to the passage of a law in ��r��v��i� that prohibits cities from offering Internet access to their residents for a fee. Verizon and other incumbent phone companies had urged legislators to ban municipally owned networks to prevent other cities from following the lead of lti��s�?r'i��.�a,7�.�.�nL'�.] i��-1 iJaa_ -��3�� I� F,tri71`.'EG4�' °,�E.11fiLI,F;ini :};']?�+J+JS [print version] Intel to back broadband role for cities � CNET News.com Kutztown, a small college town near Allentown that set up its own telephone, Internet and N system in 2002. Phone companies and cable providers argue that municipalities that build and own their communications networks have an unfair advantage because they are backed by public funds. They claim that the municipalities will drive them out of business by offering services at greatly reduced prices. On the other side, communities that want to build their own networks argue that they want broadband services now, and they are not willing to wait untf i� becomes economically feasible for cammercial providers to build the infrastructure. Copyright 01995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved Page 2 of 2 �, � �� .� F�E#p:+r'�ye�'�,��n,��m�� G Q�- f�3�_3. �� 3�� l�,h� m6?i��.. si. uiil. priat ��1 ��15 OPPORT IUWA one rr�� ... more �ho��e ��P�r�+�� I�v�r� �f�� Release • Grass Roots Organization Mobilizes Across the State 83I�wa Communities announce support for new non profit organization, Oppartunitylowa •"Essential infrastructure "for 21"' century jobs, Economic Development under review DES MOINES, Iowa — After several months of study and evaluation, citizen-leaders in dozens of Iowa communities have chosen to proceed with efforts designed to establish 1oca1 communication utilities in their communities. Working collectively within the framework of a new, non-pro�it organization called OpportunityIowa, grass-roots community teams have announced their intention to place the issue on 1oca1 ballots in November 2005. Leadership in 83 Iowa communities spanning 55 of Iowa's 99 counties have announced their support of this state-wide movement. Comprised of communities with existing communications utilities, and those seeking to fonn such utilities, OpportunityIowa represents approximately 25% of Iowa's homes and businesses and is the largest such initiative of its kind in the United States. OpportunityIowa has a prominent board of advisors including former Iowa Governors Terry Branstad and Robert Ray, former lowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, C1ark MaLeod, founder and former CEO of McLeodUSA, University of Northern lowa President Robert Koob, and Catherine Dunn, BVM, PhD, President of C1ark College, among others. �i:�s�� on the premise that the communication line serving homes and businesses is 'essential infrastructure' for the 21" century, OpportunityIowa member-communities are challenging a 100 }Trr o1d paradigm in the communications industry. "Communities have always owned the infrastmct��'�'� required for delivering essential services," said Rick Young, co-chairman of an OpportunityIowa cainmittee in Waterloo. "Cities own and control the roads in their community, not the companie4 1 ik c �'edEx or UPS that use them to deliver their products and services. Similarly, most airports are o'�`''�'� by the communities they serve, not by the airlines that use them. In an infonnation-based econo�'t}', LF� communications line serving homes and businesses is no different. A city-owned communicatio"� utility is a logical extension of this traditional and important role of 1oca1 government." Opportunity�owa's mission is to provide communities with an alternative to the existing, privately-held communications model by forming a municipal communications utility via referenda next November. A successful referendum empowers 1oca1 government to create the utility as a city entity, and to set up a board of governance. However, the formation of a communications utility does not require or obligate a comrnunity to finance or deploy the physical assets needed to deliver services. "The tremendous grass roots support of OpportunityIowa, coupled with strong bi-partisan leadership, illustrates the importance and relevance of this issue in Iowa," said advisory board member Bonnie Campbell. "Ensuring that communities can deploy the critical infrastructure needed for continued prosperity is appealing regardless of political affiliation. We're demonstrating that Iowans can work together to make a positive difference in their community, and across the state. " "The potential economic development opportunities such an infrastructure creates is substantial, including retaining Iowa businesses that require affordable communications access while attracting new, higher paying jobs in information-based industries," added advisory board member Terry Branstad. "Collectively, citizens in our member-communities are creating the momentum that could reshape 4970 L�k�sidc Rd. Marion, IA 52302 �$77.Uhtii�'.iA ��77.22�.3'� 37 (fax) � infoQopportunityiowa.com ��P��T 1�� oneline _.. morechoice Opportunitylowa Press Release Iowa's long term economic future. A11 of this is possible while further enriching the quality of life standards that Iowa is known for." Opportunitylowa also seeks to prevent legislation that would hinder 1oca1 communities from securing a 1oca1 communications utility. Opposing such legislation, which is introduced annually and is designed to restrict or prohibit 1oca1 communities from forming or operating communications utilities, OpportunityIowa remains a strong supporter of citizen control and 1oca1 community choice. "OpportunityIowa is about empowering Iawa citizens to take action, and preserving their ability to do so," stated C1ark McLepd_ "Forming a communications utility is an essential first step toward positioning a community to explore a11 of their options. For those communities seeking more affordable communications services designed Io promote economic development, or to provide more advanced and lower cost communications alternatives to citizens, a municipal utility may be the best – and perhaps only—option available. Retaining this alternative is extremely important for Iowa citizens, businesses and communities. Additional information about Opportunitylowa can he found at 1�• ti�rti4�.�P��r; i r�� 1: �x+•.� � 7'�, or by calling 1-877-UNITY-IA. Opportunitylowa is a noz�--profit, SQ1(c) 4 organization based in Marion, Iowa. � F 4970 �.ak�sic3� Rd. Marion, I�. 52302 �&i7.Utdl7if.tla � fi77.�2�.3�37 (fax) � info@opportunityiowa.com �� , �� Memo To: Mayor and City Council Neal Beets, City Manager �_ - � � From: Chris Miller, Finance Directo f�� . Date: March21,2005 — Re: Discussion on the Disposal of Surplus or Retired City Vehicles & Equipment Date: 03121105 Item: 8. Disposing of Excess City Property Introduction Earlier this year, the Council expressed an inquiry regarding the manner in which the City disposes of surplus or retired vehicles and equipment. The following is a brief overview of the City's current practices. Assessing the Useful Lives and General Condition of City Assets The City employs a variety of vehicles and equipment to support the City's programs and services. Each type of vehicle or equipment has a distinct expected useful life which depends on a variety of factors. Over time, the City is able to track these assets in a manner that fairly accurately predicts when the vehicle or equipment is near the end of its useful life. The decision to replace the vehicle or equipment is made when: a) The cost of maintaining the existing vehicle or equipment is greater than acquiring a new one b) Expected productivity with new vehicles or equipment exceeds productivity levels of existing ones c) The vehicle or equipment is inoperable and the cost of repairs exceeds the cost of purchasing a new one In most cases, two or more of these criteria are met before city assets are replaced. Depending on the type of asset, the City may use a variety of asset disposal methods. Those methods are explained in greater detail below. Disposal of City Vehicles Most city vehicles including; police squad cars, maintenance vehicles, inspection vehicles, etc., are disposed of through public auctions. These auctions take place at multiple times throughout the year and are typically coordinated by State, County or other local jurisdictions. The recent emergence of internet-based auctions has proven to be increasingly beneficial to the City. In comparison to traditional auction houses, on-line auctions have demonstrated to have lower selling costs and greater numbers of potential bidders - both of which results in higher net proceeds. This has been especially true for single-purpose vehicles such as fire trucks. Disposal of City Equipment In contrast to city vehicles, the disposal of city equipment is typically made after the equipment is either inoperable or close to failure. As such, they do not always lend themselves well to a traditional auction or garage sale-type method of disposal, primarily because the cost of conductin� these types of auctions or sale exceeds the sale proceeds. A good example of these types of equipment includes used city computers. Typically, the City uses its computers for 5 or more years. After five years, the computers' components and technology are generally unable to run current versions of software and operating systems in demand by most office or home users. In addition, software licensing restrictions do not allow the City to transfer software to the new buyer. A prospective buyer of used city computers may have to pay $200-300 or more to acquire the computer and operating software. When compared to a$400 cost of buying a brand new computer with fully-loaded software and warranty, it's easy to see why there is little demand for used computers on an individual basis. The notable exception to this is with educational institutions or non-profits that oftentimes purchase large lots of used computers for low-level instructional purposes. Given the lack of individual demand, the relatively small quantities of computers, and in consideration of the disposal costs for hazardous equipment, Staff has determined that it's more cost effective to dispose of computers through the State Prison System's computer program. The inmate population's low labor cost provides a cost-effective means to recondition anctlor dispose of used computers. Other types of used equipment (if operable) such as tools or office machines are sold at periodic City-held garage type sales that are open to the general public. Legal Concerns To a degree, State Statute governs the methods by which the City disposes of used or surplus equipment. Attached to this memo is an opinion written by the City attorney that addresses the applicable legal concerns. Worth noting is the section pertaining to elected officials and city employees. Attachments a) Legal opinion regarding the disposal of city vehicles and equipment Final Comments Staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the disposal of surplus equipment. � RATWIK, ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. Attorneys at Law Paul C. Ratwik John M. Roszak Patricia A. Maloney* Terrence J. Foy* Stephen G. Andersen** Scott T. Anderson Kevin J. Rupp Jay T. Squires*? Ann R. Goering Nancy E. Blumstein* Joseph J. Langel Michael J. Waldspurger* Margaret A. Skelton Amy E. Mace Isaac Kaufman Eric J. Quiring SENT VIA E-MAIL & U,S. MAIL Mr. Christopher K. Miller Finance Director City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, �T 55113-1899 RE Dear Chris: 300 U.S. Trust Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612)339-0060 Fax(612)339-0038 www.ratwiklaw.com Sale cf Su�^plus Property Our File No. 4D02(1}-000 i March 16,2005 Stacey L. Wilson Eric L. Hedtke Kimberley K. Sobieck Sonya J. Guggemos Jennifer L. Wolf Dawit H�aila Nicole L. Tuescher " Also admitted in Wisconsin �`�` Civil Trial Specialist Certified by the Minnesota Slate Bar Association f Real Property Law Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association This letter follows our meeting in an office hours, and phone calls regarding questions as to the City's disposal of surplus property. From these discussions, it is our understanding that the City is using on-line auction services such as e-bay and carsoup.com to sell surplus property. In addition, the City is donating old, surplus computers and printers to the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater. We understand that the cost of preparing the City's used computers for sale by cleaning the hard drives is greater than the amount that could be expected to be generated by a sale of the cleaned machines. You asked me a few questions. First is the City's use of these on-line auction services procedurally appropriate? Second, can the City continue to donate the surplus computers to the correctional facility? Finally, you asked if there were restrictions on the ability of employees or others associated with the City to purchase such equipment. � +7� L �x� f�. � � Mr. Christopher K. Miller March 16, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION Let me deal with the donation of surplus computers to the Minnesota Correctional Facility first. That is very straight forward and easy to answer. Under Minn. Stat. � 471.85, a city is empowered to transfer its personal property for a nominal charge, or without any payment whatsoever, to another public corporation for public use. The only requirement is that this be duly authorized by the governing body. Therefore, the City Council should authorize such donations. � As to the sale of surplus property that is deemed to be no longer needed for public purposes, the basic statute that applies is the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minn. Stat. � 471.345, and when we get into matters involving employees or officials of the City seeking to purchase the property, we need to turn to Minn. Stat. y 15.054. I know that you are generally familiar with Minn. Stat. � 471.345, commonly referred to as the bid statute, so I won't in detail discuss it. With that in mind however, there was a specific amendment to the bid law in 2004 to add a subdivision 17. That provides that surplus property may be sold by electronic interactive auction. Sales conducted in this manner may be done without following the other procedural requirements of the statute. Therefore, sales of property conducted through an on-line auction are not now subject to the sealed bidding requirements that we may otherwise have under the bid statute. Therefore, the City may continue to sell its surplus property through the on-line auction services of e-bay and carsoup.com, and other similar interactive electronic auction services. The only thorny issues that arise come up in the area of whether, and to what extent, an � employee or officer of the City can purchase merchandise from the City by such means. It = may in fact be that the City wishes to take a policy position on this. We make no opinion either way on such policy decision. However, the statute that would govern whether, and to what extent officers andlor employees of the City may purchase property or materials owned by the City is Minn. Stat. ,� 15.054. I will state at the outset that the statute seems to be inartfully drafted. There is no case law under the statute. Some things are rather clear. At least one significant item is left undefined. The general rule as set forth in Section 15.054 is that no officer or employee of a political subdivision is allowed to sell property or materials owned by the subdivision to Mr. Christopher K. Miller March 16,2005 Page 3 another officer or employee unless and except if certain conditions as set forth in the statute are complied with. Those provisions seem to set forth the following rules: — �A� Under no circumstances may an employee who is directly involved — in the auction or process pertaining to the administration and � collection of bids purchase such property. We read this broadly and preclude any employees who may be involved in the sale process ' from purchasing property. �B� In order for any employee to be eligible to purchase such property there must have been reasonable public notice that was given of the sale or auction. The statute specifically states that requirements for reasonable public notice may be prescribed by other law or ordinance, so long as at least one week's published notice is specified. In this regard, published notice means just that. In other words, at least a week before items are put on the auction block at an electronic auction house, there should be notice published pursuant to Minn. Stat. � 331A.03. I would also point out, that it looks to us that there are potentials for alternative dissemination of such published notice, that, if sought to be used and if the proper procedures were followed, could do away with the requirement for newspaper publication after a period of six months. If that is something of interest of the city, let us know and we can give you further information on our interpretation of the statute in that regard. �C� Because of the use of the phrase "employee and officer" in the statute, and places where they are used together and then where only one is used, Minn. Stat. � 15.054 seems to state that under no circumstances may an officer of the subdivision purchase property from the subdivision. As is often the case in these kinds of statutes, there is no definition of the word "officer." Frequently in other statutory provisions, phrases such as "public officials" and other similar listings of "categories" of persons are set forth, usually with no definition. Therefore, we need to be conservative in our approach to ensure that no one violates the law. Any person violating a provision of Minn. Stat. � 15.054 is guilty of a misdemeanor, so we want to avoid that. Under any reading of what an officer would be, certainly the elected officials of the city would be its officers. This is supported by a Mr. Christopher K. Miller March 16, 2005 Page 4 reading of Minn. Stat. �� 412.02 and 412.021. Council members and the mayor would qualify as officers. There is a reference in 412.023, subd. 2(a) to a city administrator, as an "other officer" see �'Ii�n, Stat. � 412.023, subd. 5. Thus, the City Administrator should be considered an officer. _ In addition, when one looks under the statutes dealing with optional ! plan B cities, Minn. Stat. ;� 412.681 is entitled in part "officers are ! — under the manager." It indicates that there is to be a clerk, a � — treasurer and "such other officers subordinate to the manager as the - — council may create by ordinance." From this, one can argue that a person is only deemed an "officer" if an ordinance of the City states they are one. Or, one could take the viewpoint that persons subordinate to the manager but high up in the hierarchy might be, by analogy, "officers" of a city. We think the last statement above to be the most conservative �� _ approach one could take. And we believe that to be the best t _ approach to take. It certainly insures that the City does not violate ` — any law. Under such approach, all department heads would be considered to be officers. That would make them ineligible for the purchase of surplus property. �� The prohibitions on sales to employees never applies to items that the city sales to the general public in the ordinary course of business. So, for instance, if the city owns a candy manufacturing plant and - sells candy to anyone at all, any employee can also buy it. If the city sells water, employees and officers can also buy it. Finally, we need to point out that the prohibition in 15.054 is against officers or employees of the City selling to prohibited individuals, or in circumstances where the proper procedures as set forth above are not followed. As noted earlier, any person violating the provisions of that statute would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Because of that, we believe that it is important that the identity of the purchaser be known to the City at or before the completion of the sale. Therefore, only those on-line auction services in which the identity of the purchaser is known should be used by the City. Mr. Christopher K. Miller March 16,2005 Page 5 I think this fully answers the questions that you asked. If it does not, please contact me and I will provide further guidance and advice. Very truly yours, Scott T. Anderson cc: Mr. Neal Beets STA/abc/rdp RRM: 47465 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 03/21/OS Item N o.9. Department Approval: City Manager Approval Agenda 5ccttan U ��' �� Item Description: Proposed City Code Revisions regarding Appointment of Chair (PF3622) 1.0 Topic Description: The Planning Commission Chair should be appointed by the Council at the last Council meeting in March of each year. The chair's one year term would start on April 1 of each year. 2.0 Planning Commission discussion and direction was sought on January 5, 2005. No additional co��nentslrecommendations were offered. 3.0 Suggested Council Actions: ��#�� . �� , •:�trrrrrr.-�� u�ltnsr :-II^�S'r.r.rrl��F'-I .t��'st i 1�1 } ��[ �F�C{ i:yt.AiJ� . r�R�T�II:II �TIi 1{�11I'F{t-� I'11�71317L1 S IT7�1'7 II" { lIY � I]IIC ;r' F4�'sr.: . � CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDINANCE NO. ? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA, �l AMENDING CHAPTER 201 OF THE CITY CODE BY AMENDING � SECTION 201.04, TERM OF CHAIR PERSON. ti , The City Council of Roseville ordains: �s' Section 1. Title 2, Commissions, Section 201.04, of the City Code is hereby amended �� and shall read as follows: � f: � �r I� I� �� ] (� ]- ]� 1 �� Ca �I 201.04: ORGANIZATION: A. Officers: The Council shall appoint one of the members to act as chairperson. The Community Development Director or designee shall act as the Planning Commission's secretary. B. Term: The term of the chairperson shall be for one year. The chairperson shall either be reappointed or replaced by the City Council �� 1�i1:EF� ��••}��r at the last regular Citv Council meeting of March. effective A�ril 1, durin� each calendar vear. C. Additional Officers and Committees: The Planning Commission may elect such other officers as may be necessary and may give the chairperson authority to appoint committees if such appointments should become necessary. �� Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall publish the title of this ordinance and the ?� official suminary in the official newspaper of the City with notice that a printed copy of the �� ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the Office of the � � City Clerk. ?�, �? Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and the �� publication of its title and the official summary. �� :�i� PASSED this day of ,2005 �rC . r�+��. Craig Klausing, Mayor ATTEST: Neal Beets, City Manager � � Item Description: � '� �F March 21, 2005 City Council Rules of Procedure Item: 10. I. BACKGROUND This Council has discussed Rules of Procedure at several Council Meetings, most recently and extensively at its Saturday, February 19,2005 Special Meeting. At the conclusion of that discussion, the Council asked the City Manager to draft Rules incorporating the points Councilmembers agreed upon. XI. ATTACHED DRAFT The attached Draft includes the two rules the Council unanimously adopted at your January 10,2005 Council Meeting, as well as the rules there was consensus on at your February 19, 2005 Council Meeting. Hence, the draft includes the following provisions: l. Roberts' Rules of Order [already enacted] 2. Council Agenda [already enacted] 3. Public Comment at Council Meetings. 4. Council-Staff Interaction. 5. Councilmember to Councilmember Interaction. 6. Council Meeting Adjournment. 7. Videotaping of Council Meetings. 8. Suspension of Council Rules. V. ISSUES Does the Council agree with this draft of what they spoke about on February 19�"? Does the Council want to address issues about enforcement, the effective date, and the form of whatever Council Rules you agree to enact, as well as any additional issues Councilmembers may raise? Roseville City Council Rules of Procedure r�. Enactedby Council Motion on January 10,2005: � S 1. � � � 2. t� ] i' 11 i? Roberts' Rules of Order. The Council adopts the most recent edition of Roberts' Rules of Order for all Council meetings. Agenda. Any Councilmember may add an item or items to a Council Agenda until 12:00 Noon on the Wednesday preceding a Monday City Council n�eeting. � �� !� Discussed;iitheCouncilRetreat,Saturday,Februur��`�,��:��. l� ]'� l �i l- 1:� I� ��? �L �� .�� fi � �. �� '3 ] =ti � 3� P�lati� �'�, n� m�i�t, �I�Iti� �.ii�' �-�li n;;'.l �� iT7 Tc�� ci�� F�iit�l �� c��9i mc�l!-2Et �`a�i n�yl�— �t��et�it ��i.. �cc. �rd ��c� � i t:�.'1 ��• f� E�lc��n��.�itJ�: i,7�s� a I'�,L�li,� ("��5��7m�r.t :il I?�t.h ��n��,s c�f �{��iyti il �7��iir�� 37d 'n�i� p�h�ini��; to an a�enda item is for the purpose of�`a�I�nwin� Roseville residents the oppar�unitv to express their viewpoints ab�o�t policy issues facing their City government. Presentat�ions will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker.. b. Public Comment pertaining to �a�enda items is for��the purpose of allowin� an member of the ublic an ��arFx�:�ii�� to pro� � � p vide input on that item; These public_comments will':generally be received after the staff �resr�.kx�isrii oi�:::tliat a�enda item andbefore Council discussion and d�lib�r�[l��n. �[�f74�� `ti�.��lic cximn7c'nl5 :ir�� I�t, lir•iiltti iiw i i�_iiiu�.�� a�i - ------� .__...--- ............. . ..... r.— ��k c:r. e. 1�1�n�bt�rs o�_rJ�.� Lie_�re �lw�y�s f.rcx, �d cn��u.ea�rL.t� �cdu.cc�- - ��Tlii�� i}«ir �.i�rrrnc:nLS �b�u� e i 4k� �usi�s�ss �nd �o s�he,7 i t u�ilt�n �r�rn,Mera� �c.f tf.e �:��ur,ci I or sta f� be��r�. �u ri ��,. or � ftce �.c,,,nG � _ � ..----... _ — , in�ttn.�-.... d. 5i ns m� �l�e heLd arid dis 1� �d du�in �'c�u� ci T�I�rt�n ��ut �itL�� .�=it�e . b��4� �f 11�� ou55�i E �`.h�imh�r� �c7 �h �� tih � �:�3� t� f Sltt ��:� �� ti�49 i [�S7�U i5 --�-- ---�-- . _. . .. . —_... ._ ......----...- -�- not obstructed. �.� e. Public comment, like staff and Councilmember comments, will perta�n to � 5 the merits of an issue; personal attacks will be ruled out of order. 36 f. The 1Vlavor or presiding officer rr_Li�- make special time-len� 37 arrangements for speakers representing a group• 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2. Council-Staff Interaction. Except for routine requests for informatio�a or to place an item on a Council agenda, no individual Councilmember shall order or direct a staff inember to perform anv action; instead, a malority of the Council acting at a Council meetin sg hall give staff direction and guidance. 1 t .� � � f� � 9 , I� II 1� ]� ]� ]] �� 1� ]8 ]� �[i �� 3 �� i� . '.� �� _$ � �/ � x�a 3l �� :� �� $ 3 �, 3� �� 39 40 41 42 43 44 3. COUriC11YY10YY1b0T t0 COUnrilmPmhPr TntPrartinn a. Councilmembers placing items on the agenda shall endeavor to nrovide in the Council packet as much background information_��ossible about the a�enda item so the Council. CommunitX _�d staff can inform themselves about the issue being �resented: b. As with all agenda items, individual Councilmember agenda items are subject to Council motions to a��roye the item, reject the item, modifv the item, or delay the item for further study or analysis.. c ��. Ad��urniitent� �� ]l�`kk� ��citida �icrr, wilL h� i�ik�7i ur� �fl.cr I(I; �� p,nk. F�v n� I�t�r ihan l ] . ilrl �i_r,7., :�L] �c,»n� i i ,�l��iir��s sh�tl I �� «lude �i�h�r by �j �urnm�r�t o� bY rt.ces��n�.1� anokhcr ±�L3� �. ,��'„�le�� I��i n�__ E�.xtu�� fc}r c]�sed �x�.u�� i k•c ��s�i t}r« autho:��ed ��ndcr sl�te ia�� ,rid mc� ii� ��.ti c� F�'o�,nci Im�r�,bcrs outs�d� �i� tis� �' i t�' ��tr�ci l�k�3�ib�rs_ a I l �M�etiEti � u I� tiltc �'�t�r �� i�rl s�al' hc �� i�eo�r�e�l_ ��' i��n. khc ��unc i] �ccidcs � m��t ��r�si�� th� � is�� .�a��.i �. �'ha�t��r� �h� ��tin � .�i!�� I � �Gr�.� �1�,�_i�,. nt�cting.�k�a11 bc ��i�le«i- i: . 6. Susnension of Rules. Pursuant to Section 25 of Roberts' Rules of Order. these Rules mav be suspended in specific situations upon a 213_'s vote of the Citv �'o�anc• I . � �' . •LTM1 4 �. I?nf��rccr»cui, �! ��+[ T�is��s w��j ��,�t � 1. Effective Date�' �� a. Until further Cotm �� action? b. Until February 1, 2006? 2. Form? a. Resolution? b. Motion? c. Ordinance? � M F � �� March 21, 2005 Item: 11. Item Description: Format for Community Town Hall Meetings I. BACKGROUND This Council has agreed to hold two Community Town Hall meetings this year on April l l, 2005 at the National Guard Armory and Apri125 at the Central Park Elementary School. ��. RECOMMENDED FORMAT With the exception of the public notice provision, I recommend the format the Council followed last year. Hence, I recommend the following features: � Notice of these Council meetings and an invitation to attend is provided by an 8x11 insert in the Roseville Review, as well as NewsFax articles, Cable Channe116 screens, and notice on the City's website. � The Counciil meeting is cablecast live or videotaped for later cablecast if the facilities are inadequate for live cablecasting. • Informational displays about City programs and activities are set up where convenient and staffed by Department Heads. • The first 30 minutes of the meeting consists of informal conversation among Councilmembers, Community members, and staff. * The Council then meets in formal session and transacts necessary City business. * The Council receives formal public comment from residents about city issues. • Department Heads are present to respond, if necessary and appropriate, to questions raised by residents. + Following the transaction of all necessary business and receipt of all public comment, the meeting is adjourned but Councilmembers and staff remain for more informal conversation with residents. • Public comment forms are available before, during, and after the meeting for any resident to use; these comments are tabulated and shared with the Council. III, COUNCIL DIRECTION Is the recommended format acceptable or does the Council prefer some different format? � • �,., � 0.� � � � � � � O l�l �� • � � � � � � � � � `Iv .ti � .ti � � � 4 `Iv .� U ty 1i � N �} � � � � � r� � 0 I ' �--- i i � I �"" I y N N I � I � I ° I � I ° [ � f � I � � � � ° � I � ^ � � "f"' < ( � I �� I �, � I � � L — — � — —�—��T� I � I � �r � � I � � I � � � I f��l� i Lrti� � � � I I I I � I � I 3 � �� I � I C? U O 49 � 0.! � O � y I � � a � I '��.. �� I o �� I � �� —_ _�. �----J i""""' """ — — — — .... � � ' �� I � � � � � � �t�� .�iLY��'S � � - I y � � � � x r. � � �' � � � � � � O � � � � � r � � � I U L � � � � � � � I M "� � x � � CQ I � I ° '—' � � o �--i �" Q I � � �� Q, O � � � }' �7 � � �� oz � I �, o°o �� 2 N �L-------�.—. _ , I � I � � I i � I � I � � ��_J ^� cd � � � U �O � � 0 � � cd � � O Q � O N � � � � � �z � '� U � � U U � � � � � � U U � .�y�� o ��UNC� cd r--' '.� � � U v� � 0 � O .� O � .� � 0 � � � � U �. � � N � � .� 0 U U .� ai �. O � U o N � •o � a, o0 �0000a�oo o�cao�ao �� N C�1 N f�I N N N p� T O� O\ 01 � O� � � � � � � � i : i i i � i ,--� �--� �--1 ,--i ,--i r-+ ,--i � �!? � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� w o �w� �°z ��z� o �; � :�, � . 0� U CQ 0� .. w 0� N F"r � � 0 U � � .� � � U � � � � O � � .� � cd � .� v O cd � N �"r � O � � :�, � N � � � � � � � � � �� ., � � .4: r--� � N � �"r C�d � �� °�� .� � � � � � � � � � � � � cd b�p O '� �A � � N � � � � � � O E� M � M M � � � � � U � � � � Ca � � � O O � � � �. � � a� � U � � �: C7 ��+ Request for Council Action Date: March 21,2005 Item Number: 12. Department Approval Manager Approval Agenda Section �� '��.� �� Item Description: Advisory Commission Interview Selection Back ro� At the March 14 Council meeting, Council directed staff to compile the Councilmembers' rankings of Advisory Commission applicants for the Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commissions and to create a matrix for further Council Consideration. The ranking matrix is attached. Council Action Reauested: Based on the rankings, Councilmembers determine how many applicants to interview for each Commission and direct City staff to set interview ctatel� and tirnef s. a �� i I � � -�I—I["-;� M � v � � � � �o � � � � � o � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5� � � : � r� � � � O � � � O � O '�'' '� U � � C� � �..� �• �. � ,a r�j ��.4 � •� � M W ' R.F � � I �� .� �� I I _ � � o �� I �� fi�� M � �� . � � � Q M L �_p�;Lr; (� i I I ,., � �3 � � F� �r5 t� r�a � N � � i � � � � �� !s� � � � ,— � � . � �.�., d � v � � ,� O � � '� � � � � N �i � � ki [� ; �n ' � ' N .� � _ . .. . ' � •� cd 4�? U � • � ' 4 � �. o0 O a� �' .� � p0 ; � N U � '� O y .. � � � . � y� �". � v O � � � �� '� � � �: � ' � I� '� � . V .s".i �i J • � � C �' � � � U '� � � � � ,� � � � � r� R � E� � � A�E� �+.��1��`%E� ._._ ..I..� � i�� N . o ,. � �;�� [� i x F� r*: ' I ' N • � P CU I ,� � �. � — . � � � � N � �--� � N ,�r, � x ti, � � 0 � � � � . , � ;� � � � � � � � � U � � #� '-� fi � ti � �. I?�-. � �M1 •� � {' �:�. - ..�- - ��-. ti� v �� ?�-. ;A . �� . w �� '� � � .�� , . � I .� � � � . � � ^� N � � •� I 4rl � � �1 � � i � � � I � � U I ,� ..�v. � � U � � P� � � � t� Q� N J _ - — — :w � O � � .� � ,� .� � � , O,� � � � � Cti U.,� T. ...--- - - . � I i � � bA `G � � .1; .� O �-' � � � :, U �"" � � L c{,jn f � � � � � � e� � � � �, �iX A� H a :� �.'`�.�'� � M N N bl) � � i--� U �--� N � ' ^� O � � � � � � �I � � � � �: .� � � � � � � �--' e� � � v ��+-� � � � � � �i C', � �r �� •� � O � � o � O t' �' .,� ,� p � � �' U C�/] � ;—=� � O � � � � � � � � � S. � � � "'� � i: U C� �". ,�L",� U � � � � O O � S. ..■ v� � � � ,s : W � � O � �� S. .'. � � ^= U � N � H i � � � � I� E i I � � � � � 3� �� XI�w �� I �' L=-i a; � �' r•i r I w� �I �•ia�•��r.� �'«u n� il en� mi��`r Kl ��sin T Email or fax your rankings by noon on Thursday, March 17. Fax: 651-792-7030 Email: earolyn.curti(;a ci.roseville.rtin.us Parks and Recreation Commission Applicants The Commission has three vacancies and 10 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order ofpreference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice, and so on) €�� R ,�ppl it�nt I'i„-r��-�', �r�+-kk - L« E Lar��r L�r�� Juf�nfi�ii ,kyHl� ��VI�'�3:�iVii C?a4� i d L. �� arfc� T,�m T��T��ehe� � Haral�.�i, f�ii5t�� f�l.E.�i_ �ch��idtba,�er ��rt�� l�.� �t� � - l��}l�rt � i klrr�u�� I�ank _"�.."_.._._. . _ .� . 5 � Planning Commission Applicants The Commission has one vacancy and 10 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) YI;;i.��ii7�:�1}�31i: ��: �ti4r_ Iic�es��k5c_. ��{�rin ��:7�7�1m _,_::: I �L3orn� �. ��1� ��i3in EC}�� v}}�t�.yn � ECeti� i n f��}�1yc: ��n "Ear�a N6��$a� — ��.ri�C �v��an�e�n k��rt �'cn�ti.r� Kedrick L. White Joe Wo7nrak I�,�i7k � 5 � 0 � k r Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Applicants The Commission has two vacancies and 9 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) PWET Applicant Rank Matthew J. Basich Joel Fischer 4 John K s 1 cz Kevin Kysylyczyn Tam McGehee Rand Ne rash 1 Dou las Paul Root 2 Daniel M. Shiel Kedrick L. White 3 1CarolynClcounciI commission rat�lc.doc s� From: Amy Ihlan Sent: Thu 3/17/2005 11:56 n31 To: Neal Beets (N�al.B�ets@ca..rosevill�,mn,us} Subject: Rankings for Commission Interviews Dear Neal, Here are my zankings for commission interviews. My top choice for each is number one. Please let me know if you have questions -- thanks! Am� Parks and Recreation Commission l. Tam McGehee �. James Stark _3.,_ Liz Harper �. Larry Johnson -. Robert Willmus v. David Marks �. Harold Ristow A. Timothy Cook �, M.E.G. Schrnidtbauer '_0. John Kysylyczyn Pl anning Cainmi s s ion. l. Tam McGehee 2. Kedrick White 3. Robert Venters 4. Joe Wozniak 5. Sean Berneche 6. Thomas Kelly 7. Garin Bogenholm 8. Erik Swanson 9. Kevin Kysylyczyn 10. John Kysylyczyn Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission l. Randy Neprash 2. Tam McGehee 3. Joel Fischer 4. Douglas Root 5. Kedrick White 6. Matthew Basich 7. Kevin Kysylyczyn 8. Daniel ShieZy 9. John Kysylyczyn I � Name � �� +f , ��. � � �; 'i� �� Erraa�� or fax your rankings by noon on Thursday, March 17. Fax: 651-792-7030 Email: carolyn.curti@ci.roseville.mn.us Parks and Recreation Commission Applicants The Commission has three vacancies and 10 applicants Two vacancies are for full te�as that expire March 31,2008 One vacancy is for a partial term that expires March 31,2007 Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference ( l. being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) E'�l� ��p�:i� �itt E�a«k Ti�syotlY C. {'.��6€ � .. L.i� f��rnrr -- I Lan�� hnsor� � J �ES�� }�r�s}�]}��}�7t � � T��vid L., ��irks � .]'��it� �lc�;cltcc � I j.i��ald �"r_ �.iSL�� " � I�'I.1:.�'r rc:h m� t?t�ia��tr I , J �m c� k�. S�xrk � �--- � - � ,� ' I��c�� Y� I IrrSUS i Planning Commission Applicants The Commission has one vacancy and 10 applicants The vacancy is for one full tenn that expires March 31, 2008 Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) �'l,tnnin ��71 i �..int ]��i=±k Sean Ben�eche � �'r�ti�x �� "ttlt� k�s� = ' Thomas K. Kellv ' f John Kysylyczyn ' F�eti� i n � ��.��']��r��ii � � � � L��m ��1 ��nc� .. � . �r�3€ �w�ai��i7 L�.r��C[ 1+'�rs[er3 .. E��x�ri�� I.. �hik� .�o� }4'ozni.�k _ � Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Applicants The Commission has two vacancies and 9 applicants One vacancy is for a full term that expires March 3 l, 2008 One vacancy is for a partial tenn that expires March 31, 2007 Rank as many applicants as you choose in order ofpreference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) � �� f��v'L�6� �lE��lic:drtt , F�ae�k � � �1 arrF�cx� 1. [��i c� I � — � Inri z irrltrr ! J �]I]:] JC �'S}'J )+c:� 4-_�. . � 4� �v�n �[��}�C}�ex}�n �J �atx� �� ia� , ., . � . L?�:�icl �J. �hicJk. . .--"... . . r � itiC'�fJ�� j_. ��11�1C � ICarol}n�Clcouncil conun€ssian rank.dac r f 0311112005 THU 1Q; Q1 FAX 6516363366 Cox Insuran�e Associates 141��e��:uu a�ilm�m GQT � �4 ,g � �� zrtai� or fax your r�nkings by noon on Thursday, March 17. Fax: 651-792-7030 E�asl: carolyn,c�rti@ci_rosevilie_mu.us Parks and Recreation Commission Applicants The Commission has three vacancies and 10 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your fi�s#. choice, 2 being you second choice, and so on) �'��k� �npli4aaC T�s�nk `Ciitt� �y �_ ��k . _— . � . _ Li� Ela�• �_ - – -- — — � lc�hns�q a�Fu�'� �s�l�.�n � �a�ai�l i„ �I�r�cs �' Tem ��c4;ch�� }�I� ic� ��_ L4i�[ow � �[�,�,�, ��hmadcbar,�t �� 71 am�s R. Sr� ��_ � �� s]ltnua .. � � . .. Planning Commission Appl�c�nts The Commission has one vacancy and 10 applicants � �ii Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your �`irst choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) �'aanr.�¢ A IGCac�# �ank $� �3ernacl�e 7 [iar�n �r� 1rn �a�� F��11 w J��n T��s��u � �.c.vi� TCys��J�+�� r� � S� i'atu �i�.�rnc�� _. � � 1.rik S��n __� � — _�, � R�a �� rt �'�t�z� �� - �- - Y�cJrir}� J,. �'hilu 1�� n7i� � �, �� r �- t'�� ' �'� �� o �� -- .._._.._ ��;r�� 0311112005 THL� 1�.01 FAX 6516363366 Cox Insurance Associates Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commissian Applicants The Commission has f�o vacancies and 9 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose irn order ofpreference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) p"�'7' A licant Ra�nk Matthew,I. Ba,szc�Z � � �'isc�er John Kysylyczyn Kevin � s I �z Tam IV1cGehee Randy Neprash Dou las Paul Root � Danic� M. Shiel Kedrtck L. White —'�'�,;,,c�.rc��E cornrn�ssi�c ra�%d�c �� ' � �� ,�`� �� r��1� r��.�.� �� •.� ��,�� -��r�� '�� o�� .�.� �� - ��' �� - � �� L �� f� �� F Council Member: Greg Schroeder Email or fax your rank�ngs by noon on Thursday, March 17. Fax: 651-792-7030 Email: earolyn.curti@ci.roseville.mn.us Parks and Recreation Commission Applicants The Commission has three vacancies and 10 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice, and so on) �'&� A licant Rank John K s 1 c n 4 Harold G. Ristow 3 James R. Stark 1 Robert Willmus 2 Planning Commission Applicants The Commission has one vacancy and 10 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference (1 being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) Plannin A licant Rank John K s 1 cz 3 Kevin K s 1 cz 1 Kedrick L. White 2 Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Applicants The Commission has two vacancies and 9 applicants Rank as many applicants as you choose in order of preference ( l being your first choice, 2 being you second choice and so on) PWET Applicant Rank Matthew J. Basich 3 John K s 1 cz 4 Kevin K s 1 cz 2 Daniel M. Shiely 1 Date: 03/21/OS Item: 13 . Twin Lakes Litigation Request of Councilmember Ihlan No Attachment Date: 03/21 /OS Item: 14. Target Redevelopment Park Dedication Request of Councilmember �hlan No Attachment