Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 01/16/2001 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,JANUARY 16,2001 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • V. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,DECEMBER 19,2000 B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 2,2001 C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 2,2001 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES 2ND ADDITION C. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TKDA FOR PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION TO REPAINT INTERIOR OF THE WASH WATER RESERVOIR AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT D. APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR EDEN CROSSINGS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT E. APPROVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16,2001 Page 2 F. APPROVE RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR TOWING SERVICES WITH MATT'S AUTO SERVICE FOR 2001 G. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF FORFEITED VEHICLES WITH AUCTION BROADCASTING FOR 2001 H. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH MNDOT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TH 212/SHADY OAK RAOD HOV SLIP RAMP AND AUTHORIZE SRF TO PROCEED WITH SLIP RAMP DESIGN I. ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-202 RELATING TO NON-PRIME ROOM RENTALS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER J. ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-08 SETTING MEETING PLACES AND TIMES FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR 2001 K. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION L. APPROVE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES AS LISTED IN 2001 BUDGET GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND DEBT SERVICE M. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A STATE GRANT FOR BIRCH ISLAND PARK EXPANSION N. ADOPT RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR REROOFING DORMITORY AND DINING HALL BUILDINGS AT EDEN WOOD CAMP O. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR REROOFING THE DORMITORY AND DINING HALL AT EDEN WOOD CAMP VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVem,Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot. Location: Aztec Drive. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change,Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16,2001 Page 3 B. ANSON REZONING by K.Dawn Anson. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on .80 acres. Location: 16850 Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) C. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER by CSM Equities,L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way.Location: Northwest Quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) D. ISSUANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (EDEN GLEN APARTMENTS PROJECT) SERIES 2001 (Resolution) E. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PART OF FRANLO ROAD IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/a OF SECTION 25 (Resolution) VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ANSON REZONING by K. Dawn Anson. 2nd Reading for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on.80 acres.Location: 16850 Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) B. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.22 RELATING TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND TASK FORCES C. FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO EVEREST MINNESOTA,LLC, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION D. FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA,LLC,AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 16,2001 Page 4 X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. PROPOSAL FROM MICHAEL MCCOLLUM REGARDING LOT AT 9999 TURNBULL ROAD B. HARTFORD DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CONCEPT PRESENTATION XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Taskforce for Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. I-494 Update and Authorization for Consulting Services F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY _ XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT V 1 A, UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUES , 0-1 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ronald Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Harris said Council Forum is held the first and third Tuesdays of the month from 6:30 to 6:55 p.m. in Heritage Room II. This will be scheduled time following City Council Workshops and immediately preceding regular City Council Meetings. It is important, if you wish to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors at this time, that you notify the City Manager's office by noon of the meeting date with your request. IV. SWEARING IN OF COUNCILMEMBERS SHERRY BUTCHER AND JAN MOSMAN Councilmembers Sherry Butcher and Jan Mosman were sworn in by City Attorney Roger Pauly. V. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY FOR THE RECOGNITION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING,JR., Mayor Harris read the proclamation designating January 2001 as a month to celebrate diversity, and asking all residents to join the City in recognizing and celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to adopt the proclamation as read. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 2 Harry Moran, Chair of the Human Rights and Diversity Commission, spoke about the Commission's sponsorship of a human rights award and youth scholarship presented annually to Eden Prairie residents for their contributions to fostering human rights and diversity in Eden Prairie. The Commission is seeking candidates for three categories — youth, business, and non-profit. There will be a separate solicitation of applicants for each category,beginning in January. VI. PRESENTATION OF THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER VIDEO,"WATER WISDOM" The new video produced for the Environmental Learning Center (ELC) was previewed. "Water Wisdom" was produced by Hamline University's Center for Global Environmental Education. It will be shown at the ELC and on local cable access channels. Mayor Harris recognized the time and efforts of Hamline University, as well as the actors in the video, who are students in the Eden Prairie School District. ADC Telecommunications donated many of the props used. VII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS A report by City Attorney was added, under XVI. H. Report of City Attorney. Mayor Harris moved Item 1., Workshop Topics, from XVI.B. Reports of City Manager to XVI.A. Reports of Councilmembers. Enger said Item 2 under Reports of Councilmembers was removed. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,DECEMBER 19,2000 Tyra-Lukens deleted the third paragraph under her report on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission on page 5. Case made two corrections on page 9 in the first paragraph. The first sentence should read " . . . he couldn't recall if the HPC recommended prioritizing renovations . . ." Case deleted the last sentence in the paragraph. Case made a correction on page 10 in the sixth paragraph, which should read "Case requested that staff bring Council the cost associated with operating the free-skating rink and how many are using this rink." Tyra-Lukens said, based on communications received on the ice rink issue at Prairie View Elementary School, there is some confusion by the public about where the request for removal of the rinks came from — the City or the School District. Lambert replied the request came from the School District. The City would like to leave the rinks at Prairie View, but has an agreement with the School Board regarding the hockey rink, because half of the rink is on school 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 3 property. The agreement states if either party requests removal of the rink, the other party has to comply. The City has the option to keep the free-skating rink and warming house. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 19, 2000, as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01 AUTHORIZING CITY OFFICIALS TO TRANSACT BANKING BUSINESS C. RESOLUTION NO.2001-02 DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES D. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-03 AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS E. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-04 AUTHORIZING THE TREASURER OR DEPUTY TREASURER TO INVEST CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FUNDS F. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-05 AUTHORIZING THE TREASURER OR DEPUTY TREASURER TO MAKE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS FOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE G. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-06 AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PRIOR COUNCIL APPROVAL H. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-07 APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-08 ESTABLISHING MEETING DATES AND TIMES FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR 2001 J. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-09 DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL CITY NEWSPAPER K. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH WIRTHLIN WORLDWIDE FOR 2001 COMMUNITY SURVEY MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve Items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Tyra-Lukens questioned Item I. with regard to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting at the Cummins Grill House on occasion. She asked how that was to be 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 4 handled. Enger replied the HPC was to indicate what dates it would like to meet at the Cummins Grill House, and to date the City has not received that schedule. Tyra-Lukens asked if the schedule as written is adopted, would that preclude the Commission from meeting there? Enger said the City would have to give the public notice if the meetings are not held at the City Center. He asked Pauly what process he would suggest for giving this public notice. Pauly said the process requires posting of a notice and sending of notices to persons and newspapers that require notice of special meetings. Mosman said the HPC meeting for December was canceled so the schedule was not set up. She has talked to the new BPC Chair,Lori Peterson-Benneke,who said John Gertz is planning to set up a year-long schedule to be submitted to the Council. Motion carried 5-0. X. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS XI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Butcher, Case,Mosman, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting"aye." XII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XIII. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XIV. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XV. APPOINTMENTS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-10 DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL MEETING DATES, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL IN 2001 AND APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to adopt Resolution No. 2000-10 designating the official meeting dates, time and place for the City of Eden Prairie Council in 2001. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher,to appoint Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens the Acting Mayor. Motion carried 5-0. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-11 DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY FOR 2001 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve Resolution No. 2001-11 designating Councilmember Ron Case the Director and Mayor Jean CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 5 Harris as the Alternate Director to the Suburban Rate Authority. Motion carried 5-0. C. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR JEAN HARRIS AS DELEGATE AND COUNCILMEMBERS AS ALTERNATES TO THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to appoint Mayor Jean Harris as Delegate and Councilmembers as alternates to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. Motion carried 5-0. D. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR JEAN HARRIS AS DELEGATE AND COUNCILMEMBERS AS ALTERNATES TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to appoint Mayor Jean Harris as delegate and Councihnembers as alternates to the National League of Cities. Motion carried 5-0. E. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR JEAN HARRIS TO THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to appoint Mayor Jean Harris to the Municipal Legislative Commission. Motion carried 5-0. F. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR COALITION MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to appoint Councilmember Jan Mosman to the Southwest Corridor Coalition. Motion carried 5-0. G. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to appoint Councilmember Sherry Butcher to the Community Resource Center Advisory Council. Motion carried 5-0. H. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens agreed to serve on the Suburban Transit Association. This appointment is made by the Southwest Metro Transit Association and did not require action by the City Council. I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SOUTHWEST CABLE TV COMMISSION 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 6 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to appoint Councilmember Ron Case to the Southwest Cable TV Commission. Motion carried 5-0. J. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE FOUNDATION MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to appoint Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens to the Eden Prairie Foundation. Motion carried 5-0. K. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to appoint Councilmember Jan Mosman to the I-494 Corridor Commission. Motion carried 5-0. L. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ADVISORY COUNCIL MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to appoint Councilmember Sherry Butcher to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency Advisory Council. Motion carried 5-0. M. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens has agreed to serve on the Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services Council. No action was required by the City Council. N. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens agreed to serve on the Hennepin County Community Health Services Advisory Council. No action was required by the City Council. O. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER AS THE EDEN PRAIRIE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION (3-YEAR TERM) MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher,to appoint Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens as the Eden Prairie Representative to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Motion carried 5-0. XVI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 7 1. Mayor Jean Harris - Appointment of Mayor and Councilmember to perform the Annual Review of the City Manager MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to appoint Mayor Jean Harris and Councilmember Ron Case to perform the Annual Review of the City Manager. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Workshop Topics Mayor Harris said it is critical for Councilmembers to recognize the importance of the responsibilities in which they are engaged and with which they are charged as policy-makers of a highly complex and diverse $50 million public service organization. It is also important that Council restate the foundations of past successes in order to continue to build upon them to secure the future. • The City Council is a policy, legislative and decision-making body. It should: (1) work strategically with the management team on City staff; (2) respect and support the City Manager's role in administering City operations and managing the highly professional staff'; (3) maximize use of the City's boards and commissions in the decision- making process; (4) continue to use the City's strategic initiatives to guide its actions and decisions; (5) develop and nurture strategic partnerships in the larger community which are mutually beneficial and which commit Council to optimize opportunities and critically use resources; (6) prudently invest in programs, facilities and infrastructure, in order to protect the City's internal resources and preserve its heritage. The Mayor said over the past year the Council identified a number of areas which would further define and refine the City's positions and initiatives. Following are Workshop topics she would like to see discussed in 2001: (1) Eden Prairie was the largest recipient of venture capital in the last quarter of 2000 and has dominated awards for fast-growing high tech companies for the past two years. The City Council needs to know more about these companies and how the City can help them as they mature. Therefore, Mayor Harris proposed establishment of a business advisory council or roundtable to identify issues and concerns of businesses in the community, how to make the City even more receptive to business, and even to assist in economic development ideas. (2) Regarding the City's historic homes, Mayor Harris proposed expanding the focus of the CIP to include a task force composed of 1- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 8 representation from the City Council,the Planning Board,the Heritage Preservation Commission and citizens at large,who would return with recommendations to the Council as to how best to ensure a balance of all these needs and protection of these historic structures. The staff and Council should recommend how this group would be established in the first quarter of 2001, following receipt of results from the Community Survey integrated with information from the Community Forum. (3) On February 6,Lyle Wray,Executive Director of the Citizens League, will talk to the Council and staff about E-Government at a Workshop. He has given a number of seminars around the country and internationally on E-Government. After that the Council would want to look broadly at the direction it wants to go to and what investment is needed to achieve the purposes the City has identified. Mayor Harris asked other Councilmembers for their suggestions of Workshop topics. Butcher listed: (1) Encourage active involvement of citizens to participate in government. She would like to strengthen the role of the City's commissions and generate interest in proactive participation. She asked citizens to serve on citizen task forces, commissions and boards, and announced that there will be an Open House on January 16 from 5-7 p.m. for those interested in being citizen advisors to the City. (2) Proactively attract businesses, particularly high-tech businesses, to the City. A healthy business sector will help achieve a strong future for Eden Prairie. (3) Accommodate future workers with quality housing and varied housing options that fit well into the neighborhoods. Case listed: (1) A detailed discussion on how to increase citizen interest and involvement in local government. They need to open up the Open Forum,perhaps try town hall meetings twice a year. Councilmembers should go out on field trips. If discussing senior issues, they could tour the Senior Center, senior cooperative buildings, etc. If discussing parks or historic sites, Council could go to look at open spaces or tour the three historic houses. Schedule meetings in different quadrants of the City at schools, churches or park facilities to discuss immediate neighborhood issues. (2) Create several task forces: an E-Government Task Force to look into E-Government possibilities, a Park Historical Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Task Force as recommended by Mayor Harris, and a Youth Athletics Task Force to find out what is needed by youth in the next five to ten years, what that would cost and possible ways to fund it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 9 (3) Establish a performance-based budget. When people look back on the legacy of this Council, the budget document will tell most about the Council. Tyra-Lukens listed: (1) Establish a performance-based budget, which would give the Council information on how much each program costs. (2) Renew focus on internal government,making it as optimal as possible. Even though the City has a Web site, she believed the City is not as high tech as it could be. A paperless Council packet could save money. Mosman listed: (1) Connect with residents before and during controversial projects. This might require an additional staff person to be a resident/ neighborhood liaison. She recommended Council get out into the community to hold meetings with interested groups about projects being proposed, such as roads, housing or trails, or to discuss various topics, such as wetlands or safety. Invite local businesses to be an advisory presence in promoting economic development in the City, and set up a committee for regular feedback or meetings. (2) Prioritize preservation of the City's cultural heritage. Develop an action plan to determine where the historical sites fit into serving the community. (3) Preserve water quality. Look at water quality and storm run-off with some sense of importance and innovative ideas. (4) Fully address the Community Center/Water Park/Youth Center issue. Focus on the Community Center in the larger recreational study. Look at it intensely to consider either upgrades, additions and new uses (like a youth center) or weigh it in the balance for replacement. (5) Move to get information and education on the airport expansion issue. There is much citizen concern about the Flying Cloud Airport expansion, and it has not been obvious to residents that the City has been addressing these concerns. This issue is sensitive and is at a critical point in time. The Council needs to hear from the City's legal counsel and other useful sources as to what the City's options are. Mosman said she would like to make a motion on holding a special meeting to address the airport expansion issue. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council at an executive session as soon as possible (possibly on a Saturday) with a plan of action listing alternatives and options for pursuing any and all legal remedies necessary to protect the interests of the City of Eden Prairie and its citizens in the face of MAC's intended expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. Additionally, we should invite to our workshop following the closed session the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, City staff who have been working CITY COUNCIL M NUTES January 2,2001 Page 10 on the airport issue including staff who can address the financial implications, representatives from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, and members of the citizen group,Zero Expansion. Discussion followed. Butcher asked if the invitation to the different groups was to give them information or to listen to them. Mosman replied it is to give them information after the Council has received advice from legal counsel. Mayor Harris said it would be a meeting to share information, but no decisions would be made. The difficulty is in knowing what the expectations are for a solution following that meeting, especially in light of the fact the Council would not be able to share information from the closed session. She didn't want to raise expectations that something would happen immediately. Tyra-Lukens said the goal would be to make a decision as soon as possible thereafter. Case said he favored the motion because he needed to be educated about this issue and at some point perhaps the public is due a response from the City. Butcher said it didn't seem reasonable to have only one viewpoint presented and not have others expressed. It should be an open process rather than just invited groups. Mayor Harris responded if they were going to invite groups it should be advertised and have it in Council Chambers. She agreed it should be an open process. Case said he would concur with that. Those groups mentioned in the motion seem to be the most critically involved at this juncture. He would want the chair of the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission to attend also. Mosman said she would favor a two-part session, but on the same day. Mayor Harris said she would like to hear from legal counsel last. The City should plan to have one to two hours of presentation and then move to a closed session afterward. Mosman accepted this as a friendly amendment to her motion. The closed session would be preceded by presentations from the various groups. Case concurred. Case said if there are any other pertinent groups, they could be invited at discretion of the staff. Enger replied he would rather have all the groups named and not leave it to staff's discretion. He said this would be published as a public hearing and a special invitation would be sent to the groups listed in the motion. He asked if additional groups should be /O CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 11 listed. Mayor Harris said the Chamber of Commerce should be included. Enger asked if the Flying Cloud Business Association should also be included and was told it should be. Tyra-Lukens said the City has made it clear it is opposed to the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. If the Flying Cloud Business Association is invited, they may try to sell their point of view to the public. Mayor Harris said all sides have to be heard. Mosman and Case accepted inclusion of the Flying Cloud Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce in the motion. Enger said he would set this as a public hearing and have a notice published to that effect, and would invite those groups mentioned. The presentation by the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission would be the main part of the public hearing, followed by public comments, then Council would adjourn to a closed session to hear from the City Attorney and discuss information from the meeting. Ground rules will be established to set the amount of time for each group to speak. The amended motion reads as follows: MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to direct the City Attorney to return to the Council at an executive session as soon as possible (possibly on a Saturday) with a plan of action listing alternatives and options for pursuing any and all legal remedies necessary to protect the interests of the City of Eden Prairie and its citizens in the face of MAC's intended expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. Additionally, the closed session would be preceded by a public hearing, to which would be invited the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, City staff who have been working on the airport issue including staff who can address the financial implications, representatives from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, members of the citizen group, Zero Expansion, the Chamber of Commerce and the Flying Cloud Business Association. Motion carried 5-0. The date of Saturday, February 10, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, was selected for the public hearing. Mayor Harris said she proposed a planning retreat to be held during the first quarter of the year, in order to prioritize the work for the year. That would have to be on a Saturday, sometime before April 1, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. She asked staff to look at possible dates. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL,MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 12 E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY 1. Metricom's Request for Wireless Transmission Agreement Mayor Harris said that prior to the Council Meeting, the Council Forum heard from a vendor on use of facilities for wireless transmission. Pauly said this matter involved a request by Metricom for a right-of-way permit and facility-use agreement with the City of Eden Prairie, which was developed by the company as a type of generic agreement, for the right to attach radios on certain City facilities for the transmission of data. Pauly said his office received this agreement and he and City staff reviewed it. They identified a number of issues, which they took up with Metricom's representatives and their legal counsel. They resolved all but four issues as of August 2000. Pauly communicated those issues to Metricom's attorneys. Three of those issues were unacceptable to Metricom and they could not sign the agreement with those issues outstanding. He had not heard anything further from them until that evening's Council Forum, when Mr. Thompson spoke. Following are the issues that have not been resolved: (1) Use of the term "exclusive" in the definition of municipal facilities. Pauly said this is important because the compensation to be received by the City is based in part on the number of radios installed on City facilities. The company proposes to compensate the City at a rate of $60 per year for each radio installed on a City facility. It's anticipated there would be several hundred radios installed. The problem involving use of the word "exclusive" is that most radios would be installed on City light poles. These poles were provided to the City by Xcel Energy Company and when the rates were developed for obtaining lighting at intersections and other places where they are needed, the rate incorporates some money to cover the capital cost of installing the poles. The issue of who has the rights to revenues derived from use of those poles has not been resolved. The poles are not the property of the City but Pauly believed this is similar to a rental agreement. Pauly suggested setting that issue aside until a determination is made whether the City has the right to compensation for use of the poles versus Xcel Energy's rights to the use of those poles. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 13 (2) The City has requested the agreement include that the company is subject to the City's ordinances with regard to these matters. For example, there is a City Code regarding antennas on towers owned by the City. Metricom has indicated it does not want to be subject to those ordinances because it creates an administrative burden for them to be aware of the codes of each city they have agreements with. However, the City could adopt this agreement as an ordinance such as is done in the case of a franchise, one could make these provisions specific to this agreement and which would supersede other parts of the City code. (3) Limitation of the City's costs and expenses incurred in connection .with entering into this agreement and administering any review of the placing of these radios. Because of the requests to place antennas on towers and poles, the City adopted a policy to require payment to cover the costs associated with staff time and consultants' time in connection with those matters. In this instance probably there would not be a cost for radio engineering consultation, as in the case of placing antennas on City towers where there are other City telecommunication facilities. Metricom's position is they will pay no more than $1,000 for all those costs. Minnesota Telecommunications Right of Way Statute allows a city to recover its actual costs incurred with administering its right of way. To the extent those costs would exceed $1,000 it would be permitted under the State Statute. Pauly asked if the City wished to enter into the contract without resolving those issue. Case asked if we know of any other companies that might offer wireless Internet communications. Pauly replied he was not aware of any other companies that are. Case said his concern is whether there are other companies providing this service and if other companies may not want to come to Eden Prairie if the City makes it more difficult to obtain agreements than other cities have. He didn't want to do anything that would impact the City's future in this regard. The other cities represented at the SRA have a comfort level with Metricom's standard agreement. He said that he also didn't want to do anything that would restrict an amenity the residents want to have. Pauly said he didn't know what other cities have done regarding the issue of exclusiveness and use of Xcel Energy's poles. The alternative would be to deal with Xcel and tell them they should not charge as much for the energy used if they are being compensated by Microcom. Case said this matter was brought up at the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) meeting. Dietz said the SRA attorney thought this was a reasonable agreement in the context of other franchise-type agreements. The issues Pauly brought up were important. The City should get the money if it is entitled to it. The issue of how much the City is reimbursed 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 14 for its expenses is an important one. Other companies have had to pay the costs for placing antennas on City facilities. The City did not budget for this level of service and should be reimbursed. Mayor Harris said this isn't a matter of the dollars involved. The City maintaining its integrity and not opening the flood gates to companies. Enger said Metricom's overall agreement works against the City's ability to negotiate an individual deal because Metricom is reluctant to make a different agreement with one city that it didn't make with another. The City is using the poles now for radio receivers and transmitters for the automatic water-reading system. He said the main concern is about how these poles are going to look with more than a Metricom installation on them and the City needs to have control over that. There was nothing onerous in the suggestions made by the City's legal staff. Tyra-Lukens asked Pauly if it is correct to say the City wants any company coming into the community to recognize the rules and regulations of the community. Pauly said that is correct. The Telecommunications Act does require all communities to make physical locations available so these types of facilities can be established. That is what the City's code does with regard to other wireless communications facilities. This, however, is different. This involves also use of City property itself. Xcel has been silent on the matter of exclusive use of the poles. Pauly said that issue can be laid aside until it is determined who should be paid, and then the money can flow wherever it is appropriate. Case said he would like to have Gene Dietz raise this matter at the annual meeting of the SRA on January 17. He would like input from that group about why they believe Metricom's agreement is acceptable. Enger suggested inviting the SRA's attorney to make a presentation to the Council. Dietz suggested writing to the attorney to get the answers. Max Thompson, representing Metricom as an employee, said the issues brought up have been made more difficult than they need to be. If Metricom brings a service to a community they try to find a way for their radios to not be a visual blight. They utilize existing structures and whoever owns the structure receives the rent. Whoever owns the poles has a right to the fee. Some research is needed into that. He said Jim Strommon, the attorney for SRA, worked on this agreement. More than 56 communities have signed agreements with the company. He knew that Xcel Energy said it did not make a different agreement with Eden Prairie than it had with other cities. In terms of the amount of charges the contract allows, Thompson said nationwide cities have been receiving about $9,000 a year. That should be more than enough to compensate Eden Prairie for its costs. Metricom doesn't want to pay consultants' fees; they want to limit their exposure to extra costs in that Iy CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 15 way. As to the other issues, he would be willing to come back another time. He didn't need a decision that night. Thompson said he had looked at a plan of the City and there are not a lot of poles available in the newer areas. Only three percent of the City's poles would be impacted. They wouldn't have to use a light pole specifically; they could use a pole on City property. They can also move them if necessary. It only requires attachment of a radio to an existing pole that has power to it. Metricom is trying to include Eden Prairie in a new technology. It can map information about the City, such as trees, water systems, etc. The police can use the information also. If only two percent of residents subscribe to the service it can bring a lot of revenue to the City. Pauly pointed out regarding use of other City facilities, the City will be receiving an agreement with Sprint. Sprint will be building a tower for the City and paying $15,000 a year,beginning with the first year and after that the amount will increase 5 percent each year up to $30,000 for placing 12 antennas on a tower. That amount is consistent with what other companies have been paying for antennas on the City's other towers. Mayor Harris suggested continuing this conversation at a later date whenever Jim Strommon,the attorney for SRA,is available to speak to the Council on this matter. Any information Staff can give Council prior to that would be appreciated. XVII. OTHER BUSINESS XVIII.ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Butcher moved to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 15 E UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY,DECEMBER 19,2000 5:00-6:55 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ronald Case, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Manager of Recreation Services Laurie Obiazor, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, City Planner Michael Franzen, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Manager David Lindahl, IT Manager Lisa Wu, IT Coordinator Mike Hutter, Director of Management Services Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters VISITORS: Jan Mosman, Councilmember-Elect; Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit; Jay Scott of North American Development I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER—MAYOR JEAN HARRIS Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. COUNCILMEMBER E-MAIL ORIENTATION IT Coordinator Mike Hutter demonstrated GroupWise WebAccess,the City e-mail package Councilmembers will begin using January 1, 2001. Hutter explained how to log into the system,use the navigation bar,read and send e-mail,use the calendar, and set up passwords. IV. SOUTHWEST STATION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT DISCUSSION Jay Scott of North American Properties explained his firm had been working with Southwest Metro Transit Agency and City staff over the past six months on a mixed-use development proposal for the Southwest Metro site. Under this plan,the transit facility would be in the middle of the site,which would include two other major components. The eastern portion of the site would consist of two commercial buildings, about 20,000 square feet each. One building would house small restaurants and quick-serve businesses. The other building could be live-work units,with residences on the upper level, or could house small office spaces tied in with retail components. The parking structure,which would occupy the levels, would accommodate commercial parking during the day and would ensure enough parking to achieve the desired density. There is another small, challenging portion of the site on which a bunk or day care center could be situated. Scott said the concept focuses on strong connections across the site,including a covered walkway. COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 19,2000 Page 2 The western portion of the site would be primarily high-density residential. The plan calls for two mid-size structures with a total of 470 units.Parking would be on the first level with seven floors of living units above. There would also be approximately 35 townhomes clustered at either end of the two buildings. The mixed-use concept comes into play here with small commercial enterprises, such as dry cleaners,to support residents. Scott said the idea is to emphasize the"transit village"concept, de-emphasize the auto, and build to human scale. City Manager Enger noted that the concept presented is an"intensified"version of what had been previously discussed for the site. He asked Scott to explain how the project would change if it were not subsidized. Scott said they would probably be able to preserve some of the density on the eastern end of the site,but that it would lose much of its intensity. The buildings would probably be three or four stories instead of the envisioned seven or eight. Enger asked if parking spaces would be lost. Scott said they would be. Len Simich pointed out that parking spots would be lost only to the commercial segment and not to Southwest Metro. Scott said North American was ready to go with either the subsidized plan or the scaled down version, and that they want to be part of this type of showpiece project. Councilmember Case asked why public funding was needed for the denser plan. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Manager David Lindahl explained that the cost of mid-rise construction is at least 20 percent higher than that of regular construction. Land cost per unit goes down with density; however, construction requirements push the cost up. Case asked if there is a point at which density does start to pay for itself. Mike Basilio,multi- family housing partner with North American, explained that because of construction costs, even if the land were free the deal might not make financial sense. High-rise construction can result in an additional 50 percent in costs because of safety code requirements. He said the market will pay only so much, and the projected rental rates for these units are the highest in Eden Prairie. He said this is why so few mid- and high-rise rental sites are being built. He noted that bad soil conditions on the Southwest Metro site would add considerably to construction costs, and that creating more density forces building additional parking structures, at a possible cost of$15,000 to $20,000. Lindahl asked if North American feels they could deliver a quality residential product without the subsidy. Basilio said North American is willing to go full market and do what the area can afford. Case asked why North American would do this. Lindahl said the City's goal has been to create a downtown image somewhere in the city center,but this hasn't happened because of market resistance. He said the Southwest Metro area is a gateway site that could create such a downtown image. Any new rental development would also help fulfill livable communities goals, and the concept is consistent with the plan approved by the Council last year. Councilmember Butcher asked if any part of the site would be amendable to higher-priced housing. Scott said his research shows that because of traffic congestion and the location of the Pickled Parrot restaurant,the site is not amenable to higher priced housing. Lindahl noted that a previous plan by another developer called for a large number of rental units on the eastern side of the site. Pickled Parrot owners had expressed concern over having residential units near the restaurant because of the level of noise expected to be generated COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 19,2000 Page 3 during the summer from their 200-capacity outdoor seating area. Butcher asked if there is any other plan that wouldn't require as much public funding. Scott said the current plan works best and keeps the TIF down. Len Simich said that Southwest Metro's goals are similar to those of the City. SWMT desires development that complements operations and does not interfere with operations. The Commission had felt that the east end housing previously proposed would conflict with their operations. On the other hand, commercial uses on this on this end could have high evening and weekend use and not take away from transit parking during the day. Simich said that while SWMT has applied for and received capital needs grants, they still need the revenue that would be generated by this type of venture. Financial Services Director Uram noted that there would be about a$12.5 million funding gap on the proposed development. Making up this gap would require a tax increment district, all of which would be pulled off the housing portion of the project. The only way to include a residential district would be to include subsidized housing. He said there is also a possibility that the district may not generate enough tax increment to fund the entire project. Enger said staff is looking for input from the Council on going foward with the development in spite of the $12.5 million gap. He reminded the Council that their recent strategy has been to designate 20 percent of rental units as affordable housing. Butcher said she would hate to see the affordable housing component cut from the plan, and Lindahl noted that the City is currently lagging in affordable housing goals. Councilmember Case asked staff to compile a comparison of Eden Prairie and nearby communities regarding affordable housing goals. He said the Council needs to know if the City is ahead on its goals. Mayor Harris asked how the development would look without subsidy. Scott said it would be more traditional three- or four-floor buildings rather than the proposed eight stories. There would be approximately residential 350 units as opposed to 470. Harris asked if the Council still wanted to see housing on the west side. Tyra-Lukens said yes,but she is worried about what may happen to the east side of the site. She said residents have voiced a desire for an urban, cool type of site, and that she is distressed to see this might not happen as envisioned. Eden Prairie resident Dick Feerick complimented Tyra-Lukens on her work on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and said he feels TIF is appropriate for this site. V. COUNCIL FORUM A. HIGHVIEW DRIVE/LAKELAND TERRACE RESIDENTS ON SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Neighborhood residents in attendance included Perry Forster,Arlynn Leapaldt, Gwen Leapaldt, Gary Dusterhoft, Charlie Tutler, James Holton,Phillip Gjervold, Tom Knauer,Debbie Gjervold,Mark Kammer,Kelly Mulligan,Dave Florenzano. Arlynn Leapaldt said some residents don't feel the City has dealt with them honestly or fairly regarding the water and sewer project under construction in their neighborhood. He said City presentations at neighborhood meetings did not offer 3 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 19,2000 Page 4 residents the option of not doing the project, and that they do not understand who is making the decisions. He said he believes the majority who signed the petition for _ the project did so for fact-finding purposes only. He said the results of a survey conducted by the City had been requested by residents but not provided. The City held a neighborhood meeting on September 18 to discuss the project in advance of the assessment hearing. According to Leapaldt, a majority present voted to wait until spring. A week later,residents received a letter stating the project would begin within a week. The letter said the property owners most affected by delaying the project had not been at the meeting and cited environmental and safety concerns. Leapaldt said he believes those in the neighborhood with failing septic systems had more say in the matter than others. Public Works Services Director Gene Dietz said a petition for the project was received in 1996, and that a feasibility hearing was held in June of 2000. A contract was then awarded per the schedule outlined in the feasibility study. The bid was to be awarded at the September 5 Council meeting,but the proposal was delayed by two weeks. The September 19 meeting was unexpectedly cancelled, so the contract was awarded on October 3. Mayor Harris said she remembered the timing of the project being discussed at that time. Councilmember Case asked what the residents were currently seeking. Resident Tom Knauer referenced a letter he had hand-delivered to the City Center the afternoon of the current Forum. He said his problem was with the timing on the project,not with the feasibility study. He did not understand why the City started tearing up the street in mid-October when residents had expressed concerns over beginning the project so close to the onset of winter. He said only a couple of residents had an interest in starting the project this year, and City Engineer Al Gray had recommended rebidding the project to begin next year. Knauer said 90 percent of the easements needed for the project were unresolved. He said residents want to know why the project was started this fall and that they are being heard. Dietz noted that the road grading is complete, and the gravel base is in. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer are also in on the main part of Highview Drive. Knauer said residents want to be assured they will be treated better during the second phase of the project. He asked if it was City or legal policy to start a project when 90 percent of the easements were unresolved. Dietz pointed out he had offered to meet with the neighborhood on this issue a couple of months ago. Knauer said they chose to appear at the Council Forum because they were concerned they may not get answers to their questions. Gwen Leapaldt said that residents' questions had not been answered at previous meetings. Councilmember Butcher said she felt at a disadvantage because she had not had a chance to read the letter that was delivered that afternoon, and suggested addressing the matter at another meeting. Case agreed that the Council needed to meet with the neighborhood and trace the sequence of events. City Manager suggested in order to be most productive in any upcoming meeting that the residents moderate the tone of rhetoric as some of the responses did not show the same courtesy and respect they LI COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 19,2000 Page 5 were demanding. Knauer said he saw his letter,which he admitted was strongly worded, as his only chance to be heard. It was agreed that another meeting would be set to further discuss the residents' concerns. B. MAX THOMPSON—METRICOM Since only five minutes remained before the Council Meeting was to begin,Mayor Harris asked Mr. Thompson if he was willing to appear at a future Forum. He agreed to do so. VI. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. c UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY,JANUARY 2,2001 5:00-6:55 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOMS I&II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ronald Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger,Parks &Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert,Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz,Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, City Planner Michael Franzen, Director of Management Services Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Recorder Lorene McWaters VISITORS: Jim Van Driel,President of Hartford Place Club Homes;Ray Mohr,President of Weston Woods Townhome Association; Terry Pearson,Resident of Weston Woods Townhomes; John MacKany,Board Member of Hartford Place Court Homes;Michele Perpich,Resident of Sanctuary Townhomes; Laura Bluml,Eden Prairie Resident; Bill McHale,Ryan Companies; Todd Stutz,Rottlund Homes/David Bernard; Tim Whitten, Senior Vice President for Architecture; Rottlund Homes/David Bernard;Richard Palmiter,Rottlund Homes/David Bernard;Deb Ridgeway, Rottlund Homes/David Bernard I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER—MAYOR JEAN HARRIS Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA I. HARTFORD DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CONCEPT DISCUSSION Richard Pahniter, Land Development Manager for Rottlund Homes, and Tim Whitten, Senior Vice President for Architecture for Rottlund,presented their development concept for the Hartford Development. Representatives from four neighborhood groups were also present. City Manager Chris Enger noted that the process used for introducing the proposal to the City was unusual, since nearby residents rather than a developer initiated the proposal. He asked for clarification on who the proposal was from and what Rottlund and the neighborhood groups wished to accomplish in the meeting. Richard Palmiter explained that after the Costco proposal for this piece of land was denied by the Council,the neighborhood actively sought out a developer who would work with them on a concept for the land that would be acceptable to both the existing neighborhood, the land owner(Ryan Companies), and the developer. The neighborhood groups were familiar with"new urbanism"developments Rottlund Homes/David Bernard has built or are constructing in Minnetonka,New Brighton and Golden Valley, and asked them to work on a similar concept for the Eden Prairie parcel. Palmiter said this process was also unique for Rottlund. They had attended a neighborhood meeting two weeks previously at which approximately 50 neighborhood residents provided input. Those present at the meeting 1 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 2 agreed the plan looked good and asked that it be presented to the City. Palmiter said they wanted to come away with"more than a warm feeling at the end of the evening." They understand Council may need a couple of weeks to consider the project,but that Rottlund and Ryan Companies both need to know soon whether or not the Council supports the project. Whitten reviewed several"new urbanism"projects Rottlund(under the name of David Bernard)has built or is building in nearby communities,including Golden Valley, Minnetonka, downtown Minneapolis and New Brighton. These projects involve mixed-use development and include retail shops,restaurants, offices, and housing. He said Rottlund knows these projects work,they have pricing on them, and they are comfortable with this type of product. Palmiter said the 18-acre Hartford Development site presents several challenges, including a short window of opportunity,the need for relatively high density, and the desire for mixed- use. Approximately three acres or 30,000 square feet of retail space is included in the design. The balance of the project is housing of five different types: two-story urban flats, new urban townhomes, stacked flats (to help create density),work/live units, and row townhomes. All units except the row townhomes would include either one or two underground parking spaces. Each row townhome would include a 2-car rear-entry garage. All of the units have front-door access to the street and street parking for guests. The development would be laid out similar to city blocks with"pocket parks"interspersed throughout. Sidewalks would run in front of all the residences and connect the parks. Whitten said the idea of new urbanism is to make each street pedestrian-friendly. The current plan calls for 302 residential units,with an average of 21.8 units per acre. Councilmember Tyra-Lukens asked if the roads would be city roads or townhome development roads. Whitten said this is still to be determined and that setbacks would limit what can be done. Councilmember Case asked if Rottlund had looked at options and played with the numbers. Whitten said their TIF analysis (which used the"standard" formula) limited the amount of retail. Whitten noted he worked on the Edinborough development, which had a higher density but included only one parking space per unit. He said 28 units per acre was hitting the ceiling for the Hartford site. He noted that the cost goes up considerably as you"build up"or add stories. Tyra-Lukens asked if a traffic analysis had been completed. Whitten said no,but that he expected more traffic would be generated by this development than the previous Costco proposal. He noted that the neighborhood still supports the current proposal. Palmiter reviewed the proposed TIF financing. He said Rottlund projects a$2.5 million shortfall due mainly to the cost of the land. They are proposing a mostly residential development on land that is currently valued commercially. Therefore,they are asking for a single-family owner-occupied TIF district. The homes in this district would be sold to individuals at the median income level for the metropolitan area. Rottlund believes young professionals would be buyers of these homes, which would be in the$165,000 to $175,000 range. Empty-nesters with equity in existing homes might also qualify as buyers. Under the Rottlund proposal,the City would have to make a contribution. Palmiter said they had worked with the City's financial consultant, Springsted, and concluded that the TIF district would consist of 214 units. COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 3 Tyra-Lukens asked if the plan for urban flats relies on street parking on Rolling Hills Road. Whitten said that it does call for parking on Rolling Hills,which he noted is a wide street. Public Works Director Gene Dietz said this would require some changes by the City since current rules don't allow for parking on City streets after 2 or more inches of snowfall. Whitten said these were issues that could be worked around and that he believes the concept is solid. It is transitional, fits within the"smart growth"concept, and would provide density near the City's regional mall. Tyra-Lukens said she likes the variety of housing and pockets of open space provided for in the concept design. Mayor Harris said she also found the design appealing. She asked how the $2.5 million gap would be affected if there were a need to reduce the total number of units. Whitten said any reduction in units would widen the gap. Financial Services Director Uram noted that Rottlund was proposing a non-standard TIF that would not meet HUD low-income guidelines. In addition, the most recent numbers he had seen indicated the City would also be required to contribute $400,000 toward the project from unrestricted general fund revenues. Councilmember Case said the plan looked good, but said the Council would have to address the issue of paying for the project. Enger noted that the development would not help the City meet stated goals for providing affordable housing,but that it would make housing more affordable for median income buyers. Neighborhood resident Terry Pearson said she thinks the proposal"shows vision and gives respect to a wonderful piece of land." While traffic levels may be higher, she believes traffic will be more evenly dispersed. She noted that 50 residents attended the neighborhood meeting with Rottlund during the week of Christmas with just two days notice, and all present endorsed the plan. She said if there is a way to make the money work,they are 100 percent behind the project. Mayor Harris asked whether or not the Council philosophically wanted to back a project that doesn't meet affordable housing goals. (Uram said he wondered why the project could not pay for itself.) He noted that the Lincoln Parc development, currently under construction, does include affordable housing. He said staff would be looking closely at the numbers provided by Rottlund in the next two weeks. Enger asked why the City should be involved in subsidizing housing for median income buyers when we have not chosen to do so in the past. He asked if there might be an opportunity to have equity participation with owners, so that when they sell their homes the City's subsidy would be returned. Whitten said the Edinborough project was subsidized in this manner. Mayor Harris said this would make the project more attractive,but the Council needs more information from staff before coming to any decisions. Enger noted that staff hasn't done any technical work on the proposal yet, and although the neighborhood likes the current plan,he wondered if they will still be in favor of the development after it has gone through the formal staff,Planning Board, and Council process. He also said the City needs to determine whether or not there are residents in the area who are not in favor of the proposal. Case said that while he understands the window of opportunity is narrow,the Council needs more information on the financial aspects. Whitten said he believes the residents understand that this is an evolving project, and that 3 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES January 2,2001 Page 4 the development proposal will go through the normal process if they get the nod from the Council. Mayor Harris suggested addressing this proposal at a future Council Meeting after staff have gathered more information. IV. AFFORDABLE HOUSING At the December 19 Workshop, Councilmember Case requested information from staff regarding where Eden Prairie stands in relation to other metro area communities in providing affordable housing. Financial Services Director Uram presented data gathered by Housing and Redevelopment Authority Manager David Lindahl from Brooklyn Park, Bloomington,Maple Grove,Burnsville,Eagan,Hopkins,Plymouth, Chanhassen, Minnetonka and Edina. Of these 11 cities,Eden Prairie ranked 9th in affordable rental and ownership housing. Uram noted that Eden Prairie's Livable Communities goal is 1,600 units and the City currently has about 440 units. City Manager Enger said the implication is that the City needs to come up with additional strategies to meet current goals. He suggested looking for additional sites to build affordable housing, or ownership rather than rental. He said there is a site in the downtown area on which these goals could be more aggressively pursued,but only if the Council wishes to support this direction. Councilmember Butcher said she feels targeting this type of housing is essential for the City's future. Case suggested holding a Saturday workshop to more fully explore the issue. He said it seems that no matter what the City does,it isn't enough, and he believes it may not be worthwhile. He noted that Eden Prairie currently has a great reputation,which it can maintain if it keeps up a good faith effort in affordable housing. Mayor Harris said the Council needs to ask itself questions such as where our young people are going to live when the finish college. Case said he thinks it may not be worth doing affordable housing, and that the City is already doing okay. He suggested doing something symbolic now and then. He wants to take an in-depth look at the costs. Enger said he was willing to look at the costs of doing or not doing affordable housing. Tyra-Lukens said the City definitely needs to pursue affordable housing,but density has not been the answer in the past. She said the City needs to look at how to avoid losing affordable housing units once they are built. Mayor Harris said this topic was a major issue and that it would be added to the list of workshop topics. V. OTHER TOPICS VI. COUNCIL FORUM—MAX THOMPSON,METRICOM Max Thompson said he requested to address the Council because his company had come to an impasse with the City Attorney over an agreement to allow his company to attach pole top radios to light poles within Eden Prairie. He said his company operates high speed wireless data system that allows subscribers to attach a modem to a computer. To complete the network,Metricom needs to attach 5 to 7 poletop units per square mile in Eden Prairie. Thompson said Metricom worked with the Minnesota League of Cities in 1999 to develop a standard contract allowing for use of City right-of-ways. As part of the contract each city receives 10 free subscriptions to Metricom's wireless Internet service. The agreement has been approved by 56 other metro area communities. Thompson said it would be difficult to COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES January 2, 2001 Page 5 alter the agreement for Eden Prairie because the contract signed by other communities includes a fairness clause. He said sticking points with Eden Prairie have been: • How the City Attorney will be reimbursed for time spent on the contract • Eden Prairie's contention that our lease with NSP gives us exclusive right to control use of the light poles. Thompson said he was not looking for an immediate decision,but wanted the chance to present his side of the issue. Mayor Harris said the matter would have to be decided at a regular Council Meeting. City Attorney Roger Pauly asked if it would be appropriate for him to respond to Mr. Thompson's presentation at tonight's council meeting. Harris said that would be appropriate. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:58 p.m. 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar January 16, 2001 SERVICE AREAJDIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Clerk's License Application List &Financial Services/ Gretchen-Laven — — — These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Gambling Type: Excluded Bingo Organization: Eden Prairie Lions Club Event: Schooner Days Date: June 1-4, 2001 Place: Round Lake Park • Renewal Private Kennel Pat& Sharon Donovan—Cats &Dogs • - 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar -SERVICE AREA/DIVISION:- - ITEM DESC-RIP-T-ION: — — ITEM NO.: Public Works Final Plat Approval of Bluff Country Townhomes 7 Engineering Services 2nd Addition :'� Randy Slick Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bluff Country Townhomes 2nd Addition. Synopsis This proposal is a replat of Outlot E of Bluff Country Village. . The plat consists of.23 acres to be divided into four townhome lots. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 17, 1999. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on December 7, 1999. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$288.00 • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement Attachments Drawing of final plat RS:ssa • I r s e1 t O 'na m :I; $ y6� I z ! s I Rif, z 3Y p �S B • ry o ? Rif, d L� �` 1 • b p • ,, i i cis . Y : y f �'i i -- ' a v1 - - - E w a U v W w 4ti f! - •� j S 9 gr 4 . ' Yip _l 2F A;;I s i 8gF 8 1ice i® 7 ZI 2 n �i = .. ! ,1 i b P2 Y a ti a^ a11. a ilni 9 ' l ' BE 1311 1141 ! i • a`g"flgt 1 li d i I .ag p g 0 E i F Skii r^r " „' ii iv B E o ei ep.:, i Hi 1 1ril i i • l i o CVsi 1s lqf y is „ g MI 9 flIt IiI dJ ' 0. r12�$ g i ii • ; M • P s .. k e *11 - ." —f R •5 e • aowot KahnkW rr • WU ` co•ec p mitt • • . I I • vow y mP'UR • *atOPRt • . eim pP'fpt HWCi •r . 0,4 .41111 11.14 -kg 1 Z 'd 81Z0'°N JN1833NIJN3 ONi11QBH WV8t :O1 IOUZ '8 'UE1' a CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. • --_..__..____..-.__-- A RESOLUTION APPROVING-FINAL LAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,the plat of Bluff Country Townhomes 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. • NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Bluff Country Townhomes 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated January 16, 2001. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 16, 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar • SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 01-5529 ITEM NO.: Public Works Services Professional Services Agreement for Plans and Eugene A. Dietz Specifications to Repaint Interior of Wash Y I •C --Water Reservoir-with—TKDA Requested Action Move to: Approve informal Professional Services Agreement with TKDA for preparation of plans, specifications and contract administration to repaint the interior of the Wash Water Reservoir at the Water Treatment Plant. Synopsis The Wash Water Reservoir is located at the southwest corner of the Water Treatment Plant site and was enclosed in a brick structure with the most recent plant expansion project. The interior of the tank, however, has not been repainted since the tank was put into service in the early 1970's. The estimated fees will be $7,000 for design and $13,000 for contract administration and will be paid on an hourly basis, not to exceed $20,000. Background Information The Wash Water Reservoir at the Treatment Plant is used to "backwash" the sand filters within the Treatment Plant. The interior of the tank has not been sandblasted and repainted since it's original installation approximately 25 years ago. This is a preventative maintenance type of project and will also include ladder and access opening modifications to the tank for conformance to current safety standards. As part of their services, TKDA will prepare an estimate prior to soliciting bids for the work, but we expect the project to cost approximately $100,000. Attachments TKDA Agreement • TKDA TOLTZ,KING, DUVALL,ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES,INCORPORATED ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE:851/292-4400 FAX:651/292-0083 December 27,2000 Mr. Ed Sorensen Utilities Superintendent City of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division 14100 Technology Drive • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2260 • Re: Revised Proposal for Engineering Services for Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota Dear Mr. Sorensen: Pursuant to communications with Mr. Verne Jacobsen,we propose to provide Engineering Services to the City of Eden Prairie in connection with the Repainting the Interior of the Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications,hereinafter called the Project. Our services will be provided in the manner described in this Proposal subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached "City of Eden Prairie General Conditions of Consultant Agreement"dated November 2000. Hereinafter, the City of Eden Prairie is referred to as the OWNER. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The OWNER desires to repaint the interior of the Wash Water Reservoir and provide • modifications for the ladder and access opening to bring the existing tank into compliance with current regulations. The OWNER requires the preparation of plans and specifications and construction administration services for this Project. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr.Ed Sorensen City of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division Revised Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications • December 27,2000 Page 2 II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA Based on TKDA'S understanding of the Project,we propose to provide the following services: A. PART I - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1. Review the existing drawings,inspection reports,paint coating, and provide the OWNER with recommendations regarding the recoating of the reservoir, and ladder and access modifications required. 2. In conjunction with the OWNER'S Staff,discuss preferences for coatings and specific design requirements for ladder and access openings. 3. In conjunction with the OWNER'S Staff,prepare a construction schedule and incorporate schedule into Project specification. 4. Prepare specification section regarding requirements for removal and disposal of lead base paint and incorporate this section into Project specifications. 5. Prepare.Project cost estimates for construction. 6. Provide additional Project design services as required. Includes submittal of plans and specifications for State of Minnesota approval, attendance at meetings with • the OWNER'S Staff and City Council, and providing general Project support. 7. Prepare fifteen sets of plans and specifications for use in obtaining competitive bids for the Project. 8. Provide information regarding the Project to prospective bidders'and conduct a pre-bid meeting at the Project site for prospective bidders. B. PART II - CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 1. Bidding Phase During the Bidding Phase,TKDA shall: a. Prepare required addenda. 3 Mr.Ed Sorensen City.of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division Revised Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications December 27, 2000 Page 3 • b. Prepare bid tabulation to assist OWNER in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding contracts. 2. Construction Phase-General Services During the Construction Phase,TKDA shall provide the following general services: a. Consult with and advise OWNER and act as OWNER'S representative as provided in the Contract Documents. b. Attend and assist OWNER with pre-construction conference to be attended by the Contractor, OWNER, and others as may be requested by the OWNER. c. Make visits to the site to observe the progress and quality of the executed work of the Contractor and to determined,in general,if such work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. d. Review and approve (or take other appropriate action with respect to) Shop Drawings (as that term is defined in the Contract Documents), samples, and other data which Contractor is required to submit,but only for conformance with the design concept of the Project and compliance with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such reviews and approvals or other action shall not extend to means,methods,techniques, sequences or procedures of construction,or to safety precautions,and programs incident thereto. e. Based on TKDA'S on-site observations, determine payments to Contractor in such amounts as is appropriate; such recommendations of payment will constitute a representation to the OWNER,based on such observations and review,that the work has progressed to the point indicated, and that,to the best of TKDA'S knowledge,information and belief,the quality of such work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. . s • Mr.Ed Sorensen City of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division Revised Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications December 27,2000 Page 4 f. Conduct a final inspection of the work to determine if the Project appears to have been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and if the Contractor has fulfilled all of his obligations thereunder,so that TKDA may recommend,in writing,fmal payment to Contractor and may give written notice to OWNER and the Contractor that the work is acceptable (subject to any conditions therein expressed). g. Provide Project coordination, attend and observe initial start-up of all major equipment,coordinate operator training, document construction changes, and provide City with five copies of the final record drawings. h. TKDA shall not have control or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means,methods,techniques;,sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work;for acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors or any other persons • performing any of the Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. • III. ADDITIONAL SERVICES If authorized by you,we will furnish or obtain from others Additional Services which are not considered as basic services under this Proposal. Additional Services shall be billable on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in SECTION 13 - EXTRA WORK of the attached General Provisions, and such billings shall be over and above any maximum amounts set forth in this Proposal. IV. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES The OWNER'S responsibilities shall be as set forth in SECTION 2 - SITE LOCATION, ACCESS, PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND UTILITIES of the attached General Provisions and as further described or clarified hereinbelow: A. Provide access to the OWNER'S files,records, and data pertaining to the Project. B. Provide reasonable access to the OWNER'S facilities included in the Project. S • Mr.Ed Sorensen City of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division Revised Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications December 27, 2000. Page 5 C. Provide input, review of submitted plans and specifications, and assistance in scheduling to accommodate construction of the Project. V. PERIOD OF SERVICE We would expect to start our services promptly upon receipt of your acceptance of this Proposal and to complete SECTION II services on or before January 15,2002. VI. COMPENSATION Compensation to TKDA for services provided as described in SECTION II.A of this Proposal shall be on an Hourly Rate basis as described in SECTION 4 - FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS of the attached General Provisions for an estimated amount of$7,000. Attached is a copy of our current Hourly Rate Schedule. Compensation to TKDA for services provided as described in SECTION II.B of this Proposal shall be on an Hourly Rate Basis as described in SECTION 4 - FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS of the attached General Provisions for an estimated amount of$13,000. The level of effort required to accomplish SECTION II services can be affected by factors which are beyond our control. Therefore, if it appears at any time that charges for services rendered will exceed$20,000 for both PART I and II services, we agree that we will not perform services or incur costs which will result in billings in excess of such amount until we have been advised by you that additional funds are available and our work can proceed. VII. CONTRACTUAL INTENT We thank you for the opportunity to submit this Proposal and are willing that this letter and attachments constitute a contract between us upon its signature by an authorized official of the City of Eden Prairie and the return of a signed copy to us. • Mr.Ed Sorensen City of Eden Prairie-Utilities Division Revised Repainting Interior of Wash Water Reservoir along with Ladder and Access Opening Modifications December 27,2000 Page 6 This Proposal will be open for acceptance for 60 days,unless the provisions herein are changed by us in writing prior to that time. Sincerely, . Richard N. Sobiech,P.E. President cliy II!",�.I..,_.. I Verne E.J.cobsen,P.E. Project Manager • ACCEPTED FOR THE • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By • MAYOR-EDEN PRAIRIE By CITY MANAGER • . Date RNS:VEJ:kms ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL CONDITIONS dated November 2000. SCHEDULE 2850-S85 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • GENERAZ CONDITIONS Consultant Agreement . •SECTION I: PROJECT INFORMATION ' . by Consultant's negligence. • 1.1 City will provide to Consultant all known information 2:5 City agrees to render reasonable assistance requested by regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site or which Consultant to enable performance of work without delay or • affects the work to be performed by Consultant. Such • interference,and upon request of Consultant,to provide a suitable information Shall include, but not be limited to site plans, workplace. surveys, known hazardous waste or conditions, previous. laboratory analysis results,written reports,soilboring logs and 2.6 City will be responsible for locating and identifying all applicable regulatory site response(Project Information). subterranean structures and utilities. Consultant will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean 1.2 City will transmit to Consultant any additions,updates,or structures and utilities identified and located by City and/or revisions to the Project Information as it becomes available to representatives of Utility Companies. City,its subcontractors or consultants. • . SECTION 3: SAMPLES 13 City will provide an on-site representative to Consultant within 24 hours upon request, to aid, define, supervise, or 3.1 Consultant may retain at its facility selected soil,water,or coordinate work or Project information as requested by material samples for a.maximum of 30 days after completion of Consultant the work and submission of Consultant's report,which samples shall remain the property of City. Unless otherwise directed by 1.4 Consultant will not be liable for any decision,conclusion, the City,Consultant may dispose of any samples after 30 days. recommendations, judgement or advice based on any inaccurate information furnished by City, or other 3.2 Disposal of contaminated or hazardous waste samples is the subcontractors or consultants engaged by City. responsibility of City. After said 30 days,City will be responsible • to select and arrange for lawful disposal procedures that include SECTION 2: SITE LOCATION,ACCESS,PERMETS, removal of samples from Consultant's custody and transporting APPROVALS AND UTILITIES them to a disposal site. City may request, or if City does not arrange for disposal, Consultant may deliver samples to City, 2.1 City will indicate to Consultant the property lines of the freight collect,or arrange for lawful disposal and bill City at cost site and assume responsibility for accuracy of markers. plus 15%. 2.2 City will provide for right-of-way for Consultant personnel SECTION 4: FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS and equipment necessary to perform the work .4.1 Consultant will submit invoices to City monthly,and a Boat 2.3 City will be solely responsible for applying for and invoice upon completion of work. Invoices will show charges obtaining permits and approvals necessary for Consultant to based on the current Consultant Fee Schedule or other documents perform the work. Consultant will assist City in applying for as attached. and obtaining such permits and approvals as needed. It is understood that City authorizes Consultant to act as agent for 4.2 To receive any payment on this Contract, the invoice or bill City for City's responsibilities under this section including must include the following signed and dated statement "I declare signing certain forms on City's behalf such as Right-of-Way under penalty of perjury that this account, claim,or demand is forms. just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 2;4 While Consultant will take reasonable precautions to 4.3 The balance stated on the invoice shall be deemed correct minimize any damage to property,it is understood by City that unless City notifies Consultant,in writing,of the particular item in the normal course of the work some darnage•may occur. that is alleged to be incorrect within ten (10) days from the . The correction of any damage is the responsibility of City or, invoice date. Consultant will review the alleged incorrect item at City's direction,the damage may be corrected by Consultant within ten(10)days and either submits a corrected invoice or a and billed to City at cost plus 15%. Notwithstanding the statement indicating the original amount is correct above,Consultant agrees to be responsible for damage caused City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement November 2000 Page I of 4 • tie' r 4.4 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice-(or corrected to mislead others by omitting certain aspects contained in the. h invoice)and is past due sixty(60)days from invoice date. On report. past due accounts,City will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per . month on the unpaid balance,or the maximum allowed by law, 5.5 Consultant will consider Project Information as confidential whichever is less,until invoice is fully paid. and will not disclose to third parties information that it acquires, • uncovers, or generates in the course of performing the work, 4.5 If City fails to pay Consultant within sixty (60) days except as and to the extent Consultant may,in its sole discretion, following invoice date, Consultant may deem the default a deem itself required by law to disclose. breach of its agreement, terminate the agreement, and be relieved of any and all duties under the agreement City SECTION 6: DISYUTES/1 MTTATIONS OF REMEDIES however,will not be relieved of Fee Payment responsibilities by the default or termination of the agreement. 6.1 In the event of a breach of Contract by City,the Consultant shall not be entitled to recover punitive,special or consequential 4.6 City will be solely responsible for applying for and damages or damages for toss of business. obtaining any applicable compensation fund reimbursements from various state and federal programs. Consultant may 6.2 City will pay all reasonable litigation or collection expenses assist City in applying for or• meeting notification including attorney fees that Consultant incurs in collecting any requirements,however. Consultant makes no representations delinquent amount City owes under this agreement. or guarantees as to what fund reimbursement City may receive. • Consultant shall not be liable for any reductions from 6.3 If City institutes a suit against Consultant,which is dismissed, reimbursement programs made for any reason by state or dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for Consultant,City federal agencies, except as may be caused by Consultant's will pay Consultant for all costs of defense, including attorney negligence. fees,expert witness fees and court costs. 4.7 City may withhold from any final payment due the 6.4 If Consultant institutes a suit against City,which is dismissed, Consultant such amounts as are incurred or expended by the dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for City,Consultant City on account of the termination of the Contract. will pay City for all costs of defense, including attorney fees, expert witness fees and court costs. SECTION 5: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 6.5 At the option of the party asserting the same, all claims, 5.1 Consultant will deliver to City certain reports as disputes and other matters in question (hereinafter "claim") instruments of the professional work or services performed between the parties to this Agreement,arising out of or relating pursuant to this Agreement. All reports are intended solely for to this Agreement or the breach thereof whereby the party or City,and Consultant will not be liable for any interpretations parties asserting the same claims entitlement to damages or made by others. payment of less than.$25,000.00 in aggregate may be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry S.2 City agrees that all reports and other work furnished to Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then City,or City's agent or representatives,which are not paid for, existing unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. In the event will be returned to Consultant upon demand and will not be any person shall commence an action in any court for any claim used by City for any purpose. arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof or the Project or construction thereof or any contract for such 5.3 Unless otherwise agreed, Consultant will retain all construction,the parry mating a claim in arbitration may dismiss pertinent records or reports concerning work and services such proceedings (unless the hearing on the claim has performed for a period of at least two(2)years after report is commenced)and elect to assert its claim in such action if such submitted. During that time the records will be made available party could have done so but for the provisions of this Paragraph. to City during Consultant's normal business hours. City may obtain reproducible copies of all software, manuals, maps, SECTION 7: STANDARD OF CARE drawings, logs and reports at cost, plus 15%, for data and materials not being provided as part of the scope of work for 7.1 Because no sampling program can prove the non-existence or the project. non-presence of contaminated conditions or materials throughout the"entire"site or facility,Consultant cannot warrant,represent, 5.4 City may use the Consultant report in its entirety and may guarantee, or certify the non-existence or non-presence, or the make copies of the entire report available to others. However, extent of existence or presence, of contaminated conditions or City shall not make disclosure to others of any portions or materials,and City's obligation under this agreement will not be excerpts of a report constituting less than the entire report,or contingent upon Consultant's delivery of any warranties, City ofEdo!Prairie Genera!Conditions Consultant Agreement November 2000 Page 2of4 9 representations,guarantees,or certifications. SECTION 10: TERMEIATION 7.2 Consultant's opinions,conclusions,recommendations,and 10.1 The agreement between Consultant and City may be report will be prepared in accordance with the proposal,scope terminated by either party upon thirty-(30)days written notice. of work,and Limitations of Environmental Assessments and. • no warranties,representations,guarantees,or certifications will 10.2 If the agreement is terminated prior to completion of the be made. Except that Consultant warrants that hardware and project; Consultant will receive an equitable adjustment of software will perform as represented in proposal and other compensation. parts of this agreement. SECTION 11: ASSIGN11ENT 7.3 Although data obtained from discrete sample locations will be used'to infer conditions between sample locations no 11.1 Neither party may assign duties,rights or interests in the guarantee may be given that the inferred conditions exist performance of the work without obtaining the prior written because soil, surface and groundwater quality conditions consent of the other party, which consent will not be between sample locations may vary significantly,and because unreasonably withheld. conditions at the time of sample collection may also vary .significantly with respect to soil, surface water and SECTION 12: DELAYS groundwater quality at any other given time and for other reasons beyond Consultant's control. 12.1 If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause beyond its reasonable control,including but not limited to strikes, 7.4 Consultant will not be responsible or liable for the riots,fires,acts of God,governmental actions,actions of a third interpretation of its data or report by others. • party,or actions or inactions of City,the time for performance • shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay. SECTION 8: GENERAL INDEMNIFICATION Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges,if any,due to the delay.. 8.1 Consultant will indemnify and hold City harmless from • and against demands, damages, and expenses caused by SECTION 13: EXTRA WORD Consultant's negligent acts and omissions, and breach of contract and those acts,omissions,and breaches of persons for 13.1 Extra work,additional compensation for same,and extension whom Consultant is legally responsible. City will indemnify of time for completion shall be covered by written amendment to and hold Consultant harmless from and against demands, this agreement prior to proceeding with any extra work or related damages, and expenses caused by City's negligent acts and expenditures. omissions,and breach of contract and those acts,omissions, and breaches of persons for whom City is legally responsible. SECTION 14: WITHHOLDING TAXES • SECTION 9: INSURANCE/WORKER'S 14.1 No final payment shall be made to the Consultant until the COMPENSATION Consultant has provided satisfactory evidence to the City that the Consultant and each of its subcontracts has complied with the 9.1 Consultant represents and warrants that it has and will provisions of Minn. Seat. 290.92 relating to withholding of maintain,during the performance of this agreement Worker's income taxes upon wages. A certificate by the Commissioner of Compensation Insurance coverage required pursuant to Minn. Revenue shall satisfy this requirement Stat. 176.181,subd.2 and that the Certificate of Insurance or the written order of the Conimissioner of Commerce SECTION 15: AUDITS permitting self insurance of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage provided to the City prior to execution of this 15.1 The books,records,documents and accounting procedures agreement is current and in force and effect. and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the 9.2 Consultant shall procure and maintain professional liability Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six(6) insurance for protection from claims arising out of professional years after the effective date of this Contract services caused by any negligent act,error or omission for which Consultant is legally liable. SECTION 16: PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS 9.3 Certificate of insurance will be provided to City upon 16.1 The Consultant shall pay to any Subcontractor within ten request. (10)days of the Consultant's receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services provided by the Subcontractor. The - City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement November2000 Page 3 of 4 /0 Consultant shall pay interest of one and a half percent (1-1/2%)per month or any part of a month to a Subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the Subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty_ payment for an unpaid balance of S100.00 or more is S10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than S100.00, the Consultant shall-pay tote actual amount due to the Subcontractor. SECTION 17: DATA PRACTICES ACT COMPLIANCE 17.1 The Consultant chA11 at all times abide by Minn. Stat 13.01 et seq.,the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Consultant • SECTION 18: DISCRIMJNATION In performance of this contract, the Consultant shall not discriminate on the grounds of or because of race,color,creed, religion,national origin,sex,marital status,status with regards to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age against any employee of the Consultant,any subcontractor of the Consultant, or any applicant for employment. •The Consultant shall include a similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this Contract The Consultant further agrees to comply will all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act,Minn.Stat 363.01,et seq.,Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. SECTION 19: CONFLICTS • No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Board of the City shall have a financial interest,direct or indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. SECTION 20: ENTIRE AGREEMENT 18.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the City and Consultant and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them respecting the written subject matter. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings,oral or written between City and Consultant relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. 18.2 The agreement between Consultant and City may be modified only by a written amendment executed by both City and Consultant 18.3 This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement November 2000 Page 4of4 11 • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON ST.PAUL, MINNESOTA AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS •ARCHITECTS •PLANNERS JANUARY 1, 2001 • • SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES • • Classification Range of Hourly Billing Rates* Director,Senior Registered Engineer, Architect,or Planner $ 88.00 to $ 143.00 Engineering or Architectural Specialist II $ 84.00 to $ 119.00 Engineering or Architectural Specialist I $ 55.00 to $ 96.00 Registered Engineer, Architect,Land Surveyor, $ 51.00 to $ 119.00 Planner, or Interior Designer Graduate Engineer,Architect, or Planner $ 42.00 to $ 83.00 Technician III '$ 47.00 to $ 62.00 ** • Technician II $ 31.00 to $ 50.00 ** Technician I $ 24.00 to $ 40.00 ** • In addition to the hourly charges,TKDA shall be reimbursed at cost for the following direct expenses when incurred in the performance of the work: 1. Travel and subsistence. (Mileage currently at IRS Standard Rate of$0.345 per mile.) 2. Computer services. (Currently at$12.00 per hour of logged-on time.) 3. Outside professional and technical services with costs defined as the amount billed • TKDA plus 10%. 4. Identifiable reproduction and reprographic costs. • * Rates effective until December 31,2001. ** For hours worked over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week,whichever is greater, individuals will be paid one and one-half times the above rates where required:by Local, State and/or Federal Government Wage and Hour Regulations. • Schedule 2850-S8S /a CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: LC. 93-5304 ITEM NO.: Engineering Services Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Rodney W.Rue Eden Crossings Street Improvements •D, Requested Action Move to: Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 for Geotechnical Investigations associated with the Eden Crossings Street Improvement Project in the estimated amount of$4,570.00. Synopsis Due to pavement cracking on this project, Geotechnical Investigation was necessary to determine • the cause and corrective action. Background Information This project is being constructed by the City of Eden Prairie through a cooperative agreement with MnDOT. MnDOT provided the design and will reimburse the Cityfor the construction and engineering associated with this project. Attachments Supplemental Agreement No. 1 r 02134-03(5/55) Supplement to Contract JF-11NNESOTADEPARTMENTOF TRAIIIIORTATION • No. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 • Sheet 1 of 2 Contractor Federal Project: State Project No. Ingram Excavating,Inc. S.P.2762-26 Address: Location: 18900 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie,MN 55344 The project is located in the city of Eden Prairie approximately 400 -1000'North of Inlace TH 5 and 200'-700'East of inplace Mitchell Road. • Pro.No. FY I Account I.D. I Dept/Did Sequence No Suffix Object Vendor Type Amount V Purchase Term Asset No. CCD.1 CCD.2 CCD.3 CCD.4 CCD.5 000NET Type of MO ( ) A41 ( ) Dated Number Entered by Transaction A44( ) A45( ) A46( ) Dated Number • Entered by Whereas: This project provides for, among other things, Grading,Watermain Protection, Storm Sewer,Curb&Gutter, Bituminous Paving,and Whereas: The contractor constructed the grading and bituminous according to the constrcution documents, and Whereas: Significant cracking in the bitumnous pavement was observed in two separarte locations within four months of the placement of the bituminous wear course, and Whereas: The Engineer has determined that Geotechnical Investigation is necessary to determine the cause of the cracking and corrective action required. • • Jut-4 oi Awl 0:16 Off. a2134-03( ) Supplement to Contract INNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF t3TAnON • No. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 Sheet 2 of 2 NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT: 1. The Contractor will hire Braun Intertec as a Subcontractor to perform Geotechnical Investigations as;outlined-in the included proposal including the additional grouting-up of the indicator casings. • 2. This work will be performed within the time frame and budget included in the proposal. . 3. Payment to the Contractor will be made after all intallations,obsevations,measurements, recommendations,submittals and removals/restorations have been completed. • 4. The City will be responsible for surveying activites necessary to locate the Slope Indicators. 5. The Contractor shall not make claim of any kind or character whatsoever for any costs or expenses which he may have incurred or which he may hereafter incur in performing the work and furnishing the materials required by this Agreement. ESTIMATE OF COST • • UNIT ITEM NO. ITEM NAME UNIT QUANTITY • PRICE PRICE AMOUNT Slope Indicator Instalation each 4 600.00 $2,400.00 Slope Indicator Monitoring and Report site visit 4 380.00 $1,520.00 Slope Indicator Grout-Up each 4 ', 162.50 $650.00 5%Contractor Mark-Up LS. 4,570 .05 $228.50. • TOTAL $4,570.00 • Distribution: Group 01= • Group 02=100% • Group 03= Group 04= • APPROVED; APPROVED: Original Contract Dated 5/111_ Commissioner of Administration Commissioner of Finance -Prof gin Dated le, • t ctor' • BY By Approved as to form and execution Dated f,Aistrict En p er Dated Dated Assistant Attorney General Datedsl3ffao ". gency Head Original to State Auditor—Copy to Agency • ..- .:-_-: Z CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: Jan.16,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Police ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of License ITEM NO.: Jim Clark,Director of Public Agreement with Sprint for telecommunications S Safety Services lease at Senior Center, 8950 Eden Prairie Road C� Tear! Jnhncnn 7nninu Arlm Requested Action: Approve License Agreement with Sprint for construction of a telecommunications facility. Synopsis: Sprint wishes to enter into a license agreement with the City at the Senior Center site, 8950 Eden Prairie Road. Sprint will remove the existing 80 foot lattice tower and replace it with a 80 foot monopole. Sprint will reinstall the city's communication equipment on the new monopole and install their antenna. Sprint's ground equipment will be located along the north side of the building. Background Information: - The lattice tower at the Senior Center was constructed in 1980. The installation of a monopole at the Senior Center with incorporation of a telecommunication user is consistent with the City's Telecommunication regulations related to co-location. The existing older lattice tower is inadequate to support additional antenna. The City will own the monopole and receive a license fee. Besides serving the City and Sprint, the new monopole can also provide space for additional users. Attachments: License Agreement Photosimulation Site Plan t GLG: 1-08-01 LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement, (or"Agreement")made this day of December,2000,between City of Eden Prairie, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344, a Minnesota municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as "Grantor,"and Sprint Spectrum,LP,a limited partnership under the laws of the State of Delaware,hereinafter referred to as"Grantee." RECITALS: A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Land")on which is situated a lattice tower and City antenna("Lattice Tower"). B. Grantee desires to remove the Lattice Tower and provide and install a monopole tower("Tower")together with an antenna according to the plans and specifications contained in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof to be owned by Grantor. The Land and Tower are sometimes hereafter referred to as the`Property." Grantee further desires a non-exclusive license to use portions of the Property and an exclusive license to use other portions of the Property, as described herein and illustrated in Exhibit B for the purpose of constructing, operating,replacing and maintaining a personal communication services facility ("Facility"). NOW THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Grantor grants to Grantee an irrevocable license for the use of that part of the Property shown on Exhibit B for the period,uses, and consideration in accordance with all of the terms, covenants,conditions, and provisions contained herein. 2. Term. The term of the license granted hereby shall be for a period of five years, commencing on the day of , (the"Term"). 3. Consideration.- (a) Grantee shall pay to Grantor the following: I. Annual license fees in the following amounts: C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKETVease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc Year 1 - $15,000.00 Year 2 - $15,750.00 Year 3 - $16,538.00 Year 4 - $17,364.00 Year 5 - $18,233.00 Annual license fees shall be payable in annual installments commencing on or before the first day of the Term and or before the first day of each successive year during the Term and any Extended Term as provided hereafter. II. If Grantee fails to maintain Grantee's Improvements and those portions of the Property affected by Grantee's occupancy of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement,upon thirty days notice to Grantee, Grantor may make such repairs and invoice Grantee for its expense incurred. Grantee shall promptly pay Grantor for its expenses incurred. (b) Grantee shall do the following: I. Remove the Lattice Tower,including the foundation to a depth of 24 inches below surface grade. II. Provide and install the Tower and all necessary feedline attachments from and to the antenna on the Property as they are located on the Lattice Tower as of the date of this Agreement at the locations shown on Exhibit B ("the Grantor's Improvements"). III.Apply for a building permit to construct the Improvements(as hereinafter defined)within twenty(20)days after execution of this Agreement by Grantor; commence construction of the Improvements within twenty(20)days after issuance of the building permit; and complete construction of the Improvements within sixty(60)days after construction is commenced,subject to delays caused by extreme weather conditions,acts of God,strikes, casualty losses and other conditions beyond the reasonable control of Grantee. 4. Grantee's Responsibility/Use. Grantee may use the following parts of the Property for the following uses,and the construction,maintenance,repair, replacement,removal and operation of the following,all of which are hereafter referred to as"Grantee's Improvements." (a) Not more than twelve(12)panel antennas, antenna mounting appurtenances and necessary cable attached to the Tower as more particularly described on Exhibit B. C:WIy Documents\MINNESOTA MARKET lease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc 3 (b) A 15 feet by 15 feet platform enclosed within 20 feet by 20 feet cedar fence as described on the Site Plans attached hereto as part of Exhibit B ("Equipment Structure")to house and contain Grantee's radio transmission and computer equipment, emergency battery and generator equipment. (c) Utility wires underground and cables,conduits and pipes within that part of the Property described on the Site Plans attached hereto as part of Exhibit B. (d) Right to ingress and egress 24 hours each day, seven(7)days a week, on foot or motor vehicle on and over that part of the Property from and to Grantee's Improvements as depicted in Exhibit B for the purpose of inspecting,maintaining and repairing its Facility and related equipment, provided however, Grantor shall have the right to require Grantee to exercise its right,of ingress and egress on and over a different part of the Property or other property as may be provided by or through Grantor. (e) A separately metered connection to electric utility,which supplies electricity. Grantor's Improvements and Grantee's Improvements (together"the Improvements")shall be installed at Grantee's expense and shall be maintained in a reasonable condition and secured by Grantee. Grantee shall ensure that its use of the Property is consistent with all local, state and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. 5. Exclusive&Non-Exclusive License: Except as to that part of the Land and those portions of the Tower described in Exhibit B as"exclusive"("Exclusive Area"), Grantee's license shall be nonexclusive and Grantor shall have the right to use the Property and authorize others to do so as Grantor, in its sole discretion,may determine. In the event that the use of the Property by others who are of a higher priority than Grantee to whom Grantor may hereafter authorize such use constitutes an unreasonable or harmful interference with Grantee's use of the Property, Grantee may give notice to Grantor of such interference. If the interference is not corrected within 30 days after the giving of such notice, Grantee may terminate this Agreement upon notice to Grantor. Grantee agrees that the following priorities of use, in descending order, shall apply in the event of communication interference or other conflict while this Agreement is in effect, and Grantee's use shall be subordinate accordingly: (a) Grantor; (b) Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, that are not part of the Grantor; (c) Other governmental agencies where use is not related to public safety; and • C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKETMease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc f (d) Grantee and other government regulated entities whose antennae offer a service to the general public for a fee, in a manner similar to a public utility,such as long distance and cellular telephone,but not including radio or television broadcasters. 6. Utilities and Taxes. Grantee shall be responsible for installation and payment of all utilities required by its use of the Property. Grantee shall pay personal Property or real estate taxes levied against or upon the Improvements or the Property of Grantee. Grantor shall provide to Grantee a copy of any notice of taxes or special assessments imposed upon Grantee's Improvements or Property as a result of Grantee's Improvements or use of the Property by Grantee,which Grantor may receive from any taxing authority. If Grantee's Improvements are separately assessed,Grantee must pay such taxes as assessed against Grantee's Improvements. If there is no separate assessment,and if there are more than one non-exempt user of the Property,taxes or assessments upon the Property on account of the use of the Property by such users shall be apportioned among all of the non-exempt users. Subject to any and all limitations imposed by law,Grantee may contest,at its own expense,any such taxes or assessments. 7. Intentionally Omitted. 8. Ownership of Improvements. Upon acceptance in writing by Grantor during the term of this.Agreement,any Extended Term, and upon termination of this Agreement,Grantor's Improvements will be owned by and be the property of Grantor. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason,including • expiration of the Term or an Extended Term,the Tower then on the Land shall remain the property of Grantor. Grantee shall,not less than sixty(60)days after the termination of this Agreement or the effective date of notice,remove Grantee's Improvements and such other Improvements as required to be removed by Grantor and shall restore the Property from which they have been removed to its condition immediately prior to installation of Grantee's Improvements. Contemporaneously with the delivery to Grantor of this Agreement executed by Grantee,Grantee has deposited$5,000 with Grantor. In the event Grantee fails to remove Grantee's Improvements required to be removed within the time or times provided,Grantor may do so. Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all costs incurred by Grantor to remove Grantee's Improvements and restore the Property. Grantor may draw from the deposit so much thereof as will reimburse Grantor.for its costs. Any amount remaining will be refunded to Grantee. If the deposit is insufficient to cover Grantor's costs Grantee shall promptly pay to Grantor the deficiency. 9. Defense and Indemnification. (a) General. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives,from and against any and all claims, costs,losses,expenses, demands, actions, C:WIy Documents\MINNESOTA MARKE7Vease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.F1NAL.doc f 5 causes of action and liens,including reasonable attorneys'fees and other costs and expenses of litigation(i)which may be asserted against or incurred by Grantor or for which Grantor may be liable in the performance of this Agreement,except those which arise solely from the negligence or willful acts of Grantor or(ii) arising out of the installation,operation,use, maintenance,repair or removal of Grantee's Improvements on the Property. (b) Hazardous Materials. Without limiting the scope of Subparagraph 9(a) above,Grantee will be solely responsible for and will defend,indemnify, and hold Grantor,its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims,costs, and liabilities,including attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the Property resulting from Grantee's use of Hazardous Materials. For purposes of this Agreement,"Hazardous Materials"shall mean:Any substance or material defined or designated as hazardous or toxic waste, hazardous or toxic substance,pollutant,contaminant,or other similar term,by any federal,state or local environmental statute,regulation,order or ordinance presently in effect, including,without limitation, asbestos and petroleum products. (c) Grantee's Warranty. Grantee represents and warrants that its use of the Property will not generate and Grantee will not store or dispose of on the Property,nor transport to or over the Property, any Hazardous Materials. • (d) Survival.The obligations of this paragraph 9 shall survive the expiration or other termination of this license. 10. Insurance. (a) General Liability. Grantee shall maintain an occurrence form comprehensive general liability insurance coverage. Such coverage shall include,but not be limited to,bodily injury,property damage—broad form,and personal injury,for the hazards of Premises/Operation,broad form contractual,independent contractors,and products/completed operations. Grantee shall maintain aforementioned comprehensive general liability coverage with limits of liability not less that$2,000,000 each occurrence; $2,000,000 personal and advertising injury; $2,000,000 general aggregate,and$2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate. These limits may be satisfied by comprehensive general liability coverage or in combination with an umbrella or excess liability policy,provided coverages afforded by the umbrella or excess policy are no less than the above stated limits. C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKET\lease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.F1NAL.doc , • (b) Grantee Property Insurance. Grantee shall keep in force during the Tenn and any Extended Term a policy covering damages to its Facility at the Property. The amount of coverage shall be sufficient to replace the damaged Facility,loss of use and comply with any ordinance or law requirements. (c) Worker's Compensation. Grantee shall maintain such worker's compensation insurance as required by Minnesota law. (d) Review of Coverage. The coverage limits set forth herein shall be reviewed periodically at Grantor's written request. If review of the coverage limits reveals that the insurance coverage is not adequate to cover Grantee's Improvements on the Property,the parties shall negotiate an increase in the insurance coverage. (e) Additional Insured—Certificate of Insurance. The Grantee shall provide, prior to occupancy of the Property, evidence of the required insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance issued by a company(rated A+or better by Best Insurance Guide),licensed to do business in the state of Minnesota,which includes all coverages required in this Paragraph 10. Grantee will name Grantor as an Additional Insured on the General Liability Policy. The Certificate(s) shall also provide that the coverage may not be canceled,non-renewed,or materially changed without thirty (30)days prior written notice to Grantor. 11. Temporary Interruptions of Service. When Grantor determines that continued operation of Grantee's Facility would cause or contribute to an immediate threat to the public(including maintenance and operating personnel)health and/or safety, Grantor may order Grantee to discontinue its operation,or if the continued use constitutes an emergency, Grantor may without prior notice to Grantee cause discontinuance of operation of Grantee's Facility. Discontinuance of Grantee's operation shall include,but not be limited to shutting down the transmission of • electromagnetic waves or impulses to or from the Facility. Grantee shall immediately comply with such an order. Operations shall be discontinued only for the period that the immediate threat exists. If prior notice is not given to Grantee, Grantor shall notify Grantee as soon as possible after its action and give its reason for taking the action. Grantor shall not be liable to Grantee or any other party for any interruption in Grantee's service or interference with Grantee's operation of its Facility. If the discontinuance shall extend for a period greater than three days,either consecutively or cumulatively,Grantee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement within its sole discretion without any prior notice. Any license fees paid by Grantee for any period of time after the date of termination shall be refunded by Grantor to Grantee. 12. Interference with the Property. Grantee shall not interfere with Grantor's use of the non-exclusive portion of the Property(and others to whom Grantor has C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKETVease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc / granted the use of the non-exclusive portion of the Property)and agrees to cease all such actions which unreasonably and materially interfere with Grantor's or other's use of the non-exclusive portion of the Property no later than three(3) business days after receipt of written notice of the interference from Grantor. If the interference cannot be eliminated within 30 days after Grantee has received written notice, either Grantor or Grantee may at its option terminate this Agreement immediately. 13. Interference with Communications. Grantee's use and operation of its Facility shall not interfere with the use and operation of other communication facilities of Grantor as set forth in sections 5(a), (b) and(c)hereof. If Grantee's Facility causes interference, Grantee shall take all measures necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within 48 hours after receiving Grantor's written notice of the interference,Grantee shall immediately cease operating its Facility and shall not reactivate operation, except intermittent operation for the purpose of testing,until the interference has been eliminated. If the interference cannot be eliminated within 30 days after Grantee has received Grantor's written notice,Grantor may at its option terminate this Agreement immediately. Grantor agrees that it will not grant a future lease or license in the Land or the Tower to any party who is of equal or lower priority to Grantee,if such party's use is reasonably anticipated to interfere with Grantee's operation of its Facility. Grantor's technical consultant's opinion that such a party's use is not reasonably anticipated to interfere with Grantee's operation of its Facility,will satisfy the foregoing condition. Grantor agrees further that any future lease or license of the Land or the Tower will prohibit a user of equal or lower priority from interfering with Grantee's Facility. Grantor agrees that it will require any subsequent occupants of the Land or the Tower of equal or lower priority to provide Grantee these same assurances against interference. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the right to eliminate any interference with the operations of Grantee caused by such subsequent occupants,provided that prior to undertaking to eliminate interference caused by subsequent occupants,Grantee's proposed action must be submitted to • and approved by Grantor's technical consultant;and provided further,that Grantor shall have no liability to Grantee or any third party for Grantee's failure to eliminate such interference. If such interference is not eliminated,Grantee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or seek injunctive relief against the interfering occupant, at Grantee's expense. 14. Additional Covenants. Grantee shall(a)use natural gas or propane(and shall not use gasoline or diesel fuel)for energy to power an engine to operate a generator to be installed on the Property, if any, (b)not use any process or method in the installation,maintenance or removal of any Improvement upon the Tower by • means of welding, cutting tool or other device which would damage the Tower or any equipment attached thereto, (c)protect the Improvements from damage or harm in the event of the repair or maintenance of the Tower or other facilities of C:\My DocumentstMINNESOTA MARKETUease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc ft U / Grantor, (d)not,without Grantor's consent,remove, cut or trim any trees or other vegetation on the Property other than those shown on Exhibit B, and(e)replace significant trees (as defined in Eden Prairie City Code) lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as a result of construction of the Improvements upon the Property in accordance with the provisions of Eden Prairie City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5. C. 9. 15. Default. The following shall constitute an event of default by Grantee ("Grantee's Default") : (a) Grantee's failure to make prompt payment of fees or other amounts due within fifteen(15)days after receipt of written notice from Grantor to Grantee. (b) Grantee's failure to comply with Grantee's obligations contained in Sections 5, 11,12,13 and 14 of this Agreement. (c) Grantee's failure to observe or perform any other covenant or condition contained in this Agreement within 30 days after written notice to Grantee specifying such failure and requiring Grantee to remedy the same. If it reasonably takes longer than 30 days to correct such covenant or condition, and if Grantee has commenced correction within 30 days and is diligently pursuing correction,Grantee shall have a reasonable period in which to correct such covenant or condition. (d) The adjudication of Grantee as bankrupt by a court of competent jurisdiction, or the entry by such a court of an order approving a petition seeking reorganization of Grantee under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law or statute of the United States of America or any State thereof, or the appointment by such a court of a trustee or receiver or receivers of Grantee or of all or any substantial part of its property upon the application of any creditor in any insolvency or bankruptcy proceeding or other creditor's suit in each case, and the order or decree remains unstayed and in effect for ninety(90)days. • (e) The filing by Grantee of a petition in voluntary bankruptcy or the making by it of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors or the consenting by it to the appointment of a receiver or receivers of all or any substantial part of the property of Grantee; or the filing by Grantee of a petition or answer seeking reorganization under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law or statute of the United States of America or any State thereof; or the filing by Grantee of a petition to take advantage of any debtor's act. 16. Remedies. Upon Grantee's Default, Grantor shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement, seek specific performance, seek injunctive relief, and/or seek C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKE'Illease agreements\873 License Agreement seniorrcc'enter.F1NAL.doc 1 damages. The exercise of one or more of such remedies by Grantor shall not be deemed an election or waiver of the right to exercise any other remedy. 17. No Duty to Repair_ Grantor shall have no duty or obligation to maintain,repair, restore,replace or modify the Tower,the Land,or any of Grantee's Facilities, fixtures,personal property or improvements located thereon or therein. 18. Termination. In addition to Grantor's right to terminate this agreement pursuant to Section 16 hereof,Grantor shall have, and reserves,the right in its sole discretion to terminate this Agreement at any time if,in Grantor's sole judgment, Grantor determines,after consultation with a licensed structural engineer that the Tower is structurally unsound for use as a tower,for any reason,including,but not limited to, considerations related to the age of the structure, damage to or destruction of all or part of the Tower or the Property from any source, or factors relating to the condition of the Property. Provided, that if Grantee, at Grantee's cost,remedies the structural defect, as determined by Grantor's structural engineer, this Agreement shall not be terminated.Prior to undertaking remedial work to correct any structural defects, Grantee's proposed corrective work shall be approved by Grantor's structural engineer as to the structural design, and shall be approved by Grantor as it affects the aesthetics of the Property. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Grantor's or Grantee's right to terminate this Agreement as provided herein or upon expiration of the Term or any Extended Term,the Parties obligations under this Agreement shall cease, except Grantee's obligations with respect to Sections 8, 9 & 10 of this Agreement and to make payment of any amounts to which Grantor is entitled at such time. Termination shall not relieve Grantee of any liability by way of damages to which Grantor may be entitled upon Grantee's default hereunder. 19. Limitation of Grantor's Liability. If Grantor terminates this Agreement other than as of right as provided in this Agreement, or Grantor causes interruption of the business of Grantee or for any other Grantor breach of this License, Grantor's Liability for damages to Grantee shall be limited to the actual and direct costs of equipment removal,or repair and shall specifically exclude consequential damages, any recovery for value of the business of Grantee as a going concern, future expectation of profits, loss of business or profit or related damages to Grantee. Grantee shall have the right to maintain a suit for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement. 20. Condemnation. In the event the whole of the Property is taken by eminent domain,this License shall terminate as of the date title to the Property vests in the condemning authority. In event a portion of the Property is taken by eminent domain, either party shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of said date of title transfer,by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. In the event of any taking under the power of eminent domain, Grantee shall not be entitled to any portion of the reward paid for the taking and the Grantor shall C:1My Documents\MINNESOTA MARICEIllease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc receive full amount of such award. Grantee hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any portion thereof. Although all damages,whether awarded as compensation for diminution in the value of the license or the fee of the Property, shall belong to Grantor, Grantee shall have the right to claim and recover from the condemning authority,but not from Grantor, such compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Grantee on account of any and all damage to Grantee's business and any costs or expenses incurred by Grantee in moving/removing its Improvements. 21. Additional Buildings/Improvements/Antennaes. Grantee acknowledges that Grantor may permit additional buildings/improvements to be constructed on the Property. At such time as this may occur, Grantee will permit said buildings to be placed immediately adjacent to Grantee's building/improvements,if any,and will allow"attachments"to its building so as to give the appearance that all buildings are a connected facility. Said attachments will be made at no cost to Grantee and will not compromise the structural integrity of Grantee's building/improvements. Grantor may permit antennas of third parties to be attached to the Tower to be constructed on the Property,provided a qualified structural engineer first certifies that the Tower will structurally accommodate existing antennas plus such additional antennas of Grantee to bring the total number of Grantee's antennas attached to the Tower to twelve(12),plus proposed antennas of third parties. 22. Extended Terms. This Agreement and the license will be automatically renewed for two(2)additional five(5)year terms("Extended Terms"),unless Grantee provides Grantor written notice of intention not to renew at least six(6)months prior to the end of the Term or the then current Extended Term. The annual license fees for the Extended Terms are as follows: First Extended Term Second Extended Term Year 6 $19,144. Year 11 $24,434. Year 7 20,102. Year 12 25,656. Year 8 21,107. Year 13 26,939. Year 9 22,162. Year 14 28.286. Year 10 23,270. Year 15 29,670. 23. No Representation or Warranty—Conditional Grant. Grantor makes no representation or warranty regarding the condition of its title to the Land or its right to grant to Grantee the license. Grantee is entering into this Agreement and use of the Land is subject to Grantee's own investigation and acceptance therefore "as is". Grantee's rights granted pursuant to this Agreement are subject and subordinate to all limitations,restrictions, and encumbrances relating to Grantor's interest in the Land that may affect or limit Grantor's right to grant those rights to Grantee. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all agreements,promises and understandings between Grantor and Grantee and no verbal or oral agreements, C:1My DocumentsMMINNESOTA MARKE1\lease agreements1873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc 11 promises, or understandings shall or will be binding upon either Grantor or Grantee in any dispute,controversy, or proceeding at law, and any addition, variation, or modification to this Agreement shall be void and ineffective unless it is in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 25. Interpretation. This Agreement and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed, and regulated by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 26. Assignment. This license, and rights thereunder,may be sold,assigned or transferred at any time by Grantee to Grantee's parent, affiliates, subsidiaries or any entity which acquires substantially'all of the assets of Grantee,without notice to or the consent of Grantor. As to other parties,this license may not be sold, assigned, or transferred without the written consent of Grantor, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. For purposes of this paragraph, a "parent", "affiliate"or"subsidiary"means an entity which directly or indirectly controls,is controlled by or under common control with Grantee. In the event of a sale, assignment or transfer to a parent,affiliate or subsidiary, Grantee shall remain liable for the full performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder. Grantor hereby consents to the assignment by Grantee of its rights under this license as collateral to any entity which provides financing to Grantee. 27. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Grantor by delivering it personally to the Manager of Grantor;or if it is directed to Grantee, • by delivering it personally to Real Estate Department of Grantee; or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail,return receipt requested,postage prepaid; or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier,properly addressed as follows: If to Grantor: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Attn: City Manager If to Grantee: Sprint PCS 9801 West Higgins Road, Suite 220 Rosemont,IL 60018 Attn: Michael S.Romesburg With a copy to: Sprint Spectrum LP 4900 Main Kansas City, MO 64112 Or,if transmitted by facsimile copy, copy followed by mailed notice as above required. C:1My Documents1MINNESOTA MARKE"INease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc �( �a Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as aforesaid; provided,however, that if notice is given by deposit,that the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 28. Recording of Memorandum. Grantor shall execute and Grantee shall be permitted to record at any time a memorandum of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of its Term, or an Extended Tenn, Grantee shall record an appropriate instrument to clear the memorandum from the title to the Land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed . their respective seals the day and year first above written. GRANTOR • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Its: Mayor • By: Its: City Manager Taxpayer ID#: 41-0855460 GRANTEE SPRINT SPECTRUM,LP By:�r�4&e :54 U\r7uy Wiz- -.- Michael S. Romesburg Its: Director of Site Development Taxpayer ID#: 7 6— / / ('.2 4/5 C:\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKET\lease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center.FINAL.doc y� 13 STATE OF NIINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2000,by and respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public . STATE OF I L • ) �t )ss. COUNTY OF Not, ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ? day of 200Xi by Michael S.Romesburg,the Director of Site Development of Sprint Spectrum,LP,on behalf of the limited partnership. "OFFICIAL SEAL" JAMES B.ANDERSON6 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ILLINOIS �{(�� DD M Commission Ex.,ices 01/14/2003 N t Public • • • C.\My Documents\MINNESOTA MARKE'Illease agreements\873 License Agreement senior center FINAL.doc f L / f i' "A • a • :"r k *. '�" Zi a ,p ,w ;. 444 9t'.'4$41.1K*.W.':.�["y., yy: y ' �. t + +Lxr..lM.4•r"..t.vit4 dE,..A'♦ ",g'.,,,t, 4 .. f . �i .. 4 __,,.YY{s'M„' xyF* 'A""k. °diy ''f t ^^'" 5.' �K t +y;y.� ,ice /Z �`lt ''1 `: ,w 5 q ... . .k,`....74,4 * 7 , , —,-. *.,..*,, ' .r.-...;,. ' ., - , , • ..-• 4 to,. - 4.4., i . , , q,44' '..,' Pr 4, 4,444, ..!„,. , lie. -•.ot•04, , ,, • ,,,, ' • a r f 4 MHPw• +» „ 4 4 ,. 4Y'tN.w+'2itiWw+M• J A. .J-.......9+444+44Ne44.4 444.44444>+..444.44144;44,44.444.-••WPM.,4444 4444,44..4 4,4444414,'4M444+R'F^.+.M./"MMY.r #M'YI1 —-`-"w+a ',I.-h '�A.44444,.].GBe.M•.N.444MJ➢4..�«i-•Mw o86*...i.NY..s. 4 Photosimulation of Proposed SS4C[ATES ` Sprint Tower Replacement t 71)i lilt (Monopole) 15 § ,.. , 1 , g. , , f li' il" ilt1 xi ggi ,i I 1 ; g ;, k. e.. k 1 t7:, w * ikl f t 411 4 it 't' i V ki V " : 1 .X II Oa ; : § lag ;II' i • l 'iliI 'iliiiiiiiiiiliiiil 11 fi ill Ili at -8-1 4 k g 1 ilb - o o tioseal4- 0xoollsooi i ill !, i ! 1 g.r.• 11 11111 LI:L. ii iii 2FIEI 12 ul rxi 4., E g " lii 1111 ii 41 • ..., i _ i 'S i 11 10 I 1ill I I I • . 0 ilfill N g; il 0 al ag ail - d i P4 11 !!il hil li II 1 i it Iii 1 ligillii: 1 I vt i tIlli ipt, ig . 4 1 ; :1111i11i 1111 i il II 1 II 1 i 11 i ; 1111 1 11 ill 12 2 2 7 wi ;/ 01011 * • 1. 10041640McD40111 • * ti • • • •coree ..-0° NI'iratit* _. IN.• ••..,r .,.• Pv )?' \ ir i.:...;•:s!*::;:'..: ..:-..•••<....::: / _,. * 7 N89•2,4 •••':,•••:‘,.•• :: . v.„,:.•;.•.••• Et ,II. -.• i's :..,.ti.sit.tit;.Shrub 441,:). I *if.;":''...• 15 1 :-,r,tilly g!tr:NliAkorilimassrai 1.••.:.:•4,...•[...1...;••:•.,•::•:•:....••••..., • 1, • • 0 1•3- • !••:....;:•.•••: ..•:::•',.:;.;•• Ir :. iii ,..r•.::, -•*4 .%••••••-.....:•:::. •...•,_•••••<••• •.'........-.:... ........ :.•..lit •.„,..•:.•;•••••• ...- . . .....„410 c.,., .....40/P-*'-'111-1#311p2.3 - 11101c .f•••••,..!-;.i• ..:•'‘..,•:••••..."-• '••••11 •• • ••,..:••-• 11 ,,,,,- • . • -,1••: • , el •••a...IW..3,"•• .• .•,.. *:..•• .4.••••......40.••1.. .6 U • . . ... i ••. &..47.1P: "._7::::::::.--.---1.. •',. — • "• ...'- 'z..• ". '' J' 1 P.." ''•• ",... . ,.:. :,: ".4.,...... .. ...,...,. .. ik rr [1:::.'• ;.- : 3! • • 4. .. .••4 •• ...4•' r.,1..... r• : 011,,': i 116 . ,...i..,,...,,,,. .....“..,... ...--...i.,.:•.,.:,:..:. ::::.....'.;,....:q.. i 1 ok ?w.• ,., -.4 • 1i•• •0".•:4‘•;' ' 3 - A 1....:;•.."-;.....::::•:••••••••••'•;.• y..,... . , ., .••1 0% ...4:•..."..'... .'.. •...* '. . I 4..: :••4.4...:.!'.:,:;4,......4:.:.; 1...., :'.4.kk •..!.,'... 0.,f. •:.-.•,,• :. . 1...:.] , . '• •••:•:':,•••••?•:t. ..3....;,.:•;;•-,',........-... trl •• ***v....Z.: ••••••••••,.... .,:.:••••••• °' •••11-•• i••••. : " 41 902 ..1. P:.....4*.;,?..4:........*. "t••4;....:,i„'J.,.....i..4;4... 0 . .. . . . :I:.-. ,r...Z. 1P6 ; • 4".*-.* .'4.:':'..'l.' .': 4.-4N ....':'......! :1,:..• „. 18051 • . r... gu,Rg %.....<:'4;'.... . .......-' .'.• *r:4.. .1 A.1•,.‘,..--- —_,Ili H /2... '..:,:-...........,„,...„...-.j..,..S..A4'.4... : —.. ......:••••••:.:"",' ..:. .`..'.....'„,..: .:...• ----"` '•trir Ft . . 4.. :::;.... ,....,... ...,....: ::,...:. •... . R1 ..., g i• • ,. •• .ti .•fgRe 'I L.s.••..',•..,'.''.:..0•4.,.:.*i.:......:.......*.,.r:1i•I*.1.p7$.1..,..4..:,:..•;.:.;-.':.:.:....,.,..•.•..•...R.*.•.'•.,..,.•-•.-•t•tr,r.;::•"l...•1.•..g.•.•..•Ya,i.'.t.:.-,,• ;,....-;.l. 141„ra./t 8,, •-'. r(n1)l--,5,•.-.. 5! :,4 v...:•;:'.,.,....';••'•.•':':-.•,.-• ....4.*..*..:.,..'•' Id1i,...„'::::.`,:r..r.. Z:..':•,•.:::•';.'::,. Nm 4Da8g lah 11 •-:...'.1.•:,..•: .b h...f..0. 4:'V•tr.t.s T*. '..".r., m 0 ,:•••:::•••••••••:. :s.•..:••,...::::: .,..:.:--.."'s. :.....;,''.••:.::'"•':';',':''...,,ca•'-'0.'....... .,......:•:';....:*,:'.:•' ..• ' ^ •4 *: (t''' ••-•''''::" •:—.'.'•:.:•••..:•::::: „....:.:,..,....'•t0.-;..:%.::::•:•‘:.'::':•" .•". ,••: ••• •:. Bil '4 I,. •••4‘..—..;.... ::—..":. -. .., .,,. . •== ••,...:4.:.••‘•:." • ' ....s •••.•:,.."......A&..%,.. •: AO i • • ''. '. : ... . g • :.. ,...0 . •. z 4 .;[...:.;•.‘..,..,.: 1:1..2.: ,...'... ....... . ..-Pi 1 . .... ..,... .1.. ; .......,'5.g ge $.'• -* " * " 1&,-klti'...'•::-....:A.,,,,.,,,...,..,::••••• ". ..1 --9°°-- I'• • ;".•.:: 1de -•":•""•• ''•: :•, ,:••• -i , !,f'•'... •... • t ..•. ,•:...., ':'... -...'.'•...i."...::'.:::•:•'..:?*:Z"f•Yf': i 43.1 ••• k :,•Z::•.: . 4) ..... c:'''' ''‘',": 4:'f-r•Nr..-4., .. ------/i- I. '. ......:...,.`, 1..''.4,....;•,., 'r,...•....:-..nt.,•'..' ,• j ..:§‘ U P2, . 4. a. ....1 ••• •• •..,•..••••• . .. ..• .rd, - / •,.:..7:::::: d .' ..._......D j .I...;•"..1.-....'2•,.': ,...........4.;'• .''.', • , •••:• :.n.•.." •'.:'..‘...',,••.'„,....:.•;... "•.: .•:..••••.•••'• •••1:''..'1'...,' nI.•.:. t• 4 < • • :I•:.,•,' .1"::•••• ,-::•••,•:-,... •'••''• .../.....,..::••• . ' ..••••..,..... ...,7,. ...%. 0 1 :I•...,. :.:•• rs..*/**.•''..*‘ '.••.....“ ./....::...'''. ,•;...;:r:;:'..':::. , .••••• •••• — i : • -..':.;' Ir• : '....: - ''..;:.`,..'....•4....:,4'..:''•",...•••.':",.:•.• CC °OD oi I.:'':••.,'I":.' ": •'""•'•I'':.'",:::',' •••'. ' < I...:..,• .SE•cor •••cP•••'4*: ,' 20f19 M izi ..•••••,;:,..•:• . , ... - . •. - ....„.. . • • \ 1 •::',•, :,-. •-•:..•.:,.:•••:•-• -••• •; '4 • •' `• •'•• • • ',•,;..s::.,::....•,........:.....-..n -. ...•.'•..%•.••• •- • ;.•'.;•..... .,, .•,..,-.-• •••••••••:J".••-',.....-.g.„.:.....:„..,.., ... . .,, __ . .., . ., .. .... ... ...., I \ I 1 I 1 ....:...;.......'::: t I „ 1 1 ' ..' ... ''.....'"''-: .- '.. .. ..SUTTO-14-'. ...*- ---..DR-• .` '---..' - .. " " -. } ‘ ) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 1/16/01 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Safety Services/Police Lieutenant Michael T. Bosacker Approval of 2001 Towing Services Agreement Requested Action: Move to: Approve renewal of the Agreement for Towing Services between the City of Eden Prairie and Matt's Auto Service for the year 2001. Synopsis: This agreement for Towing Services will provide consistency of towing services. The Contractor has requested increases in towing and impound fees for this years agreement as well as an additional$25 charge to the City for vehicles impounded by the City and abandoned by the owner which require disposal. The fee increases reflect increased costs for fuel, storage space, and vehicle disposal. The City has added a clarification statement regarding forfeited vehicles, "Any storage or towing fees paid by the registered owner, which have already been paid by the City, shall be reimbursed to the City by the Contractor". Fee Changes Towing Rates 2000 2001 Impounded vehicles $68 $70 Lowboy&Tractor service $75/hr min $95/hr min Winching $35 sm.truck $45 sm.truck • $125 1g.truck $150 1g.truck • Semi truck tractors &trailers $125 min $150 min Storage Rates 2000 2001 Two wheel vehicles,ATVs, &snowmobiles $10/day $15/day Other vehicles (ex lg.trucks) $15/day $18/day Inside storage $20/day $30/day Tractor-trailers,large trucks $25-$45/day $45-$65/day Background Information: For 40 years, Matt's Auto Service (6282 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie) has been acting as the official towing agency for the City of Eden Prairie,working with the Police Department and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department prior to the existence of the Eden Prairie Police Department. Since 1999 there has been a formal agreement between the City and Matt's Auto Service regarding services provided and fees charged for those services. Towing and impound fees remained the same between the 1999 and 2000 agreements. Matt's Auto Service provides towing/impound services for several other local police departments including Minnetonka, Hopkins, Deephaven, Hennepin County Sheriff, and State Patrol. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. • Attachments: 2001 Agreement for Towing Services 2001 AGREEMENT FOR TOWING SERVICES • THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of ,2001,between the City of Eden Prairie,Eden Prairie City Offices, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie,MN 55344- 2230 ("City"), and Matt's Auto Service, Inc., 6284 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,the City and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Contractor's Services. The Contractor agrees to provide all services required by the City for towing of vehicles, as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 169.01, Subd.2. These services shall be provided in accordance with the terms of this contract. The Contractor shall furnish the equipment,personnel, supplies, and facilities sufficient to fulfill all the terms of this contract. 2. Personnel. All drivers provided for the towing vehicles shall be checked for driver's license and warrants by the City's Police Department prior to their assignment. Contractor agrees to train all drivers in the proper towing of vehicles containing hazardous materials in accordance with federal and state laws. 3. Storage Facility. The Contractor shall provide storage facility for towed vehicles which shall be fenced and locked in a secure manner. The facility shall have space for no fewer than 150 vehicles and shall be within one mile of the City limits. • 4. Operation. No vehicle shall be towed under this contract without specific authorization from an employee or agent of the City. All vehicles shall be towed,not driven(except when authorized)without damage to the vehicles,to the storage facility. Contractor shall maintain and provide a telephone answering service 24 hours a day for the purpose of receiving requests for .. service pursuant to this contract, and provide and maintain mobile radio service with all towing • units. 5. Notification of Owner. Upon the deposit of a towed vehicle in the storage facility, the Contractor shall send, within 72 hours, by certified mail, to the registered owner a notice . specifying the date and place of the tow, the year, make, model, and serial number of the vehicle towed,if such information can be reasonably obtained,and the procedure to reclaim the vehicle. A record of this notice shall be retained by the Contractor. 6. Release. No vehicle shall be released without proper proof of ownership. Vehicles ordered held by the Police Department shall not be released without written authorization from said department. Vehicles not kept on a"police hold"shall be released by the Contractor after obtaining proper proof of ownership and proof of current insurance coverage if the vehicle is to be driven out of the impound lot. The Contractor reserves the right to specify the manner of payment for all charges and fees. Contractor agrees to supply personnel and reasonable hours of operation for the release of vehicles. Minimum hours shall be 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday; 10:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.Saturdays;and 2:00 p.m.to 3:00 p.m.on Sundays and holidays. Contractor agrees to provide emergency service beyond those hours at the request of the police department. 7. Towing and Storage Charges. A 24 hour towing rate schedule for 2000 for the City of Eden Prairie impounded vehicles is: TOWING RATES-POLICE IMPOUNDS Impounded vehicles $70 Trailering impounded vehicles(additional) $5 minimum Accidents $75* Lowboy&Tractor service $95/hour minimum Dollies(Additional) $25 Winching(Additional) $45 small truck $150 big truck* Semi truck tractors and trailers $150 minimum* • On-scene additional labor charges $45/hour minimum *additional labor charges may be required depending on the specific equipment or labor needed at the scene. STORAGE RATES-POLICE IMPOUNDS Two wheel motor vehicles,mopeds, $15/day ATV's,and snowmobiles Other vehicles(ex large trucks) $I8/day Inside storage $30/day Tractor-trailers,large trucks $45-$65/day Note:(1) Vehicles not able to be towed by conventional means due to unusual factory or after- market equipment installed will be impounded at the lowboy and tractor service rate plus additional labor charges which the Contractor must justify. Note: (2) Additional labor charges include, but are not limited to, unlocking vehicles, disconnecting transmission linkages or driveshafts, unusual road clean up, snow shoveling, any additional equipment needed, and vehicles located off the main roadways. Labor charges must be justified by the Contractor. All towing or storage charges shall be the responsibility of the vehicle owner,except that(a)public safety vehicles requiring towing within the City of Eden Prairie area shall be towed without charge to the City,(b)vehicles towed and/or stored in error(at the request of the City)shall be returned to the owner at no charge,(c)Contractor may charge,in its discretion,a$25 fee for vehicles impounded by the City and abandoned by the owner that require disposal at the Contractor's expense pursuant f I to paragraph 10 of this Agreement. Any such fees charged by the Contractor shall be deducted from the administrative fees owed by the Contractor pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Agreement. 8. Forfeited Vehicles. Vehicles towed and stored pursuant to seizure/forfeiture under Minnesota Statutes§§609.531 to 609.5318 and§169A.63 shall be towed and stored at the following rates: $125 towing and storage for first 45 days;and$150 storage of seized vehicles per month after the first 45 days. Payment of the fees for towing and storage of seized vehicles shall be deducted from the administrative fees owed by Contractor or paid from revenue from the sales of seized vehicles. Vehicles no longer held for seizure may be released to the registered owner as outlined in paragraph 6 above so long as the registered owner has paid all fees related to the seizure. Release of such vehicles shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes §§609.531 to 609.5318 and §169A.63. Any storage or towing fees paid by the registered owner,which have already been paid by the City, shall be reimbursed to the City by the Contractor. 9. Administrative Fees. The Contractor agrees to pay the City$4.00 for clerical and administrative expenses for each vehicle referenced in an impound towing report filed by the Police Department. These fees shall be paid semi-annually-June 30 and December 31 of each year for the preceding six month period. Vehicles not claimed and destroyed by the Contractor will be exempt from the administrative fee. 10. Records and Reports. Contractor shall prepare a semi-annual report of all vehicles towed, stored, released, and still held, in a form acceptable to the City. This report shall be forwarded to the police department at the same time as payment of the administrative fees referenced in paragraph 9. The report shall include the reasons why, if any, vehicles towed have not been released. All records of services provided by the Contractor pursuant to this agreement shall be available for inspection by the City upon request. 11. Sales and/or Disposal. When the total of all charges for towing, storage,and other charges equals or exceeds the value of the vehicle impounded, the Contractor shall, with the permission of the Chief of Police, sell the vehicle at a sheriffs sale or otherwise dispose of the vehicle by lawful means. The Chief of Police may authorize the lawful sale of other vehicles when so requested by the Contractor after proper notification has been made to the registered owner. The Contractor shall report all transactions of sale or disposal,including the proceeds received, in the semi-annual report referenced above in paragraph 10. The Contractor shall keep records and prepare an annual summary report by January 31,2002,of all losses and profits from the sale or disposal of vehicles towed pursuant to this agreement. 12. Liability. The Contractor shall be responsible for the loss of, or damage to, any vehicle,equipment thereon,and contents therein due to the fault of the Contractor or his agent,from the time he,or his agent,takes custody of the vehicle,whether that be by signing the receipt for the vehicle or by hooking or hoisting the vehicle. The Contractor shall be responsible for the safe keeping of personal property,within or on the vehicle,as identified on the vehicle impound form. 13. Indemnification. The Contractor shall indemnify,hold harmless and defend the City, its employees and agents from, and against, all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys'fees,which the City may suffer or for which it maybe held liable because of bodily injury, including death, or damage to property, including loss of use, as a result of the fault of the Contractor,its employees,agents or subcontractors in the breach or performance of this agreement. 14. Insurance. The Contractor shall obtain and maintain liability insurance for coverage of not less than the following amounts: Hazardous Load As required by fed/state laws Worker's Compensation Statutory Employer's Liability $100,000/$500,000/$100,000 Bodily Injury& $100,000 each occurrence Property Damage Fire&Theft $30,000 each occurrence Garagekeeper Liability $30,000 each occurrence The insurance shall cover all operations under this contract,whether undertaken by himself, subcontractors or anyone employed or retained by them. Coverage for bodily injury and property damage shall be written under comprehensive general and comprehensive automobile liability policy forms,including coverage for all owned,hired and non-owned motor vehicles. The insurance shall also cover the indemnification liability set forth in paragraph 13. All insurance policies required by this requirement shall include a provision that'provides that the policy may not be canceled, terminated, or reduced except upon thirty(30) days written notice to the City. The insurance company shall deliver to the City certificates of all required insurance on a form provided by the City,signed by an authorized representative. The representative shall have in effect errors and omissions coverage in limits ofnot less than$100,000 per occurrence and$300,000 aggregate. 15. Non-Discrimination. The Contractor agrees during the life of this contract not to discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment,or other individual because of race, color, sex, age, creed, national origin, or any other basis prohibited by federal, state or local laws. The Contractor will include a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for performance of this contract. • 16. Subcontractors. The Contractor shall not subcontract all or any portion of this contract without prior written approval of the City,except for assistance in emergency or unforeseen circumstances. All subcontractors shall be bound by, and covered by, all terms of this agreement. 17. Agreement Period. This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2001, and terminate on December 31,2001. This Agreement may be renewed from year to year on the same terms and conditions upon the mutual written consent of both City and Contractor. This agreement • may also be terminated by either party upon fifteen(15) days written notice if the other fails to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. 18. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes hereunder,the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Contractor an employee of the City. 19. Compliance with Laws. In providing services pursuant to this Agreement, the Contractor shall abide by all statutes,ordinances,rules and regulations pertaining to the performance of this contract. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this agreement and entitle the City to terminate this agreement. 20. Audit. The books,records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Contractor or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. 21. Payment to Subcontractors. The Contractor shall pay any Subcontractor within ten (10)days of the Contractor's receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services provided by the Subcontractor. The Contractor shall pay interest of one and one-half percent(1%%)per month or any part of a month to a Subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the Subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of$100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than$100.00,the Contractor shall pay the actual amount due to the Subcontractor. 22. Data Practices Act Compliance. The Contractor shall at all times abide by Minn.Stat. § 13.01 et seq.,the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,to the extent the same is applicable to data and documents in the possession of the Contractor. 23. Final Payment. The City may withhold from any final payment due the Contractor such amounts as are incurred or expended by the City on account of the termination of the Agreement. 24. Whole Agreement. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties including all prior understanding and agreements,and may not be modified,except in writing, signed by all parties. MATT'S AUTO SERVICE, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By By Its Owner Its Mayor By Its City Manager Dated: Dated: ep\\police\towing contract-2001-122000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 1/16/O1 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Safety Services/Police Approval of 2001 Agreement for Storage and G Lieutenant Michael T.Bosacker Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles Requested Action: Move to: Approve the Agreement for Storage and Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles between the City of Eden Prairie and Auction Broadcasting Company for the year 2001. Synopsis: This agreement for storage and disposal of forfeited vehicles will provide an efficient and cost saving way to store and dispose of vehicles obtained by the City through forfeiture or civil process as the result of their use in connection with a criminal act. Background Information: As part of the effort to decrease the number of drivers operating motor vehicles while intoxicated, the Minnesota State Legislature enacted a law which provides for the seizure of vehicles owned and used by repeat offenders. Since it's inception, the Eden Prairie Police Department has taken the stand that seizing these vehicles is an important part of prevention by denying the violator the instrument of their crime. The subsequent result has been the seizure of over 35 vehicles in the past three years. The City has incurred significant fees related to the necessary storage of these vehicles while the court and titling process runs it's course. When the vehicles are finally placed in the City's possession, in most cases they are disposed of as "junk vehicles" due to poor mechanical condition and age. Until now we have been using the City's towing contractor as the storing facility since there was not another alternative. Through Fleet Services the Police Department learned of an alternative being offered by Auction Broadcasting Company being currently used by Bloomington Police Department. Auction Broadcasting Company provides storage, disposal, or sale of forfeiture vehicles at rates which should significantly reduce the costs over the current system and will reduce the storage burden for the City's towing contractor. In 2000 Fleet Services used Auction Broadcasting Company to dispose of forfeiture "junk vehicles". This agreement was based primarily on the agreement used by the City of Bloomington and has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Attachments: 2001 Agreement for Forfeiture Vehicle Storage and Disposal AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND AUCTION BROADCASTING COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS • THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2001,by and between the City of Eden Prairie,a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344(hereinafter referred to as the"City"),and Auction Broadcasting Company Minneapolis, a limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located at 18270 Territorial Road, Dayton, Minnesota 55360 (hereinafter referred to as "ABC"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City comes into possession of and is authorized to retain various motor vehicles which are identified as potentially being subject to forfeiture or other civil processes under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a result of their having been used in the connection with a criminal act(hereinafter referred to as"Forfeiture Vehicles")and upon successful completion of the forfeiture or civil process the City is authorized to dispose of said vehicles in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Eden Prairie City Code; and WHEREAS,ABC represents that it has the professional expertise and knowledge to perform its duties as an automobile dealer,and is licensed by the State of Minnesota in that capacity; and WHEREAS, the City desires to hire ABC to transport, store, repair, maintain and sell its Forfeiture Vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: oZ, 1. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall begin 2001,and shall continue until ,2002,subject to termination as provided in Article IV. 2. Duties of ABC. ABC shall perform the following duties: 2.1 Upon specific authorization from the City,ABC agrees to drive or transport those vehicles identified by the City as one of its Forfeiture Vehicles to a secure location to be determined and managed by ABC. 2.2 Upon receipt of a City Forfeiture Vehicle ABC accepts full responsibility for it and agrees to exercise due diligence in the care,maintenance and storage of said vehicle until the time that it is sold or released, so as to avoid waste and obtain a reasonable sale price at auction. 2.3 Upon specific authorization from the City, ABC agrees to perform such minor repair work on the City's Forfeiture Vehicles so as to prepare them for auction and maximize the City's return at auction,but in no event shall such repair work exceed the cost of TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($200.00) without prior, written authorization by the Eden Prairie City Manager or his/her designee. 2.4 Upon specific authorization from the City,ABC agrees to release the City's Forfeiture Vehicles prior to auction on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. 3 2.5 ABC agrees to box and store personal property that is not affixed to, but located within,the City's forfeiture vehicles and upon specific authorization from the City to release such property on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. 2.6 Upon specific authorization from the City,ABC agrees to promptly sell the City's Forfeiture Vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner by an open and competitive automobile dealer or salvage auction. 2.7 ABC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, employers, and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from ABC's (including its officials, agents or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement provided that any such claim is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of ABC. 2.8 During the term of this Agreement ABC agrees to maintain general comprehensive liability insurance in th amount of$1,000,000 for any damage in property, theft, loss or other claims as a result to ABC's negligence or malfeasance in performing this Agreement. In addition, ABC agrees to maintain such motor vehicle liability insurance as required by state and federal laws. ABC further agrees to designate City as an additional insured under said policies and said policies shall provide that the policies shall not be cancelled or terminated for any reason except upon thirty (30) days' written notice to City. y 2.9 ABC shall be licensed and bonded in the State of Minnesota to perform its duties under this Agreement and shall provide a certificate of licensure, bonding, and insurance to the City. 2.10 ABC agrees to comply with all applicable local,state and federal laws,rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement. 2.11 It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing an agency or partnership relationship between the parties hereto or as constituting ABC's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. ABC and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. ABC represents that it has,or will secure at its own expense,all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of ABC or other persons,while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by ABC under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City,and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged,and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including,without limitation,claims of discrimination against ABC, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City, and ABC shall defend, indemnify and hold the �'s City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care,sick and vacation leave,Workers'Compensation, Unemployment Compensation,disability,severance pay and PERA. 2.12 The books,records,documents,and accounting procedures and practices of ABC,relevant to this Agreement,are subject to examination by the City,and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor for a period of six(6)years after the effective date of this contract, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05,subdivision 6. 2.13 In performance ofthis Agreement,ABC shall not discriminate on the grounds of or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,disability, sexual orientation, • or age against any employee of ABC, any subcontractor of ABC, or any applicant for employment. ABC shall include a similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this Agreement. ABC further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §363.01,et seq.,Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 6 2.14 ABC shall at all times comply with and abide by Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,Minn. Stat. § 13.01, et seq.,to the extent that the Act is applicable to data and documents in the hands of ABC. 2.15 ABC represents and warrants that it has and will maintain during the performance of this Agreement worker's compensation insurance coverage required pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.181,subd.2 and that the certificate of insurance or the written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self insurance of worker's compensation insurance coverage provided to the City prior to execution of this Agreement is current and in force and effect. 2.16 Any Forfeiture Vehicles which ABC has been authorized and directed to sell but was unable to sell under the terms of this Agreement shall be returned to the City at a site designated by it as soon as reasonably practicable but in no event more than sixty(60)days from the occurrence of the event making sale under this Agreement impossible. 3. Duties of the City. The City shall perform the following duties: 3.1 The City shall consign specifically identified Forfeiture Vehicles to ABC to sell to the highest bidder at public dealer or salvage auction. 3.2 The City shall certify that it has good title and right to sell those of its Forfeiture Vehicles which it directs and specifically authorizes ABC to sell at public dealer or salvage auction and shall provide and deliver merchantable title to the purchaser upon notification from ABC. 3.3 The City shall defend,indemnify and hold harmless the ABC,its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's performance of the duties required under this Agreement,provided that any such claim is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of City. Nothing contained . in this indemnity agreement shall waive or in any way relinquish or limit the City's immunity or liability limitations provided by common law and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 3.4 The City shall pay to ABC the following amounts as and for its services properly authorized and provided pursuant to this Agreement. 3.4.1 Transportation of an Operable Forfeiture Vehicle to or from the City • of Eden Prairie to ABC's designated storage site: $35.00. 3.4.2 Tow of an inoperable Forfeiture Vehicle(tow or trailer)to or from the City of Eden Prairie to ABC's designated storage site: $75.00. 3.4.3 Repair of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction: shop rates. 3.4.4 Sale by auction of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $110.00. 3.4.5 Release of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction:$50.00. Redemption fee plus any charges(i.e.,transportation). 3.4.6 Storage fee if car is not sold within 90 days: $3.00/day. 3.4.7 Inventory fee for release of personal property: $15.00. 4. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other party. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or violation by ABC of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages arising from a default or violation or to enforce performance of this Agreement. 5. Miscellaneous Provisions. 5.1 Modification. Any material alterations,variations,modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by both parties. 5.2 Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. 5.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the final and complete Agreement between ABC and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals,written or oral,between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 5.4 Severability. The invalidity,in whole or in part,of any term or provision of this Agreement does not effect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 5.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Both parties consent to jurisdiction in the state or federal courts located in Hennepin County,Minnesota. 1G IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Jean Harris,Mayor By Christopher Enger, City Manager AUCTION BROADCASTING COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS By Its ep\police\auction broadcasting\agreement • I0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 01-5524 ITEM NO.: Engineering Services Memorandum of Understanding for the Design Randy Newton and Construction of the TH 212/Shady Oak Road V, , {-E , HOV Slip Ramp Requested Action Move to: Approve Memorandum of Understanding, with Mn/DOT, for the design and construction of the TH 212 / Shady Oak Road High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Slip Ramp and to authorize SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to proceed with the Slip Ramp design. Synopsis The Memorandum of Understanding will serve as a basis for a future Cooperative Construction Agreement and details the financial responsibilities of both the City of Eden Prairie and Mn/DOT for the design and construction of the project. With the signed memorandum it is also requested that authorization be given to proceed with the design of the project. Background Information The City of Eden Prairie is currently participating in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) demonstration project in the Golden Triangle Area(GTA). Through this project the TH 212/ Shady Oak Road HOV Slip Ramp has been identified as an important element in reducing the congestion in the GTA. The slip ramp, by giving a significant time savings to HOV's,will give GTA employees a viable option for dealing with the congestion. Due to the ramp meter study Mn/DOT has currently put all HOV bypasses and slip ramp projects on hold until a determination can be made on the impact the study results will have on specific ramp meters. Because of the pressure the City has received from the GTA community staff recommends moving forward with the slip ramp design so that the project can be implemented as soon as Mn/DOT reaches a final determination on the ramp meters. The City Council approved the Professional Services Agreement with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. and gave authorization for the field survey and soil exploration work at November 17,2000 council meeting. Financial Implications The HOV Slip Ramp is estimated to cost approximately $500,000 plus $51,450 for design services (approximately $550,000 total). The previously authorized field survey and soil exploration costs, estimated at$8,450, are included in the design costs. The memorandum of understanding states that the City will be responsible for the design costs and will apply an additional $50,000 to the construction of the slip ramp. Total cost to the City for this project will be approximately$100,000. Mn/DOT will be responsible for the remainder of the construction costs and for the contract administration. Attachment Memorandum of Understanding .s Minnesota Department of Transportation oF �„1g Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • January"3,2001 J.Randall Newton,P.E. City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55155 • RE: TH 212/Shady Oak Road Slip Ramp Randy, • • Attached is the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Mn/DOT. As I mentioned previously in an e-mail message,Mn/DOT is not prepared at this time to commit to constructing the slip ramp in the time frame outlined in the MOU. Because of the recently completed ramp meter study we have put all HOV bypass and slip ramp projects"on hold"until a final determination as to.what effect this has on specific ramp meters. The ramp meter at Shady Oak Road is one of the projects that will be put on hold. We don't want to build a slip ramp in an area where the potential exists that it may never get used. If the results of the study suggest a metered rate at the Shady Oak Road ramp that causes significant delays,we will proceed with this project as intended in the signed MOU. Much of the system at this time is metered at a rate where queues are not being realized. It is my understanding that the final report and determination as to"what next"will be presented to the Legislature sometime in February/March. Because of this delay, the City will need to make a decision as to continuing to design the project as intended and put the project on the"shelf'until such time it is warranted. The second option is to put SRF on hold until we get a clear direction as to meter rates in this area. Or there may be other options that the City would like to pursue. I apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused the City. I would like to again, thank you for the effort that the City is putting forth on this project. Sincerely John Griffith,Mn/DOT Metro Division Pre-Design cc: Richard Stehr Jill Ovik An equal opportunity employer a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("Mn/DOT") and the City of Eden Prairie ("City") wish to proceed with the design and construction of a high occupancy vehicle . (HOV)slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and the City in the future will enter into a cooperative agreement for the design and construction of the new HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive.to northbound TH 212; and WHEREAS,construction is planned to begin and be completed in the year 2001; and WHEREAS,Mn/DOT has pledged funding for the project which will be available to the City no later than State fiscal year 2002; and. WHEREAS,the project financing will come jointly from State and City funds; and WHEREAS,Mn/DOT and the City believe that by combining resources and working together we will be able to provide a better project and provide more efficient use of resources as well as continue to promote and develop Travel Demand Management opportunities. NOW,THEREFORE,Mn/DOT and the City of Eden Prairie agree to the following: 1. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") will be superceded by a cooperative construction agreement that will redo the details, but will have the essence of this document as a basis. 2. Mn/DOT will perform all of the preliminary engineering for the HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212 and will develop a staff approved layout. 3. The City will be the lead agency for this design project and will coordinate all of the final design engineering for the HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212. The slip ramp will be designed based on the staff approved layout and will be subject to Mn/DOT review and approval. 4. The City agrees to assume all costs associated with the development of the HOV slip ramp design plans. 5. The City agrees to be responsible for any right-of-entry acquisition required for this project. 6. Mn/DOT agrees to obtain all wetland permitting. 3 7. Mn/DOT agrees to provide contract administration and inspection for the HOV slip ramp, at no cost to the City. 8. Mn/DOT and the City agree that upon completion of construction, Mn/DOT will assume ownership and all maintenance responsibilities for the new HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212. 9. The City of Eden Prairie agrees that upon completion of construction, the Eden Prairie Police will assist in the enforcement of the HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212. • 10. The City agrees to prepare plans in conformance with Mn/DOT state aid specifications with approval of plans by Mn/DOT. The letting of bids and acceptance of all bid proposals shall be done by the City. 11. Mn/DOT and the City agree that the City will apply $50,000 to the construction of the HOV slip ramp from Flying Cloud Drive to northbound TH 212, and that Mn/DOT will be responsible for the remainder of the construction costs. 12. To facilitate construction in the year 2001 the City, agrees to provide all necessary advanced funding to pay for the project and coordinate all available funding to ensure that the project will proceed. Mn/DOT agrees to reimburse the City for advanced funding at the beginning of the 2002 fiscal year(July 2001). I concur with this Memorandum of Understanding. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE OF TRANSPORTATION / /1/ Ric and A. S ehr Jean L. Harris Metro Division Engineer Mayor Christopher M. Enger City Manager CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 9, 2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution amending ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation Resolution 2000-202, setting the Fee Schedule for Robert A.Lambert,Director 2001 E Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution amending Resolution 2000-202,which establishes the Fee Schedule for 2001. ,:: Synopsis The proposed revision to the fee resolution will allow the City of Eden Prairie to sell non prime room rentals in meeting rooms A,B and C from 7:00am—3:00pm, Tuesdays through Thursdays at a reduced rate of$5.00 per hour off the standard group II and group III rates. This $5.00 per • hour price reduction for groups II and III would be approved providing that the user group commit to the following: The user group must: 1. Purchase the room for a minimum of a 30-hour time block, each time block must be a minimum of 2 hours in length. 2. Request for the room rental must be submitted to the Community Center Manager, or a customer services representative a minimum of two weeks prior to the requested date. 3. Times and dates requested must not conflict with an existing program or activity. City programs have priority for booking the meeting room facilities. Consideration: It is staffs belief that if this request is approved,the meeting rooms at the Community Center will be booked on a more consistent basis, allowing the City of Eden Prairie to collect additional revenue during a time period which has been traditionally difficult to sell. Attachment: Page 16,2001 Fee Resolution 4.O1A CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.2000-202,REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR BUSINESS LICENSES,PERMITS AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES BE IT RESOLVED, that changes to Section 4.1A COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE, Meeting Room Rentals to read as follows: Non-prime Time, 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.,Tuesday through Thursday Reduced Rate of$5.00 per hour off of standard group II and III rates *To obtain this rate the user group must: 1. Purchase the room for a minimum of a 30-hour time block, each time block must be a minimum of 2 hours in length. 2. Request for the room rental must be submitted to the Community Center Manager, or a customer services representative a minimum of two weeks prior to the requested date. 3. Times and dates requested must not conflict with an existing program or activity. City programs have priority for booking the meeting room facilities. ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on this 16th day of January, 2001. Jean L Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk ci 4.O1A COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL FEE SCHEDULE Facility Facility Information Group I _ Group II Group III Public Agencies Eden Prairie lon-Resident Individual: Non-Profit&Civic Residents& &Businesses Organizations Businesses Ice Arena Rink#1-Standard Size Rink $140/hr prime time $140/hr prime time $140/hr prime time Rink#2-Olympic Size Rink (Jan 1-June 9) (Jan 1-June 9) (Jan 1-June 31) Prime Time:2-11 pm,Monday-Friday, $140/hr prime time $140/hr prime time $140/hr prime time weekends,holiday&non-school days (Sept 1-Dec 31) (Sept 1-Dec 31) (Sept 1-Dec 31) Non-prime Time:before 2 pm and after $105/hr non-prime time $105/hr non-prime time $105/hr non-prime time 11 pm,Monday-Friday Summer Rates:effective June 9- $120/hr(prime time $120/hr(prime time $120/hr(prime time August 31.2000 summer rate) summer rate) summer rate) Summer Non-prime Time:11pm-6 am $105/hr(non-prime time $105/hr(non-prime $105/hr(non-prime (with applicable tax) summer rate) time summer rate) time summer rate) Meeting Room A $5.00/hr* $15/hr primetime $20/hr primetime Rooms $10/hrnon-prime** - $15/hrnon-prime** Room B $5.00/hr* $15/hr primetime $20/hr primetime $10/hr non-prime** $15/non-prime** Room C $5.00/hr* $20/hr primetime $25/hr primetime $15/hr non prime** $20/hr non-prime** Upper Lobby No charge $5/hour $10/hour Racquetball Free with membership $5/hour/person $5/hour/person $5/hour/person Wallyball (resident) Courts $15/hour/court $15/hour/court $15/hour/court (wallyball) (wallyball) (wallyball) Swimming Prime Time:8 am-5 pm,Monday-Saturday $55/hr $55/hr_ $55/hr Pool and noon-5 pm on Sundays (Jan 1-Dec 31) (Jan 1-Dec 31) (Jan 1-Dec 31) Capacity: 268 Non-Prime Time:5-9 pm,Monday-Sunday $45.00/hr non-prime time $45.00/hr non-prime $45.00/hr non-prime (Jan 1-Dec 31) time time (Jan 1-Dec 31) (Jan 1-Dec 31) Discount Rate:9-11 pm,Monday-Sunday 40.00/hr discount rate $40.00/hr discount rate $40.00/hr discount rate (Jan 1-Dec 31) (Jan-Dec 31) (Jan 1-Dec 311 *Eden Prairie Athletic Associations receive one free meeting room use per month at no charge. **7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Tuesdays through Thursdays. User group must purchase room for minimum of 30-hour time block, and each time block must be a minimum of 2 hours in length. Request must be submitted to Community Center Manager or Customer Service Representative a minimum of two weeks prior to requested date. Times and dates must not conflict with an existing program or activity. City programs have priority for booking the meeting room facilities. SPECIAL ICE RATES: School District 272 ice rate for physical education classes=$50.00/hour(50%of non prime time ice rate) School District 272 hockey games=prime time rate. Personnel required to run the games supplied by others-City keeps the gate minus ice time and personnel costs. Individual open skate fees: User Classification Members Non Members Adults(ages 19&up) Free $3.50 Youth(ages 5 to 18) Free $2.50 Tot(ages 4&under) Free $2.00 Family Free $6.00 Senior Free $2.00 LIFEGUARDS: Lifeguards must be added as follows at the rate of$12/hour•. . one to 50 swimmers-second lifeguard required . 51-100 swimmers-third lifeguard required . 100 or greater-additional lifeguards will be determined by management depending on group size and ages. 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager, Resolution amending Resolution 2001-08 Chris Enger Setting Meeting Places and Times for Boards and Commissions for 2001 Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution amending Resolution 2001-08 Setting Meeting Places and Times for Boards and Commissions for 2001. Synopsis At several meetings,the Heritage Preservation Commission had expressed a desire to meet several times a year at the historic Cummins House. Therefore,Heritage Preservation Commission Chair Lori Peterson- Benike has requested to schedule the following meetings at the Cummins House: March, 19, 2001 July 16, 2001 October 15,2001 Attachments Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL MEETING DATES, TIME AND LOCATION FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED BOARDS & COMMISSIONS IN 2001. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and the City Council appointed Boards and Commissions will meet at 7:00 p.m. in the Eden Prairie City Center, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as scheduled below (exceptions as noted). Additional workshops may be called if determined necessary by the Commission Chair and the Staff Liaison. Any regularly-scheduled meeting that occurs on a day when elections are held within the city limits of Eden Prairie will begin at 8:00 p.m. Robert's Rules of Order will prevail. Board/Commission Scheduled Meeting Dates Board of Adjustments and Appeals 2nd Thursday Board of Review Thursday,April 5 and Tuesday,April 24 City Council 1st&3rd Tuesdays 7:00 p.m. (Workshops 5:00&Council Forum 6:35) Community Planning Board 2nd and 4th Mondays Community Program Board 4th Tuesday Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission 1st Wednesday—February,May,August and November Heritage Preservation Commission 3rd Monday—March,July and October meetings will be held at the Cummins House, 13600 Pioneer Trail Human Rights&Diversity Citizen Advisory 2nd Tuesday, January—June and Commission September—November Parks&Recreation Citizen Advisory Commission 1st Monday in even months Art&Culture Citizen Advisory Commission 2nd Monday in odd months Environmental Education Citizen Advisory 2nd Thursday January—June and Commission September—November ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 2nd day of January 2001. Jean Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Resolution approving Lawful Gambling Premises 1 V Permit Renewal Application b Requested Action Move to: Adopt the Resolution to approve the Premises Permit Application for the Eden Prairie Hockey Association. Synopsis In order for the Eden Prairie Hockey Association to obtain approval from the State to conduct lawful gambling in Eden Prairie, the City must pass a resolution approving the Premises Permit Application. Background Information: On 11/2/99 the Council approved the Premises Permit for the Half-Time Restaurant and Sports Bar. The Half-Time Restaurant and Sports Bar has closed and the association now wants to conduct lawful gambling at the Water Tower Brewing Company. Attachments Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- APPROVING THE LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the application of the Eden Prairie Hockey Association for the premises permit with the State of Minnesota is herein approved. The location for this permit is the Water Tower Brewing Company. ADOPTED,by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, on this 16 day of January, 2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk D CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works services 2001 Equipment Replacement Fund Schedule Eugene A.Dietz Requested Action Move to: Approve purchase of replacement vehicles and equipment as listed in the 2001 Budget General Fund Expenditures and Debt Service: Synopsis The Equipment Replacement Fund was developed by Feet Services to provide a 15-year projection of equipment needs and replacement schedule.Annual budget requests are created from the Equipment Replacement Fund and submitted for approval. Attachments List of replacement vehicles and equipment for the year 2001. 2001 Equipment Replacement Department Replacement Cost Public Works 123/101 2001 3/4 Ton 4x4 Pickup $27,500.00 124 2001 3/4 Ton 4x4 Pickup $27,500.00 189/126 2001 Cf Series cab and chasis $55,000.00 188/122 2001 Cf Series cab and chasis $55,000.00 Sub Total $165,000.00 Police/Fire 229/202 2001 Crown Victoria $23,800.00 230/207 2001 Crown Victoria $23,800.00 231/208 2001 Crown Victoria $23,800.00 232/209 2001 Crown Victoria $23,800.00 262/265 2001 Dodge Dakota $24,600.00 261/266 2001Astro Van $22,200.00 292/294 2001 Mid Size $18,500.00 290/295 2001 Mid Size $18,500.00 359/357 2001 Ford Expedition $28,000.00 Sub Total $207,000.00 Parks 476/451 2001 Toro 580D $73,000.00 • 469/452 2001 3/4 4x4 Pickup ext cab $27,000.00 Sub Total $100,000.00 Inspections 503/502 2001 1/2 Ton pickup $17,500.00 510/509 2001 1 Ton Cargo Van $20,600.00 Sub Total $38,100.00 Water/Storm/Utility 782/152 2000 Sweeper $110,000.00 733/734 2001 1 Ton Utility Body $50,000.00 Sub Total $160,000.00 Total all purchases $670,100.00 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar January 16,2001 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: A Resolution ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation Authorizing Application for a State Grant for Robert A. Lambert Directo Birch Island Park Expansion Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution authorizing City staff to submit an application for a Metro Greenways Grant for the purpose of acquiring approximately 37 acres of land north of Birch Island Road and west of Edenvale Boulevard, adjacent to Birch Island Park. Background: On November 2, 1999, the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a letter to the County Board requesting the County delay disposing of the 37 acres of County owned land east of Birch Island Park for two years. Since that time, the County Board has agreed to delay the sale again until this summer. The City is in the process of obtaining an appraisal for the property. That appraisal is scheduled to be completed by January 23,2001. Staff is recommending the City apply for a Metro Greenways Grant for 50% of the appraised cost. Staff believes that it would be a benefit for the City to protect this property as open space due to the proximity of the site to Birch Island Park. BL:mdd CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A STATE GRANT FOR BIRCH ISLAND PARK EXPANSION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Metro Greenways Grant Program Application to be submitted on 26 January 2001, and that the Director of Parks and Recreation Services is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional,managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate construction,operation, maintenance and replacement of the proposed project for its design life. • WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has not incurred any costs, and has not entered into any written agreements to purchase this property. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has not violated any Federal, State, or Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. • WHEREAS,upon approval of its application by the state,the City of Eden Prairie may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Eden Prairie certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Parks and Recreation Services is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on January 16,2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Resolution Rejecting Bids for Re-Roofing for Donald R.Uram Dormitory and Dining Hall Buildings at Eden —, fl John Gertz Wood Camp Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution rejecting bids for re-roofing dormitory and dining hall buildings at Eden Wood Camp Synopsis Two bids were received on November 15, 2000, one from Rayco Construction, Inc., in the amount of$41,227.00, and the other from Sheehy Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $49,500. Both bids were based on re-roofing specifications that did not include insulation of the dormitory roof. A change in specifications to include insulating the dormitory roof, and a change in shingle style (from a 3—dimensional shingle to plain, 3—tab) significantly expands the scope of work. We are hereby recommending that these bids be rejected and that we proceed with re-bidding the project based on new specifications. Background Information: Staff was directed to apply for Minnesota Historical Society grant funds to be used for re-roofing the dormitory and dining hall buildings. The City was awarded a $30,500.00 matching grant, which Friendship Ventures, the camp leasee, will reimburse to the City. Re-roofing should be completed by May 1, 2001. Attachments Letter from Friendship Ventures CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE H I+;NNEPIN COUNTY,NHNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REJECTING BID WHEREAS,pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements: Re-roofing of the Dormitory and Dining Hall buildings at Eden Wood Camp WHEREAS,bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. WHEREAS,the Historic Preservation Specialist recommends rejection of all bids. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That all bids received are hereby rejected and staff is directed to re-bid the project. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January, 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk D_ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREAJDIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development! Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications Donald R.Uram and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Re- John Gertz roofing the Dormitory and Dining Hall at Eden IL C Wood Camp Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for re-roofing the dormitory and dining hall buildings at Eden Wood Camp. Synopsis • These plans and specifications include dormitory roof insulation specifications, and appropriate 3-tab shingle for all roof covering. It is recommended that these plans be approved at this meeting so that the project can be completed by May 1, 2001. We are anticipating a bid opening on February 8, 2001,with the contract award on February 20, 2001. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS,the Historic Preservation Specialist through MacDonald and Mack Architects, Ltd.,has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: Re-roofmg for the Dormitory and Dining Hall Buildings at Eden Wood Camp. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the Community Development Office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 2 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M. on February 8,2001, at City Center after which time they will be publicly opened by the Historic Preservation Specialist and Architect. No bids will be considered unless sealed. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January,2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Donald R.Uram Krista Flemming Aztec Town Office Park _.1 A. Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to office on 6.48 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 6.48 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District change From Rural to Office on 4.46; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on 6.48 acres into one lot and one outlot; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Board and Staff recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This is an office park with 21 "townhome-type" office units in eight buildings totaling 40,000 square feet. The project is located east of Aztec Drive and south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. The Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the January 8,2001,meeting. Background Information The project was first reviewed at the November 13, 2000, meeting. The Board directed the Developer to improve the transition to the neighborhood and revise the exterior materials and parking on site to meet city code. At the December 11, 2000, Community Planning Board meeting, the unresolved issues included transition and onsite parking. At the January 8, 2001, meeting,the Developer presented revised plans that resolved the parking and transition issues. The project will require a guide plan change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office. The decision to change the guide plan is based on the impact on the residential homes to the east. The proposed plan provides an appropriate transition as required by City code. In general, an office use is more compatible next to residential due to less traffic, lighting, and loading impacts. City Council Agenda Aztec Town Office Park Page 2 The plan transitions to the single family homes to the east by maintaining the existing berm and creating a second berm high enough to screen views from the second story windows with conifer plantings. The project meets all city codes. Attachments 1. Resolution for Guide Plan Change 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 4. Staff Reports dated November 9, 2000,December 8, 2000, and January 5,2001 5. Community Planning Board Minutes dated November 13 and December 11,2000 • - AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Valley View Corporate Center by DaVern, Inc., is for a 21 townhome office units with 40,000 total square feet of office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: Guide Plan change from neighborhood commercial to office on 6.48 acres. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor • ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK FOR DAVERN,INC. • WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on Aztec Town Office Park PUD Concept by DaVern, Inc., and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on January 16, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Aztec Town Office Park,being in Hennepin County,Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated January 5, 2001. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated January 8,2001. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Exhibit A Aztec Town Office Park Legal Description: Outlot A,Anderson Lakes Commercial Center, 3rd Addition,Hennepin County,Minnesota 5 AZTEC TOWN OJiJ'10E PARK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK FOR DAVERN,INC. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of the Aztec Town Office Park for DaVern,Inc., dated January 5, 2001 and consisting of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of January, 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista R. Flemming, Planner I DATE: January 5,2001 SUBJECT: Aztec Town Office Park APPLICANT: Davem II,Inc. OWNER: 169 Anderson Lakes Corporation LOCATION: Aztec Drive REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.46 acres 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres 5. Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park January 5,2001 BACKGROUND The Community Planning Board reviewed this project at the December 11, 2000 meeting. The Board voted to continue the public hearing until the January 8, 2001. The Board directed the developer to revise the plans as follows: • Create a better transition to adjacent residents according to the staff report (taller berm, additional plantings, etc.) • Meet the parking requirements. PLAN CHANGES The plan has been changed as follows: • The berm elevation of 890—892 is maintained. • A smaller berm is proposed along the remainder of the east property line at an elevation of 884 (an 8-foot tall berm). • Conifers (6-8 feet tall) are proposed along the east property line. • The building square footage has been reduced so the plan meets parking requirements with no proof of parking. • The required parking stalls and dimensions are proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following: • Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development District Amendment on 4.46 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres • Preliminary Plat on 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot This would be based on plans dated January 5,2001,this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the T Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park January 5,2001 City Engineer and Watershed District. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal,including details regarding fire access to the site and adequate hydrant spacing. B. Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code. C. Submit a letter of credit in accordance with the TDM Plan. D. Pay the cash park fee. E. Submit samples of exterior materials for review. • STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista R. Flemming,Planner I DATE: December 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Aztec Town Office Park APPLICANT: Davern II, Inc. OWNER: 169 Anderson Lakes Corporation LOCATION: Aztec Drive REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres 5. Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot /0 Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park December 8, 2000 BACKGROUND The Community Planning Board first reviewed this project at the November 9,2000 meeting. The Board voted to continue the public hearing until the December 11, 2000, meeting. The Board directed the developer to revise the plans as follows: • Create a better transition to adjacent residents according to the staff report (taller berm, additional plantings, etc.) • Revise the TDM plan. • Meet the parking requirements. • Meet exterior material requirements. TRANSITION The site plan review section of the City Code requires a transition when there are differences in land use,building mass,height, or densities. The City Code also requires the screening of parking. The previous staff report recommended the following changes in berming and landscaping: • Maintain the height of the existing berm at an elevation of 890—892. • Continue a smaller berm along the remainder of the east property, line at an elevation of 884 (an 8 foot tall berm). • Plant 50 - 8 to 10 foot conifer trees should be planted in a double row along the east property line. The proposed grading plan meets the required berm heights as long as the proof of parking plan is maintained. If the proof of parking is constructed, the berm closest to the parking will be four feet shorter. To compensate for the possible reduced berm height, a double row of 12-14 foot conifers should be planted along this section of the plan. Exhibit A shows the required planting plan changes. PARKING AND TDM PLAN There are 225 required parking spaces. The proposed plan shows 182 spaces and 42 proof of parking spaces for a total of 224 spaces (1 space short of code requirement). The angled proof of parking does not meet code and needs to be revised to meet the 13'6" aisle width requirement. All parking lot areas must be shifted by approximately 2.5 feet to the west. This will result in a loss of 6 additional parking spaces for a total of 7 spaces less than the code requirement. The plan should be revised to meet the onsite parking requirement, or remove 1,400-sq. ft. from the project. The dimensions on the perpendicular parking areas should be revised to meet the code requirements 11 Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park December 8,2000 for a 25 foot drive aisle and 19 foot parking stall length. The TDM plan was revised as recommended. GRADING The grading plan shows less proof of parking than the site plan. The grading plan must be revised to be consistent with the site plan. These revisions are accounted for under the Transition section of this report. ARCHITECTURE The structures meet the 75% glass,brick, or natural stone requirement for the office district. The details of the previously presented"all wood"plans have been added to the current elevations to meet the exterior material requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Community Planning Board believes compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend approval of the following: • Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development District Amendment with waivers on 4.46 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres • Preliminary Plat on 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot This would be based on plans dated December 7, 2000, this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,proponent shall: A. Revise the landscaping plan to include additional evergreen trees as depicted on the Exhibit A. B. Revise the grading plans to be consistent with the site plan. C. Revise the dimensions on the perpendicular parking areas to meet the code requirements for a 25-foot drive aisle and 19-foot parking stall length. Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park December 8, 2000 D. Revise the plans to show the required onsite parking and meet the required dimensions for the proof of parking. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal, including details regarding fire access to the site and adequate hydrant spacing. B. Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code. C. Submit a letter of credit in accordance with the TDM Plan. D. Pay the cash park fee. Alternative Two If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend the project be continued with direction to revise the plan as follows: • Increase the transition area by adding trees. • Meet City code requirements for parking. • Revise the grading plans to be consistent with the site plan. Alternative Three If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The project does not provide adequate transition to the existing neighborhood. • The project does not meet requirements of the City Code as listed in this report. Staff recommends Alternative Two,provided the developer agrees to and provides a written request to extend the legal project review period to April 1,2001. f 13 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista R. Flemming,Planner I DATE: November 9, 2000 SUBJECT: Aztec Town Office Park APPLICANT: Davem II, Inc. OWNER: 169 Anderson Lakes Corporation LOCATION: Aztec Drive REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4:46 acres 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres 5. Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot iy Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park November 9, 2000 BACKGROUND This site is guided neighborhood commercial and zoned rural. It was part of the 1980 approval for Anderson Lakes Commercial Center PUD for approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses. The PUD was amended in 1984 for a 7,300 sq. ft. daycare at the southeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Aztec Drive. In 1988, a 1,400 sq. ft. gas station was added at the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Aztec Drive. In 1998, an 18,525 sq. ft. car wash was built on the west side of Aztec Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The project will require a guide plan change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office. Since this is a small site, the change in the guide plan will not affect the guide plan balance. The decision to change the guide plan is based on the impact on the residential homes to the east, and if the proposed plan provides an appropriate transition as required by City code. In general, an office use is more compatible next to residential due to less traffic, lighting, and loading. SITE PLAN The site plan shows two and three unit buildings with a total of 22 single story office units. Each unit consists of 2,464 sq. ft. or 2,240 sq. ft. for a total square footage of 58,240 sq. ft. The maximum base and floor area ratios in the office zoning district are 30%. The proposed project base area ratio is 14% and floor area ratio is 30%. The structures and parking meets the setback requirements for the office zoning district. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The Developer requests the following waivers from the City Code: • Parking from 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. to 3.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The parking demand suggested by the developer is based on three existing projects. Two of the projects are less than three years old and it is too early to tell if less parking will work long term. The other project (in Roseville) is ten years old but was built before the parking requirements increased. Each City contacted indicated there were no parking problems. In 1980,_the City granted a waiver for 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. to a similar project south of Valley View Road opposite SuperValu called Office Ridge. When the last phases of the project were built in 1999,the parking was increased to 4.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. This suggests that over a 20-year period the building use and parking demand increased. 1 1S Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park November 9,2000 • Percentage of exterior materials from 75% face brick, glass, or natural stone to 20% The City has not granted an exterior material waiver for commercial or office buildings since 1984 when the code was amended to the current exterior material requirements. The illustrations provided in the packet suggest that a brick building does not look as interesting as a wood building that has additional rooflines,jogs, and window detail. This comparison only shows that the brick building design does not have enough detail. The office building at Dell Road and Cascade Drive represents creative architectural design and window detail using brick and glass to meet code. The detailed features of the "no brick"building alternative should be combined with the elements of a building that meets the 75%.face brick, glass or natural stone requirement. TRANSITION The site plan review section of the City Code requires a transition when there are differences in land use,building mass, height, or densities. The City Code also requires the screening of parking. In order to provide an appropriate transition and screening of the parking lot. The proposed grading plan should be revised to maintain the height of the existing berm at elevation of 890—892. The berm should also be continued along the remainder of the east property line at a minimum elevation of 884. These elevations are based on the height needed to block the view from second story windows and/or decks on adjacent homes. An area of approximately 40 to 75 feet will be needed to maintain and extend the berm. Some of the buildings will have to be eliminated or repositioned. In addition to the increased berm height, 50 - 8 to 10 foot conifer trees should be planted in a double row along the east property line to buffer the adjacent residential development. LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping caliper inch requirement based on gross building size is 182 caliper inches. The plan provides a total of 182 caliper inches to meet City Code requirements. As discussed in the previous section regarding land use transition, 50 additional 8 - 10 foot conifer trees should be installed along the east property line. ARCHITECTURE The structures are 13 feet tall to meet the 20-foot requirement for the office district. The exterior materials should be revised as discussed under the PUD section of this report. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE Storm water will be treated onsite to NURP standards. Utilities are available from Aztec Drive. Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park November 9,2000 SIDEWALKS A five-foot concrete sidewalk will be constructed along Aztec Drive with an interior sidewalk connection from the units north of the pond. Staff also recommends an additional connection from the units on the south side of the pond. LIGHTING The lighting meets the maximum pole height of 20 feet tall next to residential neighborhoods. TRAFFIC The existing roads,intersections, and area traffic signals are designed to accommodate the proposed project. A Travel Demand Management (TDM) was submitted, but needs some revisions to indicate the Developer's initial responsibility to implement the plan that will eventually be passed onto the Owner's Association. A budget for the letter of credit that is eventually submitted to the city is also necessary to complete the TDM Plan. CONCLUSION The unresolved issues include the transition, parking, and exterior materials. A. Transition is required by City code when there are differences in adjoining land uses. The proposed plan does not provide an acceptable transition and should be modified as recommended in this report to provide better transition/screening to the existing neighborhood. B. The plan does not meet parking requirements. The information provided by the proponent, as justification for less parking is limited. Practical experience in the city suggests that 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building are needed. There are three alternatives: 1. Revise the unit layout or eliminate enough units to meet the required parking on site. 2. Expand the site to provide the required parking with permanent proof of parking. 3. Approve the waiver for less required parking. Staff recommends alternative 1 or 2. C. Staff recommends the detailed features of the "no brick" building alternative should be combined with the elements of a building that meets the 75% face brick, glass or natural stone requirement. 11— Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park November 9, 2000 Since this project involves a guide plan change, the Board should first discuss whether the site should be used for commercial or office use. If the Board believes the site should remain commercial, then no further discussion is needed and the Board should recommend denial of the project. If the Board believes office is the preferred land use, then the Board should discuss the following questions: 1. Is there an adequate transition/buffer as required by City Code? 2. Is there supportive evidence to justify the parking waiver? 3. Is there supportive evidence to justify the exterior materials waiver? Alternative One If the Community Planning Board believes compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and waiver from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend approval of: • Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres • Planned Unit Development District Amendment with waivers on 4.46 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.46 acres • Preliminary Plat on 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot This would be based on plans dated October 27, 2000, this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,proponent shall: A. Show a 5 foot wide sidewalk connection from the units south of the pond to the sidewalk on Aztec Drive. B. Revise the TDM plan to include a budget and the Developer's responsibility for implementation. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. � c( Staff Report— Aztec Town Office Park November 9,2000 3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal,including details regarding fire access to the site. B. Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code. C. Submit a letter of credit in accordance with the TDM Plan. D. Pay the cash park fee. 4. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: • Parking from 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. to 3.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. • Percentage of exterior materials from 75% face brick, glass, or natural stone to 20%. Alternative Two If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend the project be continued with direction to revise the plan as follows: • Increase the transition area by enlarging the berm and adding trees. • Revise the exterior materials and building details to meet code. • Meet City code requirements for parking. • Revise the TDM Plan requirements. Alternative Three If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The project does not meet requirements of the City Code as listed in this report. • The project does not provide adequate transition to the existing neighborhood. Staff recommends Alternative Two. '9 Community Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC H H.ARINGS A. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVem, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot. Location: Aztec Drive. David Fitzick and Tom Dunsmore of DaVern,Inc. presented the PUD concept amendment. The offices are intended for small businesses. They object to some of the requirements for architecture,berming,trees, and parking. Foote asked whether the exterior could be modified when purchased. Fitzick said the exterior would be governed by an association just as in a townhome association. Tom Dunsmore of Davern, Inc., addressed the issues of the berm and the parking. There are five to eight parking stalls per unit in similar development projects. They would like less parking required. They hired an engineer to address the berm and showed sight lines. A fence is proposed for security purposes. Lowering the berm would not provide a view different than the current view. A boulder wall with a fence on top will mitigate the sight line from the house that would otherwise have a view of the buildings. Franzen stated the office use next to residential would be preferable to a commercial use because there are less mitigation concerns such as noise and traffic. Staff is asking the developer to install the berm as requested,meet the parking requirements, exterior requirements, and all other city code requirements. Unresolved issues of this item include transition,parking and exterior materials. The proposed plan does not provide an acceptable transition to the existing single family homes to the east. The existing berm must be maintained and extended, and plantings should be included. Required parking on site is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. Buildings should be rearranged or eliminated to meet parking requirements. The proponent is requesting a waiver of percentage of exterior materials of 75%to 20%. The City has not granted an exterior material waiver for commercial or office buidings since 1984 when the code was amended to its current requirements. The proponent has illustrated a wood building with additional rooflines and detail;the brick building could be revised to a design similar to the office building at Dell Road and Cascade Drive. Nancy Bergstrom, 12510 Cockspur Court, stated her residence was immediately behind the highest part of the berm. She was speaking on behalf of the residents. Residents would like the Board to abide by the staff recommendation. They are o6J Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 3 concerned about the parking placement behind the building and shaving the berm. Eliminating part of the berm would allow more noise pollution; it provides a visual and noise buffer. They would like to see a landscape plan as well. Foote asked how residents felt about commercial versus office zoning. Bergstrom said they felt this was the best use of the property but would like for the developer to abide by staff recommendation and city code. Paul Kunkel, 12508 Cockspur Court, said his property was reflected in elevation B-B. He presented photographs illustrating the lowest point of the backyard. Koenig asked about the trees in the photograph and whether they were on his property. • Kunkel said he did not know. Debbie Myers, 12495 Cockspur Court, expressed concern that the neighboring area stay as it is. If the berm is taken away it may affect property value. Doug Lampe, 8510 Darnell, inquired about the 20 foot utility easement behind his property,which is reflected in D-D.He asked how this could be mitigated if there was a utility easement. There is about 12 feet between the proposed property and the utility easement.Not many trees could be planted. The proposed stone wall is set back. Foote asked how far it was from his property to the proposed fence. Lampe said 50-55 feet. Corneille summarized the neighbors' concerns as transitions,parking lot placement and adequacy, and the utility easement. There was no further public comment. Motion by Brooks, second by Stoelting to close the public hearing.Motion carried, 8-0. Chuck Plot,project engineer for Davern,II.He said it was not feasible or possible to extend the berm the length of the property. They will install retaining walls to maintain the berm where it exists. They are leaving most of it in place. To extend the berm the entire length of the property with the grade change would require an enormous amount of fill. They propose to build the units between the residents and highway 212;the units will actually create a noise buffer.As for the utility easement in the corner of the property an extensive wall will go in that area. The wall is needed so that the area over the sewer line will remain undisturbed. aI Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 4 Corneille asked the board to address the zoning issue first. Nelson asked about the specific amount of reduction of the berm. Fitzick said the berm exists in two sections, A-A and B-B. The berm at its highest point or peak will be cut down about five to six feet and less than that farther along the berm. Nelson said it was appropriate to change this to office use rather than commercial. Brooks concurred;he has issues with the berm. Foote agreeed with the zoning use;his concern was with the berm and parking. Corneille said staff and neighbors have agreed the proposed use is better. The plan requires waivers and he has not heard the compelling reasons for granting the waivers especially building materials.He is not in favor of the parking waivers. The grade is steep; the contour line of the building is 880 and at the rear of the building it is 870 feet; this is approximately a six percent grade and not excessive. The city engineer said the existing topography was 880 existing elevation to 868 at the corner, or 12 feet. In order to maintain the elevation that fits the topography the design must fit the grade. The homes without the berm are below the property. This works in favor of the sight lines; it is easier to provide screening because existing homes are below the property. Nelson asked whether office units would be lost if the berm remained and whether the development would be feasible without those units. The developer said three units and some parking would be lost. To retain the berm requires two four foot retaining walls. Losing the office units would necessitate an unreasonable price for the remaining units. Nelson inquired why the developer would prefer wood instead of brick;brick is easier to maintain. The developer said they were attempting to achieve a maintenance free exterior; 100%brick in the rambler style did not provide the best architecture or residential look that they were trying to achieve. Nelson asked about the differences in the center units. The developer said they were attempting to provide a variety. He inquired whether Nelson objected to one of the elevations. Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 5 Nelson said her goal would be long-term maintenance-free exteriors. Brooks asked for staff comment regarding the berming. Franzen said the city code has a section, Site plan and Architectural Design Review that addresses the transition. There is not a formula; it depends upon sight line and property uses. The berm should be as high as possible. Brooks inquired about the price per unit and square footage. Fitzick said$160-$198K per unit and 1120— 1344 square feet per level. Foote asked staff for comments regarding elevations. Franzen adressed the example of the Dell Road and Cascade office building. Architects addressed the building to make it look more residential. The Lake Idlewild building required better architecture and this was in a commercial office area. There are choices in the staff report. The brick, glass, and stone requirement could be met. Masonry and stucco are limited to 25%. It does not need to be a 100%brick building. Foote said he liked the roof line top and brick bottom. Stock asked for a definition of masonry. Fitzick said it was a manufactured exterior material. Franzen said as presented it would not meet the brick or natural stone requirements. Stock said in the elevation A-A section it is just under 17 feet and there is a 4 foot fence on top. Fitzick said the height of building is 13 feet. Stock asked whether the fence would go the entire length of the residential area. Fitzick confirmed that it would. Koenig asked about the trees as compared to the elevation. Fitzick said the trees shown on the elevation would remain. The existing trees in photographs would remain as well. a3 Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 6 Fitzick said there was dangerous rubble near the berm. It was their intent to grade, sod, and irrigate it. Stoelting said the use, as far as office compared to commercial, was very good. He asked staff about the parking recommendation. Franzen said they were looking for conclusive evidence that 3.3 per 1,000 square feet would work. The developer provided three examples. There are buildings around Eden Prairie that were given parking waivers, and parking became a problem. When these projects expanded, additional parking was built to meet City Code requirements. The square footage is spread out horizonally. If it were two story, such as a thirty foot tall office building, there would be more room for parking. Some of the buildings could be pulled together to meet the berming requirement but the parking requirements would not be met. Residents were concerned about parking in back of the project. Parking could be moved to the front. He asked the building official and fire marshall about how many people could be in the buildings. They said 30-40 people could be in the buildings and thus parking may be needed. Fitzick stated it would not comply with ADA. He showed existing offices related to parking stalls and a layout of typical offices. Neighbors are concerned about the sight line. Flipping the parking and the buildings would require neighbors to look at the buildings. Nelson inquired about the lighting and whether some could be added in the middle of the parking lot for security purposes. Nelson asked whether there was lighting in the pond. Fitzick said that had not been addressed. Corneille asked for a summary. Fitzick said each unit has its own mechanical room, stairway, and equipment. Outside dimensions alone were not a fair assessment for parking space and DaVern was requesting 1) a grant of 3.4 parking spots per unit, 2)they will meet code requirements for exterior, eliminate two units and put a berm there. They will make three building slabs on grade to further reduce parking spaces needed. They would be approximately 13 spaces short of council. They are trying to be friendly and sensitive. Tom said they have been approved in Inver Grove with 31 units, Maple Grove, and Plymouth. It is being received very well in the market. ya Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 7 Foote noted he appreciated the concessions but had a problem with the parking; what if parking is a problem in the future. Fitzick said he provides proof of parking on adjoining remaining or additional property. He thought they could substantiate the parking needed. Nelson appreciated the concession; an aerator should be added to the ponding area. There are a lot of buildings around town with inadequate parking. She would approve with the addition of the aerator. She inquired whether units could be combined. Dunsmore said a lot combination would be required. The walls are the property line. Clinton asked whether proof of parking would be added. Franzen said it could be required as part of the developers agreement. Fitzick asked about the time limit for proof of parking. Franzen said it was indefinite. Dunsmore asked whether the 13 parking stalls could be incorporated into a developer agreeement. Franzen said the adjoining property could be office as well. The parking requirements should be met on the site. Foote said the Board would have to see the details. Koenig said she would like to see the plan again after it was revised. She asked whether they needed to address the two acre parcel tonight or it could be dealt with another time. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried, 8-0. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to recommend a continuance to December 11, 2000 meeting incorporating the following requirements: 1. Exterior materials meet the 75%requirement of city code 2. Plan meet parking requirements of city code 3. Incorporate developers concessions, 4. Include aeration, 5. Increase transition area Community Planning Board Minutes November 13,2000 Page 8 Koenig asked whether the pond was a NURP pond. Gray said there are a number of stormwater ponds where there are fountains. Algae, duckweed, and various vegetation are present. Commercial sites adding chemical treatments to ponds would be normal maintenance procedure. Aeration may help. Algae indicates some components of high concentration of fertilizer such as phosphorus. Aeration will raise oxygen levels but won't remove phosphorus. Nelson said she did not want mosquito breeding grounds. Gray said the water depth would not allow it. Koenig asked whether they would be setting a precedent if a developer would be required to put aeration in the pond. Gray said it has been permitted but not required. The most common treatment is addition of chemicals. Stoelting amended the motion to make the fountain optional. Clinton seconded the amendment Motion carried, 8-0. Amended motion carried, 8-0. Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 3 B. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVern, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot. Location: Aztec Drive. Franzen noted issues with the building architecture have been resolved. The buildings meet city code and have included the detail from the"all wood" buildings. The berming works with proof of parking but not if the proof of parking has to be constructed.Additional and larger trees are needed to compensate for a shorter berm. This is shown on the Exhibit A attached to the staff report.Parking dimensions need to be revised to meet code requirements. The project is short 7 spaces. The plan should be revised to include the required parking, or reduce the total square footage by 1,400 square feet. Staff recommends a continuance to January 8, 2001, in order for the Board and neighborhood to see revised plans before the item goes to the Council. The Developer must agree to extend the 120 day project review process in writing to April 1, 2001. Tom Dunsmore of DaVern, Inc., stated they would prefer to go forward with alternative#1, staff recommendation for approval except for the 12-14 foot evergreens and parking requirements. They are overparked;normally there are 8 parking stalls per unit. There are 18 %2 units and have provided 11 parking spots per unit. They would like a two stage approach to proof of parking; if it is needed they could plant 6-8 foot evergreens the likelihood of survival would be greater. David Fitzick of DaVern, Inc. said they would like to modify pines to 6 feet;he discussed the trees with Gerten Nurseries and 12-14 foot trees have a lower survival rate. The berm was increased. This will shield the parking but not the building. 12-14 foot trees would hide the building; the ordinance only requires shielding parking. Dunsmore presented the D-D elevation, southerly most angle from the berm; the berm will be built up twelve feet. With a 6-8 foot trees in the back row, it will have the same effect as larger trees. They could move the trees on top of the berm if necessary to create more parking. Franzen said there were three alternatives in the report; the changes necessary are listed under item 1,to include evergreen trees. There is a minimum tree height of 6' in the ordinance. Plant materials must be 6' — 12' and a variety in size. There have not been problems in the past with survival of trees with larger sizes, especially with projects that have irrigation systems. Shorter trees would require raising the berm higher in the center of the property, requiring more horizontal distance,which would remove the proof of parking area. Other items are to meet a-� Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 4 the parking dimensions in city code requirements. Staff recommends alternative 2, returning in January,to show the board and residents the final berm height and • plantings. Doug Lampher, resident, said he was concerned with the utility easement, there is a manhole and grading over it. His fence was damaged previously and there is runoff into his yard. The 12-14 foot trees reduced to 6-8 foot and raising the berm leaves the parking unclear. Otherwise the project provides a better transition than before. On the east side of the berm there is wild growth. He asked if that would be maintained. Stoelting summarized the concerns with the utility easement and proof of parking question. Motion by Koenig, second by Stock to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. The public hearing closed at 7:19 p.m. Brooks asked about the berm and whether the developer agreed with exhibit A with the trees on top of the berm. There was discussion on the size of the berm at the last meeting. Fitzick said they agreed with the size of the berm but not the size of the trees. The resident at D-D would not have a view of the parking. The grading could be corrected by creating a swale from the manhole to direct water away from the resident's yard. Also,the sight line could be taken care of with 6 foot trees. Brooks asked about the issue of 12 foot rather than 6 foot trees. Fitzick said larger trees were cost prohibitive and not warranted, as 6 foot trees would be from a nursery. 12 foot trees would be about$500 more per tree. Koenig said part of the reason for a transition was providing a buffer between land uses,not just the sight line,that was part of the reason staff was requesting the larger trees. Franzen concurred. Koenig noted noise buffer would be a concern as well. Fitzick said they were providing a buffer and their only disagreement was the size of the trees. � 0 Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 5 Dunsmore said the 6 foot trees would provide a significant buffer and sight line would not allow visibility of the buildings. 12 foot trees would not make a significant difference. Koenig asked for staff comment regarding tree size. Fox said there had not been problems in the past with trees of larger size. Local nurseries can provide varying sizes of trees, and the city would require a bond, so the vendor would be responsible. Clinton asked about the staff report,the second bullet under alternative 2,meet code requirements for parking,the proponent is 1 space short, 224 vs.225 for parking,but then it states the lot should be shifted two feet to the west, lessening the parking by 7 spaces. Franzen said shifting it would remove a parking space from the end of each row to pick up the additional 2 %z feet. The proponent could redraw the plans so that parking requirements would be met even if the parking lot was shifted. Clinton asked if the proponent would be amenable to that. Fitzick said they would be amenable to redrawing the plans as a condition of approval. Foote asked about the reason for moving the lot. Franzen said the parking stall dimensions and drive isle lane needed to be 13 1/2 feet wide and this was 11 feet. Foote asked if there was ever a request before for 14 foot evergreen. Franzen replied in the Bluffs East commercial project. The reason for the taller trees is that the berm is 4 feet shorter. Additional horizontal distance would be needed if the berm height were increased enough to allow for shorter trees. Stock asked whether the developer would plant the trees as shown. Dunsmore said they were amenable to 6-8 foot trees,up to 50, in locations shown. Stock inquired about the retaining wall and whether it would be put in now. Dunsmore said they would put in a retaining wall if the proof of parking was needed. It would remain in its natural state otherwise. Stock asked whether if parking were put in the berm would be cut down. Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 6 Fitzick said the berm would be cut down, a retaining wall would be put in and the trees would be relocated. Stock asked whether the retaining wall could be put in now without disturbing trees. Fitzick said yes. Stock inquired what was being done to protect the neighbor's yard on D-D. Fitzick said they would create a swale so runoff would go away from the yard; otherwise a small 2-3 foot retaining wall would be put in. Franzen said the berm before proof of parking was 884, after building proof of parking the berm would get dropped by 4 feet. If they never build a proof of parking, the sight lines would go over the top of the berm. If they build a proof of parking there will be sight lines into the project. Brooks asked if the proof of parking needed to be turned into parking who would pay for it. Franzen said the association would pay for it; or the property owners. Brooks asked whether it would be made known to the owners. Franzen said the developers' agreement would be recorded and proof of parking would be disclosed at the time of closing. Motion by Stock, second by Koenig to recommend a continuance of the request by DaVern, Inc. to the January 8, 2001 meeting with direction to revise the landscaping plan to include additional evergreen trees as depicted on Exhibit A, Revise the grading plans to be consistent with the site plan,Revise dimensions on the perpendicular parking areas to meet the code requirements for a 25-foot drive aisle and 19-foot parking stall length, Revise the plans to show the required onsite parking and meet the required dimensions for the proof of parking, and Revise grading to include a swale from elevation D-D. Motion by Koenig, second by Stock to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. Clinton mentioned the 120 day extension that would be necessary for the developer to agree to. 30 Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 7 Fitzick stated they would prefer an approval or denial and did not want to wait three months. Franzen said the 120 days would include council approval,it would be three months of board review. Brooks asked if the project was denied what would the next step be for the developer. Franzen said the project can still go before the council. The staffs position has not changed on the recommendation. There are still items that need to be corrected. If the board wants final plans before it goes to council,they can direct staff to publish the item for Council on January 16th and still review the project on January 8th Stock amended the motion to add that the project be continued to January 8th and it would be published for the January 16th Council meeting. Motion carried, 6-0. The original motion carried,6-0. 31 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: PUBLIC H HARINGS SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Anson Rezoning , 13 Michael D. Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .80 acres. Synopsis This is a rezoning of a single family lot from Rural to R1-13.5 located at 16850 Duck Lake Trail. The Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the December 11, 2000 meeting. Background Information: The site includes one single family residence currently zoned Rural. The owner's recently requested a building addition to construct a new home in place of the existing home that was burned down. The site is considered a non-conforming use since it does not meet the 10-acre minimum lot size with only existing structures being allowed to continue to exist in their current state. The new building will meet the setbacks for the proposed R1-13.5 Zoning District. The site currently has city sewer and water services. Rezoning to R1-13.5 is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with City policy to eliminate non-conforming lots instead of granting variances to enlarge non-conforming uses. 2. Rezoning to R1-13.5 would be consistent with the surrounding zoning districts. 3. It would be consistent with the guide plan designation for low density residential. No Developer's Agreement is necessary to rezone the site. The Council is requested to take action on the first and second readings so the homeowner can proceed with their building permit. Attachments 1. Community Planning Board Minutes dated December 11, 2000 2. Staff Report dated December 8, 2000 Community Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2000 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ANSON REZONING by K.Dawn Anson. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on .80 acres. Location: 16850 Duck Lake Trail. The public hearing opened at 7:02 p.m. Franzen said rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding area. One house can be built on the lot meeting setback and shoreland requirements. Staff recommends approval of the request. Motion by Clinton, second by Brooks to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. The hearing closed at 7:03 p.m. Motion by Clinton, second by Brooks to approve the request by K.Dawn Anson for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on .80 acres based on plans dated November 20, 2000 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 8, 2000. Motion carried, 6-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista R. Flemming,Planner I DATE: December 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Anson Rezoning APPLICANT/ OWNER: K. Dawn Anson LOCATION: 16850 Duck Lake Trail REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .80 acres 3 Staff Report—Anson Rezoning December 8, 2000 BACKGROUND This .80 acre site is currently zoned rural. The lot was created prior to 1969. In 1969, the City created a 5-acre minimum lot size for property zoned rural. The City code was amended in 1982 to create a 10-acre minimum lot size for the rural zoning district. The purposes of the large lot size were to minimize the use of septic tanks and drainfields and encourage land to develop at higher densities where there was city sewer and water. The home was connected to sewer and water,but maintained a Rural Zoning. The site is considered a non-conforming use since it does not meet the 10-acre minimum lot size. Any structures on the site may be continued to be used, but may not be enlarged or reconstructed without meeting the current zoning code. The site was recently sold and the existing home burned by the Fire Department. The owners would like to rebuild on the site. The zoning for this site does not allow new construction on a Rural lot with less than 10 acres. The new building will meet the zoning requirements for the proposed Rl- 13.5 Zoning District,which is consistent with adjacent zoning. POLICY Rezoning to R1-13.5 is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning would be consistent with City policy to eliminate non-conforming lots instead of granting variances to enlarge non-conforming uses. 2. The rezoning to R1-13.5 would be consistent with the surrounding zoning, which is R1-13.5. 3. The rezoning would be consistent with the guide plan. The site and the surrounding area is guided low density residential. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5on .80 acres for one single family lot. 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Donald R.Uram ` Michael D. Franzen Valley View Corporate Center y i , Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 7.18 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District change from Rural to Industrial on 7.18; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into one lot; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Synopsis This is two story, 100,000 square foot office building. The project is located north of Valley View Road and west of Topview Road. The Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City council at the December 11,2001 meeting. Background Information The project will require a guide plan change from regional commercial and medium density residential to office. If the site were developed according to the guide plan, a total of 24 multiple family units and 41,730 to 83,460 square feet of regional commercial uses are possible. Regional commercial uses include hotel,restaurant,convenience gas, auto dealerships, office, and other general retail uses. Office can be a better land use next to residential for the following reasons. I City Council Agenda Valley View Corporate Center January 16, 2001 Page 2 of 2 • Less daily and peak hour traffic. • Less evening and weekend traffic. • Lower light levels. • A smaller loading area. • Less truck traffic. The Developer requests the following waivers from the City Code: Building height from 30 to 34 feet. The additional height of above 30 feet is for visual interest and screening of mechanical equipment. Office use from 50% to 100%. This request is similar to the building to the west. This building should contain a minimum of 75% office. An industrial use with numerous loading docks would not be appropriate next to residential. Driveway setback from 10 to 0 feet. Since the green area from parking to parking on both sites meets the 20-foot separation required, this is a reasonable request. Some residents in the area do not want a driveway connection to Topview Road. The attached memo from Randy Newton, City Traffic Engineer, indicates that the neighborhood impacts are minimal and the access is needed to maintain the integrity of Valley View Road. Attachments 1. Resolution for Guide Plan Change 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 4. Staff Report dated December 8, 2000 5. Community Planning Board Minutes dated December 11, 2000 6. SRF Traffic Study dated November 6, 2000 7. Traffic Memo from Randy Newton dated January 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Franzen, City Planner FROM: Randy Newton, Traffic Engineer THROUGH: Eugene A.Dietz,Director of Public Works CC: Al Gray, City Engineer DATE: January 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Valley View Corporate Center-Topview Road Driveway This memorandum is intended to summarize the importance of the driveway from the proposed Valley View Corporate Center to Topview Road and the rationale for recommending its inclusion in the project. The engineering division made the inclusion of the driveway a priority due to its ability to provide a viable access from the property to Valley View Road and to protect the integrity of Valley View Road. The following paragraphs describe these points in greater detail and include a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed driveway on the adjacent neighborhood. Viable Access • Due to the projected traffic volumes of the site, providing a viable access to eastbound Valley View Road was a key issue in the review of the Valley View Corporate Center development plans. Without the driveway to Topview Road eastbound vehicles would have to access Valley View Road through either the full access unsignalized driveway to the west of the site or the Valley View Road / Prairie Center Drive / Home Depot intersection. Neither option was considered viable for the following reasons: 1) Traffic volumes on Valley View Road. The existing traffic volumes on Valley View Road make it difficult to make a left turn onto Valley View Road during the peak travel periods from an unsignalized intersection. With the expected continued increase in traffic volumes on Valley View Road this movement will only become more difficult and will result in both longer delays and the greatly increased potential for vehicular accidents. 2) Connection to the Valley View Road / Prairie Center Drive / Home Depot intersection. The distance between the Valley View Road / Prairie Center Drive / Home Depot intersection and the Valley View Corporate Center and the circuitous nature of the 3 Valley View Corporate Center-Topview Road Driveway December 8, 2001 Page 2 of 3 connection make the route undesirable and inconvenient. The circuitous route has a high potential for vehicular conflicts with pedestrians and motorists parking at a commercial site. These private properties were not designed for through traffic and do not provide for a frontage road environment. By providing a driveway from the Valley View Corporate Center Site and the Topview Road these concerns are eliminated by providing a significantly safer and more convenient connection to the Valley View Road/Topview Road signalized intersection. Protection of Valley View Road A factor in recommending the driveway to Topview Drive from the Valley View Corporate Center is to protect the operation of Valley View Road. This is important because Valley View Road is one of only six east-west roadways that traverse the City of Eden Prairie and its efficient operation is extremely important to Eden Prairie's transportation system. Without the driveway to Topview Drive it is expected that the full access driveway to the west of the development will not operate efficiently (as described above) and will result in requests for a traffic signal installation. This is a situation that the City must avoid because an additional traffic signal will only impede the traffic flow on Valley View Road and will result in lower average travel speeds and increased delays on an important • corridor. As opposed to another traffic signal, the most effective solution for addressing the operational deficiencies of the full access driveway is to reorient the traffic to the existing traffic signal at the Valley View Road / Topview Road intersection. This is effective because it does not add a traffic signal to the system and the existing signal has capacity to handle the projected increase in traffic. The engineering staff has requested the mitigation with the development of the site because it is expected that the full access driveway will operate poorly from the day of opening of the Valley View Corporate Center. Also, developing the property without the connection to Topview Road would make adding the connection at a future date significantly more costly, if not impossible due to site topography. Neighborhood Impacts With the driveway from the proposed Valley View Corporate Center it is expected that some vehicles from this site will choose to use Topview Road and Roberts Drive as an alternative route. However it is expected that this number will be minimal with a corresponding minimal impact to the neighborhood based on the following: F:\GROUPSENGINEER\SSA\l-JRN\WCC-Access.doc Valley View Corporate Center-Topview Road Driveway December 8, 2001 Page 3 of 3 1) A majority of the traffic from this site will be destined for 1-494 or TH 212 and will receive no benefit from using Roberts Drive. 2) The site generated traffic will have an opposite peak directional flow than the existing residential traffic and as a result will have a minimal impact on existing Topview Road traffic. 3) Roberts Drive is designated as a collector street by the City and its intended purpose is to provide access from its adjacent land parcels (Valley View Corporate Center site included)to the arterial roadway system. 4) It is very important to route through traffic and longer trips on designated corridors and to maintain the efficiency of those corridors to keep the traffic from seeking alternative routes. The best way to keep vehicles from using Roberts Drive as an alternative to Valley View Road is have Valley View Road operate as efficiently as possible (if a roadway is operating efficiently drivers have no reason to seek an alternative). 5) Roberts Drive is the old Valley View Road (CSAH 39) and the previous realignment of Valley View Road as part of the "ring road" system removed the vast majority of the traffic from Roberts Drive. The expected volumes from this project will be minimal and the capacity and design of Roberts Drive is more than adequate. Summary Staff believes it is imperative to make each development decision relating to traffic with roadway capacity and congestion being a major criteria. While it may be easy to rationalize"just one more access point", both traffic and development to the west of Eden Prairie will continue to grow at significant rates. As congested as our corridors seem today, it is only in the early stages of the issue. Maintaining the integrity of the few through corridors is the only means we have with dealing with the problem in the future. F:IGROUPS\ENGINEER\SSA\1-JRN\WCC-Access.doc 5 VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER FOR CSM EQUITIES WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and WHEREAS,the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on December 11, 2000 for a PUD Concept by CSM Equities and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on January 16, 2001, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Valley View Corporate Center, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated January 16, 2001. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated December 11, 2000. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of January 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Description VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER Outlot C, except that part lying easterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 11, Township 116, Range 22, said quarter corner also being the northwest corner of said Outlot C, Menard Addition; thence northeasterly along the north line of said Outlot C on an assumed bearing of north 87 degrees 44 minutes 44.4 seconds east a distance of 547.08 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly a distance of 64.07 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 125.00 feet, a central angle of 29 degrees 22 minutes 09.1 seconds and the chord of said curve 63.37 feet in length and bears south 24 degrees 55 minutes 22.4 seconds east;thence south 39 degrees 36 minutes 27.4 seconds east a distance of 56.92 feet; thence southeasterly a distance of 152.81 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 583.34 feet, a central angle of 15 degrees 00 minutes 31 seconds and the chord of said curve 152.37 feet in length and bears south 32 degrees 06 minutes 10.4 seconds east to the south property line of Outlot C, also being the northerly right-of-way line of Valley View Road and line there terminating. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE H ENNEPIN COUNTY,M NNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER ADDITION FOR CSM EQUITIES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of the Valley View Corporate Center for CSM Equities dated November 11,2000 and consisting of 7.18 acres into one lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on thel6th day of January, 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 7- STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: December 8,2000 SUBJECT: Valley View Corporate Center APPLICANT: CSM Equities,L.L.C. OWNER: Menards LOCATION: Valley View Road,west of Topview Road REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2, Industrial, on 7.18 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot. Staff Report—Valley View Corporate Center December 8, 2000 BACKGROUND This site is guided regional commercial on 4.79 acres and medium density residential on 2.39 acres. Surrounding land is guided medium density residential to the north,regional commercial to the east, regional commercial to the south and office to the west. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The project will require a guide plan change from regional commercial and medium density residential to office. If the site were developed according to the guided plan a total of 24 multiple family units and 41,730 to 83,460 square feet of regional commercial uses are possible. Regional commercial uses can be hotel,restaurant, convenience gas, auto dealerships, office, and other general retail uses. Office can be a better land use next to residential for the following reasons. • Less daily and peak hour traffic. • Less evening and weekend traffic. • Lower light levels. • A smaller loading area. • Less truck traffic. SITE PLAN The site plan shows a two-story, 100,074 square foot building. The base area ratio is .16. The city code permits up to a .30 base area ratio. The floor area ratio is .32. The City code permits up to a .50 floor area ratio. The building meets the required setbacks from all property lines. Parking meets the required setbacks from all property lines. The amount of parking required is 421 spaces. The site plan shows 421 spaces. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The Developer requests the following waivers from the City Code: Building height from 30 to 34 feet. The additional height of above 30 feet is for visual interest and screening of mechanical equipment. 7 Staff Report—Valley View Corporate Center December 8,2000 Office use from 50% to 100%. This request is similar to the building to the west. This building should contain a minimum of 75% office. An industrial use with numerous loading docks would not be appropriate next to residential. Driveway setback from 10 to 0 feet. Since the green area from parking to parking on both sites meets the 20-foot separation required,this is a reasonable request. TRAFFIC The traffic study shows that the proposed development will generate less traffic than if the site is developed for commercial and housing.No road improvements are required for this project. The Travel Demand Management(TDM)is consistent with City requirements. LANDSCAPE PLAN The landscaping caliper inch requirement based on gross building size is 313 caliper inches. The plan provides 321 caliper inches. There are 13 significant trees totaling 253 caliper inches. A total of 89 inches will be lost due to site construction. Tree replacement is 39 inches. A transition is required when there are differences in land use,building mass,height, or densities. The existing trees on steep slopes to the north provide a visual screening of the building. Twenty additional 10-12 foot high conifers should also be planted between the driveway along Topview Road and the north property line to enhance screening. ARCHITECTURE Since there is a waiver requested to allow more office use in the building, the architecture should meet the exterior material requirements for office zoning. The exterior materials meet the 75%brick and glass requirements for office zoning. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE Storm water will be treated onsite to NURP standards. Utilities are available in Valley View Road. WETLANDS There is a.19 acre, low quality wetland along the west property line,which is part of a wetland area • that was filled and mitigated on the site to the west. The required replacement is .38 acre.Part of the I I Staff Report—Valley View Corporate Center December 8,2000 replacement is a Public Value Credit for the treatment pond and plantings, and part is offsite wetland creation. SIDEWALKS A five-foot concrete sidewalk will be constructed along Valley View Road. There should be an internal sidewalk connection to the building. LIGHTING The lights are 20 feet tall. The light fixture is shielded to reduce offsite glare. This is the lighting standard next to residential neighborhoods. CONCLUSION Since this project involves a guide plan change, the Board should first discuss whether the site should be used for commercial/housing or office use. If the Board believes the site should remain commercial/housing, then no further discussion is needed and the Board should recommend denial of the project. If the Board believes office is the preferred land use,then the Board should discuss the following questions: 1. Is there an adequate transition/buffer to the residential areas to the north? 2. Is the plan better if the waivers are granted? Alternative One If the Community Planning Board believes compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and waivers from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend approval of: • Guide Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres and from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres • Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres • Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way This would be based on plans dated November 21, 2000, this staff report, and the following conditions: Staff Report—Valley View Corporate Center December 8,2000 1. Prior to City Council review,proponent shall modify the plans to include: A. A 5-foot wide sidewalk connection from Valley View Road to the building. B. Twenty additional 10-12 foot high conifers between the driveway along Topview Road and the north property line to enhance screening. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal,including details regarding fire access to the site. B. Submit a landscaping bond surety. C. Submit a letter of credit in accordance with the TDM Plan. D. Pay'the cash park fee. 4. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: • Building height from 30 to 34 feet. • Office use from 50% to 100%. • Driveway setback from 10 to 0 feet. Alternative Two If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend the project be continued with direction to revise the plan as follows: • Increase the transition area along the north property line. • Revise the plan to meet City Code requirements. 13 Staff Report—Valley View Corporate Center December 8,2000 Alternative Three If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The project does not meet requirements of the City Code as listed in this report. • The project does not provide adequate transition to the existing residential areas to the north. Staff recommends Alternative One 1Lf Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 8 C. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER BY CSM EQUITIES,L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way. Location: Northwest Quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road. The public hearing opened at 7:51 p.m. Dave Carland, Vice President of Development at CSM corporation, said this was challenging because of the topography and soil conditions. They have worked with staff for about four months and agree with staff recommendations. Becky Sonmore, Project Architect for the development presented the elevation and site plan. The proposed use is 75-100% office with a maximum of 25% storage and light industrial. The parking lot is proposed for light loading. The parking was planned for 100% office. The exterior material finishes was met. Franzen said this plan eliminates incompatible uses with the residences to the north. Office willl have less traffic and noise than commercial. There are a few minor changes before council, sidewalk connection, additional trees. Paul Wild, 7337 Top View Road, said he was concerned with the view of the roofline and whether they would be viewing HVAC. He asked how close to the intersection the property line ran and whether trees would come all the way up to Roberts Road. His greatest concern was traffic. The entrance off Top View is inadequate; left hand turns present a traffic hazard with the s-curve. He would like to review the traffic study. Westbound traffic can go to the entrance or make a right hand and then immediate left turn. Off of Top View to Valley View, stacking could occur. The steepness of the grade is a concern as well. He wanted to know if there would be additional opportunity for public comment after reviewing the traffic study. Stoelting asked the proponent to address some of the concerns. Sonmore said the parapet was 4 feet; because of the topography there would be some visibility of the roof. The property does not extend all the way to Robert. There will be trees to mitigate the sight line. Stoelting asked staff to address the traffic concerns. Gray said this land use is office and needs access to the signal at Top View and Valley View. The only other signalized access is by Home Depot. The road way (S Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 9 is a steep grade with curves; it is short segmented and located near Roberts Drive. Most traffic is moving slowly. It is a more controlled environment. Without this type of use utilizing the intersections,the signal may not be needed. The signal was placed there on a temporary basis with state and county approval during 212 construction. A permanent signal would require enough traffic to justify it. Wild asked whether it was considered as a right-turn exit only. Gray said that specific alternative was not considered. It could be implemented if the situation became problematic. Koenig asked about the feasibility of a traffic light on Valley View and eliminating access onto Top View. Gray said it was doubtful the county would approve it and that it could be justified. Koenig said she understood concerns about Top View; the light is a benefit to the residents. Gray said without additional traffic such as would be provided with the development the signal may not be justified. Koenig said she understood the benefit from the zone change was less traffic rather than additional. Franzen said that was correct; the traffic study shows how much less traffic office would be from commercial, as well as lights. Most importantly, the traffic is 8-5, weekly. Brooks asked about stacking on Top View to the entrance. Gray said 140 feet. Brooks asked whether this was comparable to similar projects. Gray said ideally a little bit longer would be good,but the topography would prohibit it. Top View is not a high traffic road. Brooks asked whether the signal light would need to be restructured, or upgraded. Gray said at some point it would require an upgrade;the developer would not assist in the cost,that is only required when the project itself needs the signal. Clinton said he liked the building and the plan; traffic is a concern as far as those coming off Valley View onto Top View. He supports the guide plan change. /16 Community Planning Board Minutes December 11,2000 Page 10 Koenig asked about the type and amount of tree removal, and the wetland credit. Fox said three large cottonwoods would be removed; the primary tree cover was box elder and the underbrush was buckthorn. There are no significant trees such as oak. The property is about 60 or 70 feet from the intersection. Gray said the pond is a public value credit. Foote said he supported the guide plan change. He questioned whether the city had the ability to institute a no left turn, if it was deemed necessary 2-3 years down the road. Gray said the city could institute the requirement if it became a problem. Motion by Clinton, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. Motion by Brooks, second by Clinton to recommend approval of the request by CSM Equities,LLC for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 11- SRF CONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation■Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning■Traffic■Landscape Architecture■Parking SRF No. 0003901 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Franzen,City Planner Randy Newton,P.E.,City Traffic Engineer CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FROM: Marie Cote,P.E.,Senior Associate Matthew Wey,Engineer DATE: November 6, 2000 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF TOP VIEW ROAD AND VALLEY VIEW ROAD IN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Introduction As you requested, we have completed a traffic study for the proposed Valley View Corporate Center office development located in the northwest quadrant of Valley View Road (CSAH 39) and Topview Road in the City of Eden Prairie (see Figure 1: Project Location). The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway system related to the future planned development in the study area and background traffic. This study includes a traffic operations analysis during the a.m and p.m. peak hours of the adjacent streets for existing and future build(one year after opening and 2015)conditions. Existing Conditions The proposed development is located in the northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road/Plaza Drive, west of the I-494/Valley View Road interchange. Valley View Road, which borders the site to the south, is a four-lane divided highway that runs east-west and is classified as an"A" minor arterial by the Metropolitan Council. Valley View Road provides a connection from residential neighborhoods in the immediate area to I-494 and Trunk Highways 212 and 5. Prairie Center Drive, southwest of the site, is classified as a_`B" minor arterial that serves as a ring road to access retail development located in the major center area of Eden Prairie. Topview Road is a local roadway that runs north-south providing access to Valley View Road from residential neighborhoods north of the site. The southern approach to the intersection of Topview Road and Valley View Road is Plaza Drive; a local roadway that serves as a ring road to access retail development east of Prairie Center Drive and south of Valley View Road. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763) 475-0010 ■ Fax (763) 475-2429 • http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer I aI A re$., I 7 g , stctvEmc" 1 cra , "�,.oa 'rem /; SANITARIUM o�. , .,,, iC NEDaDk@itr---.1r pAm.'" , Ina"' - :, 4 IlFe 11 J .0 •t, et1Y /. K �• TR.W. \11 g IA O• 1 9.°U44€4844 g 1 A try \ Ian ,u.ee 't''"te ak0 La � °i� �.°'' � � Rag �_ � � �, i �. 3 µ . 6 4424 541.01 ,ma++r a to `�H� BIRCH aw+o °!$ 441 jAYE.e, �` /� 1r et ' 0 gall ��`" !/ MACH E R0. 9 $ .*0 HOLLY AD. \ ANe R' i� 4" a, c �j. R0. O• U Aw. . ` Bryant war 542) ; -,t•E'>• � Lake W.mn CC 19301 . 01% ��'L' Q ' i't"•w V lA. f 1 1 HORTHOATE PENNY. ; *I' 4.5 :S. lit ' 11,58E°" qg cZ1 ,,,, ves. - • 1 till Suns 3 3 a,. 4 go' IP; sell ti g if) gry.L� �� a 1•� 3�`F $ gip.. �C�$ 1 rt.I 4\ ,,,,a , .., sr: n 6 yy7 • ° �� c, 99� _% Lake "A� ��� Smefan-• . u Y 1 oR i : dr S ���Z I b.._ i , Nine to We LONEOAR tilligips. IdfeW�;J �°�oru ND. ` L=: Hwna D0. =—_‘�_` PIE �_ l TECHNOLOGY 4' „ETREE \���' DAP DR nn °r Hi ;;j $ EDE PRAIRIE kik/ % �,a D Ro•'q $ 1990 POP.39,311 �\ ® •�sagg 100 a1 1 94 �IH DR OR _© �4Tam.2 4 ©�'�4y 1••• eDR CHESTNUT ae R `w %, y+\S °o•ma,�my Sa' tg "'.{�4 P• �EDCO" SWINOH CCDR\I�R; 1 25�'77HY1' ,„',R s� :err- M RR s 3 1• Anderson. v-3. N Su „na TA r •�"� 15S YD. Ph , Cr tAHE I L Lake, gilt!MOR e 5 R 01 PP •ea f'm 1 I Th. °O.CW . c„W 11 ME3IROOE �,` O PORCUPNE •IOY r—°i. OR�c OOr IN Sj a co- CIA• l,A�'s I 11 \ ii7i1j \ a )iv § I a � � off i jP- a� w¢ h g, g �� o- Ii M. ••J1'4,4 CARHa PRESERVE T"T�W1° • it'U- I rs� Gt u i IL if $ I 1 4 {; imp ,m• g rio�s Starks• PRIHCVIOH1 µL, 3' �yfR.. i el�w" ° PyYf(� l� AYE rLEGEND ENN.CO. j °a ow 1 ' —�� � ll �CATIONAL $ volt i cuRR •; 6 • =KEY INTERSECTIONS S,�,o"�°OL ,�. 121. '4tT,�'�pA giMw° NB aET, 3� @ ill 0.l —ACCESS DRIVEWAYS '%roator� f i l< e CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE PACONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT LOCATION 1 NW QUADRANT OF TOP VIEW ROAD AND SRFNO.0003901 VALLEY VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY '9 Michael Franzen -3- November 6, 2000 Randy Newton Traffic operations for existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections: • Valley View Road and I-494 East Ramp • Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp • Valley View Road and Topview Road/Plaza Drive • Valley View Road and full-access driveway • Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive Current traffic controls include signalization at all key intersections, with the exception of the full-access driveway on Valley View Road that currently has side-street stop control. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes were collected in August 2000 by SRF Consulting Group. Due to current roadway construction in the area (temporary closure of TH 5/Mitchell Road) an adjustment was made to the turning movement volumes at the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center to reflect changes in travel patterns. The adjustment was made to eastbound right-turn and northbound left-turn movements because these movements were believed to be highly impacted by the roadway construction. The magnitude of this volume adjustment was based on an existing hourly roadway tube count on Prairie Center Drive south of Valley View Road conducted prior to the roadway construction. The existing traffic volumes at the key intersections are shown in Figure 2. A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the adjacent street traffic at each of the key intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D is generally perceived to be acceptable by drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating at, or very near, its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro and SimTraffic to simulate and model the intersection operations. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 1 for the key intersections with existing traffic controls and geometric layout. Table 1 Existing Capacity Analysis LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Valley View Road and I-494 East Ramp B • A Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp B A Valley View Road and Top View Road/Plaza Drive B B Valley View Road and full-access driveway* A/C A/D Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive B B *Indicates an unsib alized intersection. The overall level of service is shown followed by the worst approach. _,... . .• . \'--k HOLLY RD. O• ✓ 44 � l\ ,/\R / , UV `° r cc JAM S cam\ \G� 1.0 ` \ 52 d \\F� ov ` \, s.N \ t—453(389) i ( o� � Rh., 43(18) `' KERRY`� f � 268(1025) p �{ Q., ;U\ I It: o II � y f—448(1025) � \ ♦ � � / 25 J j 'J �m G ^ , (246)388 J d-o (6) O \ (595)1186_* (573)1008—► 1 Gt 0�R��EP-88z R G �(- ROBERTS T i s�^ DR. • ( .� RA t 494 �12 f rO ` LA. o �( / �EV 0 g a • ��\ VGA LA. col �e vlttLO 00 a�\ / o •Y R. �L itOracTip yOT .t10 6 � $ scow r u) Ili lk\ ik FAIR,_ '� �'` Q4'�', , tg i -.,..9/ • o` 9p0� ft ``� a STOP \ om 39 VILLA V^ - chi >DN., LEY �, /~ CT. �— \' g ' ,, - ) - /s k --- I ),...,_711T,I, ..01. OIL .----, R OQ E ANAG . �-- DR. {f li / 78th •T. \ —..--:".-,A-----, "4"- ..\,,,,,,:s, ) —'�`` La - -, ' \ �,� Idle 11 �LEONA Rp• 5 ONE OAK win N as g RD. • o g(24) \ '�� /� °F4� o g sT. -1 8 o ♦—321(824) �- -�•� = vv. 0 76th TES 123(226) \P stk ...R, �LA_� 0 City DE ' RAIRIE . d `-�� Hall (2a)1s� I 1990 POP. 4,311 76. ITS. RD.t, (342)749—* V 2?) m MID // (542)490 v A-. d �� 0 g��\ \ !o p RAYMOND ` v 0 \Ness- 78. / e pR'9 4 ApN. /OK TRAIL Y 4e , __ i. 5 ' pQ' 0 n U CHESTNUT OR z q A"i4, 7"9-PLEM `� �� NRO\<'iVG� "�f w o'Os� DR.O ( P - �^^/ RO• • s w CO o O\ !!!- �\ij �� n PRAT" 110. R C SORREL WAY S' 9(199) Gti� cn' - \MFD R rF 43 m A 9i i� But, O SHANNO C• ARRAO� 111.$0 IIyL D o f---438(966) y/ /�/45 B "' �'• O U TOWERS PGgN UQ LA. I I 93(116) �`\�� �i/ D _N N •NE woo. �Op CARMODY'FO DR. �J `► '� p 1 �'t \LA. ( ) % �I FF 4O• co m 1R• ¢C. \ -,t \DR. WESMIDGE E 59 12� (/0 PORCUPINE V j 3 I CT. a = \ G TON g i, (476)476—► N m rn � O01 ^� CUMBERLg �� OR• (65) 51 v ' �K '' 1'.q j 4 4--268(1025) I Q P * Q9• 3 �y C� •\ C (585)1103—� off ( _ T d �` V & Q TyORN ANDERSON cat t _ ANDERSON R. (--L:%''2„ ciR. rhOOQ02N /Co , CT. CT aS. LEGEND `�N.�� �. (1'3 XX =A.M. PEAK ` �° O } �' ��� Q�� D. (XX) = P.M. PEAK 40%lair:� DARNEL WATERFORDZRD. 4,,y =TRAFFIC SIGNAL . PRESERVE BLVD. 10 = SIDE-STREET STOP J, N2 .. �6-' _ ����� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE CONSULTING GROUP, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2 NW QUADRANT OF TOPVIEW ROAD AND SRF NO.0003901 VALLEY VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY • Michael Franzen -5- November 6,2000 Randy Newton Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that during the a.m. and p.m.peak hours all key intersections currently operate at an overall acceptable level of service B or better with existing traffic controls and geometric layout. Proposed Development and Site Access The proposed site located in the northwest quadrant of Topview Road and Valley View Road is 7.1 acres and is currently zoned for commercial use. A two-story office development (112,040 square-feet)is proposed on this site (see Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan). For comparison purposes, trip generation estimates were developed for the zoned (commercial) and proposed (office)uses based on the following assumptions: • Current Zoning: • Based on the City of Eden Prairie ordinance codes, the commercial zoning was assumed to be a C-Com Community Commercial District. This designation is primarily used for .retail stores, office, and personal service establishments used predominately by the immediate community area. Based on this designation and assuming a one-story commercial development,a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2 was used. This calculates to approximately 61,660 square feet. Proposed Zoning: ■ Two development intensity scenarios were considered for the proposed office development, 100 percent office and 75 percent office/25 percent warehouse or manufacturing. Based on the trip generation estimates, 100 percent office generated the highest number of trips and is considered the worst-case scenario in this study. Trips were estimated for both existing and proposed land use zoning for this site. The difference between proposed and zoned land use, is shown in Table 2. Trip estimates were calculated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and for a typical weekday based on information obtained from the 19971TL Trip Generation Reports. Table 2 Trip Generation Estimates LAND USE SIZE DAILY A.M.PEAK HOUR P.M.PEAK HOUR TYPE (Sq.Ft.) Average Total Average Trips Trips Average Trips Trips Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out Existing Commercial 61,660 42.92 2,646 1.03 25 64 3.74 111 120 Proposed Office 112,040 (l) 1,448 (2) 180 24 (3) 35 170 Difference -1,198 155 -40 -76 50 (1) Trips were estimated using the fitted curve equation:LN(T)=0.768 LN(X)+3.654 (2) Trips were estimated using the fitted curve equation:LN(T)=0.797 LN(X)+ 1.558 (3) Trips were estimated using the fitted curve equation: T=1.121(X)+79.295 . I s ` •If _•1 tw'mu Q s ViOS3�JYf'3hiVFldP@C33 LE0TI.ESO SO0 yi►s3 r_ ........WPMas.•. scnas=I at _ 3LtldOdEl00 ow M L ::�IM".: 11.1 14111731:'D: as.m xv MaIA AFTWA �— ••"•n•.t•s s.•Is I•.s Its I„1•+; -a Iasi,+; +s I••st w 2 8— s C.) r ,\\ \\\N‘ \\:\ \ L.L. . to, : ._11,\,, , . s\s„, %,\„,„ § . .„ . CI • / f '/ \\.\ SIP \\\\ r v. — r "> / ..... ,s4' \'',.• ,-1% \\\\ \ \„\ Z (/) > = 3, r ..", / \ .. ,...'' > Ili 0 r \ \ \It , la CI 0 IX at MI mil I1i1!!!!!!'•:!Ifi�ii , --- ;----- Q ii 6,/fl, • U. r5 77/4' ...... \ ,. /4/flf : / ,./5%.'1.1. . • ti . a q c. o'Ya pi ImsW {{..s .RWV) mm UN.f@ $w sti, rf gd•.e i a wF Q 2C w C 0 Fa 5isM�� NCy ��a ¢¢o ¢ II Q 0�oN 4 �?o� aC? gs Z rag z 2u..4.."` ,: 2 4' n tc{#�ONj Q3 D. w2 n z � � j ¢n D. LI \ 1/ Ch 41 0. -%_3 g r-. -ti Michael Franzen -7- November 6,2000 Randy Newton There are two access driveways to the site on Valley View Road, an existing full-access driveway located approximately 550 feet east of Prairie Center Drive and a right-in/right-out driveway to be constructed as part of the office development. Due to the relatively close spacing on Valley View Road between Prairie Center Drive and Topview Road/Plaza Center Drive intersections, there is concern that any additional full-access locations, other than the existing full-access, would potentially degrade traffic operations along Valley View Road. As such, the issue of an alternative access location along Topview Road has been raised to minimize traffic impacts on Valley View Road. However, steep grades may eliminate the possibility of an access along this roadway. The existing full-access location west of the site would be the primary entrance to the site. This entrance would be shared with an existing office development and Home Depot development immediately west of the site. Since this intersection is side-street stop controlled, the operation of this intersection will be governed by the number of gaps available for side-street traffic to enter the major roadway traffic stream(Valley View Road). Traffic Forecasts • Traffic forecasts were developed for full-build office development conditions and the surrounding Valley View Road and Topview Road/Plaza Drive area for the years 2002 (one year after opening) and 2015. Background traffic for year 2002 was calculated using a three-percent yearly growth rate, which was developed based on comparing existing growth trends within the project area. For the year 2015, forecast background traffic volumes were estimated from the City of Eden Prairie's Transportation Plan (1997). The Transportation Plan identified future average daily traffic volumes (ADTs)for the adjacent roadways within the vicinity of the site. Typical weekday trip generation average rates obtained from the 1997 11'h Trip Generation Reports were used to estimate the number of daily trips generated by the currently zoned commercial land use. These daily trips were then subtracted from the ADTs found in the Transportation Plan to obtain new estimates of daily traffic volume on Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive for year 2015. A growth rate of three percent was obtained by comparing existing daily volumes with these newly developed daily roadway volumes (reflecting the removal of the previously zoned commercial development). The trip generation estimates for the office development shown in Table 2 were assigned to the adjacent roadways using the directional distribution shown in Figure 4. This distribution for the proposed site-generated trips was developed based on the regional distribution of households and employment, as well as existing travel patterns in the study area. The percentage of trips having origin/destination to and from TH 5 increases from 15 to 20 percent by year 2015 due to the addition of the TH 212 extension. Conversely, the trip distribution percentage is reduced for traffic with origin/destination to and from south-southeast of Prairie Center Drive in year 2015. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the proposed development in the years 2002 and 2015 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. ay III EN a e LAKE , ttReN S FEMME o OPUS tePp� 3 •,ATE .L cuw ba % '� IlB, �~ n \' t U SANITARIUM S m g C ` kt ` ® s Z `""'errs am_ ) 4203d° %EMI SE -..„. craE )11iNej. u 1 1 flaw 0 A tip• � S. E ar _ O � NON �• °L dd r r CRY eCALAEY •' 10 �6 xownc o 9 eax c `� x��. '" �r k \a C .' \C � eRsi $1 Lag wh 'a�nj' ,LpIE eWUSS "` • ��,,,� OE -4, . Q9 / U i n. I. 3apy / �M �q� Ninny `t ' . EpON nlun Im. i° `AVe , /) a, a 4 r Ili; " ill gg; t.1„ \ ,d $ 1. . t ,1g' r ... wEST TR. 1 �5j 1� R" HOLLY RD. Tcy d NV„.NO. N0. . �5, N4 % x.v. 8Ouot wacf v 3 irE �r`x��,�1 @ iiy ©' cx i Bryant w.6 ar 'N i > 3 CIR L ' '• CRO tx+. 4PSS Lake e o W.TOM 5T. WOE 3 �, L. (L �7i's & '4' 44'11:RRv� ? 15/o > w 4. e.H!u bbb A`" 11 AI ' G 4, 41i %� � _eyiLt� ��" ..: la• 0 \ t�� 112 �t 3 4, � .�, �- '¢ v�u � � w,�, j � .La's ,—_—__\, Pm 44 x ,,,os ...,---2.----- L � PNR a4 ��J, '�6 I VIEW i 7:1- ,,,,.(1,,,,et o w .I kk >s� er. �;' r( 5% „,. ,, C LA Nine1 el oiiir ldle ` E 0 . DR. L \ w. 15% taNEONL / sr.\ rTifi " nn i. TECHNOLOGY tf" eTREE BillE II /I CMRALOR �1c, , \ —r�_Llt 30% ,` Halt ; EDE PRAIRIE i��� a„La,F'1 ,y_ xrs �, I 1990 POP.39,311 I' �i �i v!cj Vpil 15% ` waQ4I.,‘„,„.. , oR5 [10% � / OR O RAYL10N0 _ / 4„ ..e . \ AO �ty, � %, . '` $ !::),\L SORREL HAY tir14` ag <f 4, L:CON;IMMCf. tat 1L0. a � ToR� wLP"�Le� ©�Qni• AndelSo•u` 4�® J`b�° L" r� �4.4 39RtL rP �' •1 ®t e L O�Hoo�� �1 g '.• LakesgT' PORCUPINE T •SOY Sjt.a'.�p, OFR� F /J tt0.tuN=IOcr. +ea Tom id'. •`ce i4,,, ..' � .., `�© `pR,E101 / w.e6 on a �iil� OSORRO g a� /yxr.�ne I tir R4. .1110 4 „40"1;0,0,:betict of 14 IN C"' / CI\ . o ff a cliii Jl�'C 't ANOEa` cm '• „, § , er� ANDERSON 4,iiiii2 1 f r fi RD• J r ,�� . fARNEt PRESERVE w£IVW `C° 47 l i iVEv,© 1 $ a i CR. .,. Ro% Ry. � S % I Starin p PRncEme Ro. Lake 3 MS 1 , LEGEND HENN.CO. % 3 W �a v„ T_, . VOCATIONAL g , E eppOtL °R ` yr.N q� t \u Sp g XX =Year 2002 SCHOOL 5 g ijil °� (� /21.NEi. KNOLLS RD. 121. "y7 4y� ilk ' p• [XXI=Year 2015 56t.or y l Jc' et i''" 3- r ,»Ne 1 < $ I 41( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE VI CONSULTING GROUP, INC. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION . 4 NW QUADRANT OF TOP VIEW ROAD AND SRF NO.0003901 VALLEY VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY as • I 1 ,^ cc I HOLLY RD. ' ` t `` G`.- 0 z Jd . -au' f Z I JAM ES 52' pi., G `65 (10) o "o t---540(1110) \ 480(415) o fl /-..1 0 o \ 4-330(1095) y Q, - 60 (20) c (700)1090--I. o o • U 4) L. �—485(1150) a (285) 415 J \ �°' ' (25) 125- ` (660)1260—. G (610)1070--s. ✓ �'` a ��� R. TOp /G 2 �--� I' 212 DR. r k. �` \ RD c t 494 S S ,�`• /• / q-��- 3 d o a IhNA L4. 8 ougi.1 D Za o • zOgm p o� a \'i i U w scorr , _----_ FAIR ,.•j II x. / 9p / m STOP i �'R, 39 • / ,�aVI . ; P G \ ° 3 (39 1 aQyL� -------.: 5-- car Smet id R. O\ U ANA 1� \.� DR. 5 g 5 78th 'T. \ ci . Idle • Ittg LEONA RD, ONE OAK t F CF� ttr \�`--- _ A N \ RD. o 0 0 10(25) G' \\ ST. IE� o 0 0 �—340(885) �' \\R 781h id 1 L. r 145(345) 4k 5\NGI' EE L•q c.:\HIS' DE ' RAIRIE °Ifilli a ♦ 5 d �: o Hall (30)20-1' I 1990 POP. s,311 7g ITS. RD.J75) (355)510—► amoc 520 q N - .R s / �A9 RAYMOND G ��QV Nil: / UiQ.\ APING CKLYC. �o'''. 9`PrLEMv" • ROLC1N tko..S CHESTNUT /via LA• O'Q 3 �l� i `-.��, ��l • C R yr\ • s s s '�0e, D�C1 93 AI' )' o SORREL WAY �S r 10(210) G4/).'N!Y F;�7 MEDC P� 1W1 0 110. • F/�O 0 0 0 ir OM Z SHANNO 1 Hri = TOWERS •OQ (,q 4-545(1040) 'y 8L� o � 1 DARRA g $ 'BYO LA GAN co 1 4 r 100(125) 19."°( ,� �P ITS J • S WOO. tioR4, \ DR. 2_� CARMODti�•igg DR.' a1 FF 'QO o o IR Q ypE5TRIOGE v� (65) 15 1 O PORCUPINE N 0 lay S' I CT. § NO TON C7 I (560)955—► N 8 d oor O� v� 0 VI /CUMBE �. OR (70) 55 m a ao OT. 'YF! <--330(1095) •C w^� BLAND 9. �. v o v �scAt cT Ab CS. O e QP gl Rtislg "0,4, ANDERSON cp•1101 0. ANDERSON 9'rlf An cc. iti CT '� y . i LEGEND prfi . c�4, �e-XX =A.M. PEAK •;`°4 �. �`'COCK Sect. �S m ti Q��D (XX)= P.M.PEAK ^ O. �R WATERFORD RD. �Y =TRAFFIC SIGNAL 73•. Nm DARNEL PRESERVE BLVD. =SIDE-STREET STOP �z9 ;?'�3�1 o > 1 \ CI-• / M/ 1 C7 :.-\ '- %'. �\0 z ., <f^ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE C ONSULTING GROUP. INC. 2002 BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 NW QUADRANT OF TOPVIEW ROAD AND SRF NO.0003903 VALLEY VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY r .ctt �.. ?! HOLLY RD. ` OiH4 J ,;� \P- ��) ,`� i imi 0 m 0 .4 gr- ..„,r9- -:-.., \,, i sz o 'C \ \ ,t` ''. !� v 70 (10) �� \\ 0 0 �..j 41---810(1690) \\ \ '� e _ 730(630) o o ''-60 (20) t o i ` 480(1670) 6� ,oe, u� �--730(1720) z J • (1030)1660—► i' '' . \ (420) 630 J \G1.Oq° _ ,/ (30) 120 �� ♦ d (990)1920—► \ (930)1630—► t �O, C �rc� -. I l a oR < T.� Ro. \\(104 ( ��//))- : � pW 21?� 3 3 LA 0 w VI o �� v-- W\Lk- 4.•/ .\ , Pik'�V O 0 i Q Lq o v4000 z \ p ', m m tau o� Z o a �� �' 0 SC07 , ."'\ m X. 9} W • \ JC . A/OR / Q9 `'\ a jm STOP o o /1 ` 39 , �\ "VILLA V��smP N \ / La "' — \ /Smet ,(/ a:_251 t 5 / %� 5 lea, \\ .-� ( 15 \ \4%, Idle I LEONA RD. . .���_ ONE OAK i,rn N ? ' p 0 0 0 10 30` --�� to \yJF 2 ST. i g --'s."--....„..:_____-..._-____.- RD. ( ) \l • \R p 78th ��`, T o 0 0 �---520(1340) \.` \0 2 �h�W`I \ - 4. ♦ I 4_210(470) �1) s\N��ETREE o 2 // , l� \`\ City L. tDE� - RAIRIE Z ° . 1--�,t, r+ w ,o° Hall (30)6 20 I . � 1990 POP. z,311 �'--7g• �/ ITS. RD. v (560)1230—� �, o �, /% i (880)790 0 o M/Op1E SEr n w o rn • 09- �-� PO/ AN 1C\9 r % RAYMON• V Cal \GeV 78. / / Q \ 1-/AP%NG.4 2 CK TRAIL U LA. O� z ��"Poi,_ \s/'LEM� \ \ //�LC/AG �1�S �i CS CHESTNUT / P �5/��1 4v 0. 1yp. �j��� eyA DR l< o Zoo,o +, �°G\` . 4,4'C.g/A*. 'n PIRA!' K. •- SORREL SWAY \ N L. 20(320) �L). ' F\'• �MEDD b� 4i 111,0 110. F/FLO q, �� OM 2 SHANNO (� w ce HYL z o o 0 0 1-790(1580) ! /% 'BWD. O CAR $v aV0 = TOWERS 'PLAN LA. �.o 1212 n 4, ` _lir 2—�LA CARMOD��i' DR. � �/ ti. I FF "i'O�^ o o MR. I tr. ir,/,,, PORCUPINE m rn3 D�DR. WESTRIDGE Z y (100) 20 — P CT 0 o • 4, I CT. \AG TON . (830)1450—► 'o o r:� a1 osr O4,, CUMBERLq)y0 x OR (110) 80 ¶7. yJ f'-480(1670) v •ocost NW'�' (1000)1790—* a� r C'g LO r �0 ( ANDERSON OpN\"�000 ANDERSON 6 (2 r CT. C y LEGEND �' -\ a t °��d Je •• r �� •m 40 CCCK sQ rS �n 8; XX =A.M. PEAK moo' < G•c. .J t /�� D XX = P.M. PEAK `�/` / /a9 g m Q a� J DARNEL WATERFORD RD. 2Fi © =TRAFFIC SIGNAL 5 '33 - ___I J . PRESERVE BLVD. y'� ��y = SIDE-STREET STOP • ^24 ^2%. o w c!R CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE Vi CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 2015 BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6 NW QUADRANT OF TOPVIEW ROAD AND SRF NO.0003901 VALLEY VIEW ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY Michael Franzen -11- November 6,2000 Randy Newton Future Traffic Operations Analysis To determine how well the existing roadway system will accommodate the proposed office development, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for year 2002 (anticipated one year after opening) and year 2015 for the key intersections previously listed. The intersection of Valley View Road and the proposed right-in/right-out access was added to the future operations analysis. Year 2002 Analysis Table 3 2002 Capacity Analysis— Full Build LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION A.M.Peak P.M.Peak _Valley View Road and 1-494 East Ramp B A Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp B A Valley View Road and Top View Road/Plaza Drive B B Valley View Road and proposed right-in/right-out access* A/A A/A Valley View Road and full-access driveway* A/C A/E Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive B C * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall level of service is shown followed by the worst approach. The results of the analysis shown in Table 3 indicate that during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours all key intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better with existing traffic control and geometric layout. Although the north approach of the, intersection of Valley View Road and the full-access driveway operates at LOS E for the p.m. peak period, the overall operation of the intersection is at an acceptable LOS A. The traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First,consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total entering traffic volume into the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is also important to consider the level of service on the side-street approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop at an unsignalized intersection that has side-street stop control, the majority of intersection delay can be attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with high mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (poor level of service) on the side- street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour periods. The poor side-street level of service can be attributed to a reduction in the number of available gaps in the Valley View Road traffic stream caused by westbound vehicles slowing down for the downstream signal at Prairie Center Drive. These prevailing traffic conditions, along with eastbound left-turning vehicles further increase the delay for the side-street approach. r-. Michael Franzen -12- November 6, 2000 Randy Newton Year 2015 Analysis Table 4 2015 Capacity Analysis — Full Build LEVEL OF SERVICE(') INTERSECTION A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Valley View Road and I-494 East Ramp B B Valley View Road and 1-494 West Ramp(2) F[C] B [B] Valley View Road and Top View Road/Plaza Drive C C Valley View Road and proposed right-in/right-out access* A/A • A/C Valley View Road and full-access driveway* A/D F/F [D/F](3) Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive(') E[C] F[C] * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. The overall level of service is shown followed by the worst approach. (1) Level of service with existing geometrics followed by level of service with recommended improvements in brackets. (2) An additional southbound left-turn lane is recommended to improve overall intersection operations from LOS F to LOS C. (3) Improvement in LOS due to a reduction in spillback from improvements at the Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive intersection. (4) The overall operation of this intersection would improve to an acceptable level of service if an additional westbound left-turn lane is added, northbound dual left-turn lanes are lengthened from 200 to at least 350 feet, and the eastbound right-turn lane is lengthened from 150 feet to at least 300 feet. The results of the analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that during the a.m. peak hour the intersections of Valley View Road/I-494 West Ramp and Valley View Road/Prairie Center Drive are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the year 2015 with existing traffic control and geometrics. Likewise, during,the p.m. peak hour the intersections of Valley View Road/Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road and the full-access driveway are expected to operate poorly. Based on the analysis results, the following improvements are recommended for all key intersections to operate at acceptable levels of service under full-build 2015 conditions: Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp: ■ An additional southbound left-turn lane would be needed at the intersection of Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp to accommodate forecast traffic volumes. • z• Michael Franzen -13- November 6,2000 Randy Newton Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive: • Due to the high volume of northbound left-turning vehicles, it is recommended that the existing northbound dual left-turn lane storage bays of approximately 200 feet be extended to at least 350 feet. This will to reduce the potential of vehicle spillback and the effects of excessive vehicle queues. • An additional westbound left-turn lane to provide dual left-turn lanes is needed for additional capacity and to reduce the spillback of vehicles into,the upstream intersection of Valley View and the full-access driveway. • The eastbound right-turn lane storage bay at the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Drive should be lengthened from the existing storage length of 150 feet to at least 300 feet. This improvement would allow right-turning vehicles to enter the right-turn lane bay without being blocked by eastbound queued through vehicles. As shown in Table 4, the intersection of Valley View Road and the full-access driveway is expected to operate at an acceptable overall level of service D or better under 2015 conditions (with recommended intersection improvements). Similar to '2002, the side-street approach (proposed office development full-access driveway) will continue to experience high levels of delay during the peak periods. Future 2015 traffic forecasts identify 90 southbound left-turn vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Based on this left-turn volume, the close spacing between the full-access driveway and Prairie Center Drive, and the acceptable overall level of service expected for 2015 conditions, a traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection. In addition, further investigation of the feasibility of an access connection to Topview Road would lessen the impact to Valley View Road by providing a connection to the currently signalized intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road. In addition to the above-mentioned improvements, the following suggestions are provided for your consideration. These suggested 2015 improvements are not required to obtain acceptable levels of service,but would improve operations at key intersections. • Due to the high volume of left-turning vehicles, additional turn lane storage is suggested for the eastbound left-turn movement at Valley View Road and I-494 East Ramp. Dual left-turn lanes may require widening the bridge; however, the existing left-turn lane could be extended back through the upstream intersection to provide a full lane for storage. • Based on the 2015 forecast volume of 320 vehicles, a westbound right-turn lane is suggested at the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road/Plaza Drive to reduce delay and improve the operations and safety of the east approach. Michael Franzen -14- November 6, 2000 Randy Newton ■ An overlapping eastbound right-turn phase with the northbound left-turn movement is suggested at the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive to reduce vehicle queuing and improve overall operations of this intersection. Shown in Table 5 are existing and recommended future 2015 approach geometrics for the key intersections. Table 5 Existing and Recommended Future (2015) Intersection Approach Geometrics(1 NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST INTERSECTION L TRL TRL T R L T R Valley View Rd. and I-494 East Ramp -- -- -- — 2 1 -- -- -- 1 2 -- Valley View Rd. and I-494 West Ramp 1[2] -- 1 -- 2 -- -- — -- -- 2 -- Valley View Rd. and Topview Road > 1 < 1 2 1 1 1 < 1 2 <(2) Valley View Rd. and right-in/right-out access -- -- 1 -- 2 1 -- -- -- — 2 -- Valley View Rd. and full-access driveway 1 — 1 1 2. 1 -- — -- 1 2 -- Valley View Rd. and Prairie Center Drive 2 2 < 1[2] 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 <Indicates a turn lane shared by a through movement. (1) All approach geometrics shown are existing;otherwise,recommended geometrics are shown in brackets. (2) An exclusive westbound right-turn lane is suggested for this intersection. Site Access As recommended by City staff, an additional site access driveway located on Topview Road was analyzed to determine the traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The construction of a second full-access driveway is intended to lessen traffic impacts to the existing full-access driveway located on Valley View Road,which is projected to operate at an overall LOS D in year 2015 (including improvements made to Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive). The recommendation to provide access to the proposed development from Topview Road is further supported by the reserve capacity of the Valley View Road and Topview Road intersection in year 2015. This supplemental analysis documents the traffic operations of the intersections that are most affected by the addition of the Topview access driveway: Valley View Road and the full-access driveway and Valley View Road and Topview Road. The analysis assumes that there would be a connection of existing and proposed development parking areas and use of the full-access driveway on Valley View Road. • Michael Franzen -15- November 6,2000 Randy Newton In addition to the revisions made to site access, this analysis includes a reduction in site- generated trips due to a decrease in proposed building size. The original 112,040 square-foot building has been scaled-back to include 100,075 square-feet of office space. The reduction in building size would reduce the number of estimated site generated trips by 17 a.m. peak hour trips, 14 p.m. peak hour trips and 120 daily trips. The updated analysis was only conducted for 2015 traffic conditions to represent a worse case scenario. The updated 2015 build volumes are shown in Figure 7. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 6. Table 6 2015 Capacity Analysis of Site Access Alternatives(1) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE A.M. P.M. Valley View Road and full-access driveway* A/C A/F Valley View Road and Topview Road C C Topview Road and full-access driveway* A/D A/A *Indicates an unsignalized intersection.The overall level of service is shown'followed by the worst approach. (1) The analysis includes previously recommended improvements at the intersections of Valley View Road/Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road/I-494 West Ramp. Based on the supplemental analysis, all three key intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under 2015 full build conditions, with existing traffic controls and geometries. However, the following suggested improvements are provided for your consideration: ■ Although the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service,it is recommended that an exclusive southbound left-turn lane be provided. This improvement is not necessary to improve the overall intersection level,pf service, but rather to reduce vehicle queuing and spillback from interfering with the upstream full-access driveway on Topview Road. By providing an exclusive southbound left-turn lane, the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes could be aligned directly across from each other, which would improve site distance and safety for left- turning vehicles. • Similar to previous recommendations, a westbound right-turn lane is recommended at the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road/Plaza Drive to improve safety and reduce the potential for rear-end accidents • The current site plan shows the distance between the proposed full-access driveway and Valley View Road intersection along Topview Road to be approximately 140 feet. An intersection queuing analysis indicates that this distance is inadequate to provide the necessary storage of southbound vehicles, and the proposed driveway along Topview may be blocked during peak hour conditions. It is recommended that the proposed Topview 3a 0 w IN w w 5 - w -J J U) W C.)oo1-..o 0 c i r'c LO a a �120 (130) 0 44 4—60 (480) C° ~ t-- 20 (60) p 0 �--90 (20) 40 (90) w (066) ozE--�re > j CI ) ( 0 � 1 t 0.. o 0 06 �o (OE) � 0p — o0 pOO fd. I= KLL 0 `�(0 rr• r w< t.- w> o w = 0 o) oco L� -1 p W . 00O O ; ZW N 0 CI> CI 4] i' LL D—i AVM3Al2:1d SSOON/ 1n0-1HJ11:1/NI-1HJN (08) 01,-� t re = Z o 0 ti I Y o rn 4 • D. to inti o N AYM9AIZIa *i 1' SS390d TInu ((T) oz --i 1 t (05) 0 b ----4, o z cocD M r . a 0 ,t P v0 a a 0 0 0 z W F P w Nl C z T > 0 o w U o J> g z WON)I� �3 • -- Michael Franzen -17- November 6,2000 Randy Newton Road driveway be relocated as far north as possible. The City should also consider sight distance requirements for vehicles exiting the proposed site onto Topview Road. Based on the operations analysis,the addition of a proposed site access driveway along Topview Road would improve the level of service for the full-access driveway and Valley View Road from an overall LOS D to A. The connection between site parking areas involves the eastbound left-turn movement at the intersection of Valley View Road and the full-access driveway during the a.m. peak hour. A small proportion of traffic will opt to make a left-turn movement at this intersection, rather than making an eastbound left-turn at the Valley View Road and Topview Road intersection. Based on these results, a site access driveway on Topview Road and a right- in/right-out access on Valley View Road can adequately serve the proposed office development. Summary and Conclusions A 112,000 square-foot office development is proposed for the northwest quadrant of Topview Road and Valley View Road in the City of Eden Prairie. The purpose of this study is to examine the traffic impacts this development and background growth within the study area would have on the adjacent roadway system. The initial analysis includes the two site access driveways along Valley View Road. All key intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better one year after development (2002) with existing traffic control and geometrics. Although the intersection of Valley View Road and the full-access driveway is expected to operate an overall acceptable LOS A, motorists making a left-turn maneuver from the access driveway would experience substantial delay. This high level of delay is attributed to a limited number of acceptable gaps in the major road traffic stream caused by high vehicular volume on Valley View Road. The delay experienced by driveway traffic in year 2002 is further intensified in year 2015 due to an increase in traffic volume on Valley View Road. Based on the 2015 traffic operations analysis, the following long-term geometric improvements are recommended for all key intersections to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive—The storage bay length for the eastbound right-turn and northbound left-turn lanes should be increased to at least 300 feet and 350 feet,respectively, to accommodate the storage of queued vehicles. An additional westbound left-turn lane is also recommended. Valley View Road and I-494 West Ramp — An additional southbound left-turn lane is recommended. Due to future 2015 traffic operations along Valley View Road, a supplemental analysis was performed to determine the traffic impacts of providing an additional access to the site along Topview Road. Based on this analysis, the intersection operations Valley View Road and the full-access driveway intersection is expected to improve,while the impacts to the Topview Road and Valley View Road intersection would be minimal. Even though the intersection of Topview Michael Franzen -18- November 6,2000 Randy Newton Road and Valley View Road would operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed Topview Road access driveway, there are improvements recommended to reduce queuing and improve overall safety in the study area. These improvements include an exclusive southbound left-turn lane, an exclusive westbound right-turn lane and increased spacing between the proposed Topview Road driveway and Valley View Road/Topview Road intersection. • • • • 5 ...::........" William and Kristin Backstrom :... 1265•Q,• •RoUerts • Eden;erai; • To WhomWirft It May Concern We are writing:Ii reference to the Valley View Corporate Center project:Neither my wife nor I is.::•:abtaiiimwtonci the public hearing scheduled for January 16; 200 = Because of Ll`[':}2r&ratty to the proposed p[ ject,;(north east of the intersection of Topview Road and floberts Drive) we appreciate the opportunity to submit`'the >., concerns for cobs deration bythe Council. following comr�lij�s>�and n tl...l ,.;} '> >> '':<> <'r � IMW 1. Regarding?€he proposed access to the property via Topview Drive. This access potentially dangerous and represents questionable benefit. Topview Road between Roberts Drive and Valley View Road is a steep, curving road. Due to the topography of the property, the proposed access to Topview would also have to be steep. These factors reduce visibility for vehicles on Topview and the property creating potentially unsafe situations on a regular and continuing basis. This condition will only be exacerbated in the winter when Topview is often extremely slippery. Finally, since traffic on Topview is at its heaviest during exactly the time this access would be most used, entry and exit from the property will be difficult anyway. It also disrupts existing traffic. Since the proposal provides two other routes to Valley View these drawbacks far outweigh the benefit. 2. Regarding the location of the Trash Enclosure. We suggest that the location of the Trash Enclosure be reconsidered and relocated away from residential properties. In our experience waste haulers often empty dumpsters very early in the morning. They create enough of a disturbance to wake both of us from a sound sleep in a totally closed house. Since incidents such as this are a potential violation of the City's noise ordinance (Section 9.41, subd. 2 and subd 4) we have successfully worked with the City and the concerned business to resolve the issues. Since this property is closer than those that we have had problems with in the past it is in the interest of all parties to address this issue before it becomes a problem. 3. Regarding location of HVAC equipment. The location of heating and cooling equipment on the roof of a two-story structure will place this equipment very near to ground level of residential properties to the north of the building. This may make it more difficult to meet the sound levels required by the Section 9.41 subd 4, Receiving Land Use Standards. We would like this concern to be addressed. Once again, even though we cannot be present, we appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns. Sincerely, William C. Backstrom Kristin R_ Backstrom 3,6 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearing 01/16/01 SERVICE AREA✓DIVISION: Community Dev.And Financial ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Services Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Multi-Family Don Uram Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eden Glen _ff Apts.Project) Series 2001 Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds(Eden Glen Apartments Project) Series 2001 Synopsis This Council has received a proposal that the City issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eden Glen Apartments Project) Series 2001 in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,490,000 to make a mortgage loan to Eden Investments Partnership, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership. The proceeds of which will be used to pay and redeem the outstanding principal amount of the previously issued $2,715,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eden Investments Partnership Project) Series 1990. Proceeds from the original note were used to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 70-unit multifamily rental housing development, known as Eden Glen Apartments. Pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended , the Issuer is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue refunding bonds to refund all or a portion of the Bonds. The bonds and the interest on the bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged from the project and shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer. Attachments Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (EDEN GLEN APARTMENTS PROJECT) SERIES 2001 (THE "BONDS"), WHICH BONDS AND THE INTEREST AND ANY PREMIUM THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES PLEDGED THERETO; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A TRUST INDENTURE, A FINANCING AGREEMENT, A REMARKETING AGREEMENT, A TAX REGULATORY AGREEMENT, AN ASSIGNMENT AND INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT AND VARIOUS OTHER MORTGAGE RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE USE OF AN OFFERING CIRCULAR; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE OWNERS OF THE BONDS. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), is a statutory city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has previously issued its $2,715,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eden Investments Partnership Project) Series 1990 (the "Prior Bonds"), the proceeds of which were used to refund the $2,750,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Housing Development Revenue Note (Eden Investments Partnership Project) Series 1984 (the "Original Note"), the proceeds of which were used to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 70-unit multifamily rental housing development, known as Eden Glen Apaitiiients, located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue refunding bonds to refund all or a portion of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eden Glen Apartments Project) Series 2001 in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,490,000 (the "Refunding Bonds") to make a mortgage loan (the "Loan") to Eden Investments, LLP, a Minnesota limited liability partnership (the "Borrower"), the proceeds of which will be used to pay and redeem the outstanding principal amount of the Prior Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Loan will be evidenced by a Multifamily Note (the "Note") payable to the Issuer and secured by a Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement(the"Mortgage"); and WHEREAS, Fannie Mae has agreed to facilitate the refinancing of the Project by providing credit enhancement and liquidity support for the Bonds; and WHEREAS,the Note and the Mortgage will be assigned by the Issuer to U.S. Bank Trust National Association, a national banking association (the "Trustee") and Fannie Mae ("Fannie Mae"), a corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq., as amended, as their interests may appear, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Assignment and Intercreditor Agreement and an Assignment of the Mortgage(collectively,the"Assignment"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the City Council of the Issuer conducted a public hearing on January 16, 2001, on the issuance of the Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds, after publication of a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, the Loan will be made pursuant to the terms of a Financing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2001 (the "Financing Agreement") by and among the Issuer, the Trustee, and the Borrower; and WHEREAS, the Issuer purposes to finance the refunding and redemption of the Prior Bonds under the Act by the issuance of the Bonds of the Issuer under this resolution and a Trust Indenture dated as of January 1, 2001 (the "Indenture") by and between the Issuer and the Trustee; and WHEREAS, the Bonds are to be secured by the Indenture, and a pledge and assignment of certain other revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture, and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Issuer's interest in the Financing Agreement; and WHEREAS, forms of the following documents relating to the Bonds (the "Bond Documents")have been submitted to the Issuer and are now on file in the office of the Issuer: a. Financing Agreement whereby the Issuer agrees to make a loan to the Borrower of the gross proceeds of sale of the Bonds and the Borrower agrees, subject to the terms and provisions thereof, to cause the refunding of the Prior Bonds, and to pay amounts in repayment of the Loan sufficient to provide for the full and prompt payment of the principal of,premium,if any, and interest on the Bonds; 3 b. Indenture, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and pledging certain revenues, including those to be derived from the Financing Agreement, as security for the Bonds, and setting forth proposed recitals, covenants and agreements relating thereto; c. Multifamily Note (the "Note") dated as of January 1, 2001, from the Borrower to the Issuer, further evidencing the obligations of the Borrower under the Financing Agreement; d. Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage") dated as of January 1, 2001, from the Borrower to the Issuer securing repayment of the Note; e. Assignment and Intercreditor Agreement dated as of January 1, 2001, among the Issuer, the Trustee and the Borrower; f. Assignment of the Mortgage dated as of January 1, 2001, from the Issuer to the Trustee and Fannie Mae, as their interests may appear; g. Tax Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement"), dated as of January 1, 2001,by and among the Issuer,the Trustee and the Borrower; h. Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), by and among the Issuer, the Borrower, and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. (the `Underwriter"), providing for the purchase of the Bonds from the Issuer by the Underwriter and setting the terms and conditions of purchase; i. Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement") by and between the Underwriter as Remarketing Agent and the Borrower; and j. Offering Circular (the "Offering Circular") pursuant to which the Bonds will be offered. WHEREAS, the documents listed in paragraphs c and d above are referred to herein as the "Mortgage Documents," the documents listed in paragraphs e and f above are referred to herein as the "Assignment Documents," and the documents referred to in paragraphs a, b, g, h, i, and j are referred to herein as the"Bond Documents;" WHEREAS, the Issuer is duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State, including the Act, to (i) issue the Bonds, (ii) execute and deliver the Bond Documents and the Assignment Documents and to endorse the Note, (iii) assign its interest in the Financing Agreement (except the Reserved Rights, as defined therein) and(iv) pledge and assign the Trust Estate as set forth in the Indenture for the benefit of(A) the Bondholders, to secure the payment of the principal of and interest and any premium on the Bonds in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Indenture and the Bonds and (B) the Credit Provider to secure the payment of 1' y all amounts owing to the Credit Provider under the Credit Facility Documents (as such terms are defined in the Indenture); WHEREAS, all actions on the part of the Issuer for the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and for the execution and delivery of the Bond Documents, the Assignment Documents and the endorsement of the Note have been or will be taken duly and effectively. WHEREAS, the Bonds, when duly executed and delivered by the Issuer, and upon authentication by the Trustee, will constitute legal, valid and binding special limited obligations of the Issuer, enforceable against the Issuer in accordance with their terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency,reorganization,moratorium and other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally and general principles of equity. WHEREAS,the Issuer has the full legal right,power and authority to execute and deliver the Bond Documents, the Assignment Documents and the endorsement of the Note, and to carry out its obligations under each of those documents. WHEREAS, neither the execution and delivery of, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms or conditions of, the Bond Documents, the Assignment Documents and the endorsement of the Note violates the constitution or laws of the State or any judgment, order, writ, injunction or decree to which the Issuer is subject, or conflicts in any material respect with, or results in a material breach of, or material default under, any agreement or instrument to which the Issuer is now a party or by which it is bound. WHEREAS, except as otherwise provided in the Indenture and the Assignment, the Issuer has not created any debt, lien or charge upon the Trust Estate, and has not made any pledge or assignment of or created any encumbrance on the Trust Estate. WHEREAS, no litigation or administrative action of any nature is pending against the Issuer (i) seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance of the Bonds or the execution and delivery of the Bond Documents, the Assignment Documents or the endorsement of the Note, (ii) questioning the proceedings or authority relating to the Bonds or any other Issuer Document or (iii) questioning the existence or authority of the Issuer or that of its present or former members or officers and,to the best knowledge of the Issuer,none of the foregoing is threatened. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Issuer acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the proceeds of which were used to refund the Original Note,the proceeds of which were used to construct the Project, furthers the purposes of the Act. 2. For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $2,490,000. The Bonds shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall bear interest, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to S maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture in the form approved by the Issuer in this resolution. 3. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided pursuant to the Financing Agreement and the Note and other funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The City Council of the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer (together, the "Officials") to execute and deliver the Indenture and to deliver to said Trustee the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the terms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements of the bondowners, the Issuer and the Trustee shall be as set forth in the Indenture. All of the provisions of the Indenture,when executed as authorized herein, shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the City Manager, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 4. The Bond Documents, the Mortgage Documents, and the Assignment Documents are hereby approved substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the City Manager, in his discretion, shall approve or determine, and the execution of the Bond Documents and the Assignment Documents and endorsement of the Note by the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The Officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bond Documents and Assignment Documents and to endorse the Note,without recourse, to the order of the Trustee and Fannie Mae. All of the provisions of the Bond Documents, the endorsement of the Note, and the provisions of the Assignment Documents, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. 5. The proceeds of the Bonds shall be disbursed pursuant to the Indenture and the Financing Agreement. 6. The Trustee is hereby appointed as Tender Agent for the Bonds. The Underwriter is hereby approved as Remarketing Agent for the Bonds. 7. The Officials are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer, such other documents as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, including an arbitrage certificate, and all other documents and certificates as shall be necessary and appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 8. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation of the Offering Circular and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein, including any appendices thereto, and the Issuer assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Offering Circular in connection with the sale of the Bonds. 9. All covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the Issuer by the provisions of this resolution or the aforementioned documents shall be exercised or performed by such officers, board, body or agency thereof as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenants, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, agent or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance hereof. No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned documents, the Bonds or in any other document related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements,provisions, covenants and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived from the Financing Agreement which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. The Bonds shall contain the following recital: THIS BOND, THE INTEREST THEREON, AND ANY PENALTY, CHARGE, OR PREMIUM OR ANY AMOUNTS PAYABLE HEREUNDER, OR HOWEVER DESIGNATED IS A SPECIAL LIMITED OBLIGATION OF THE ISSUER, PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES AND PROCEEDS PLEDGED THERETO. THIS BOND AND THE INTEREST THEREON DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OR GIVE RISE TO A PECUNIARY LIABILITY, GENERAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION OR A PLEDGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OR TAXING POWER OF THE ISSUER, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS AND IS NOT PAYABLE FROM OR A CHARGE UPON ANY FUNDS OF THE ISSUER OTHER THAN THE REVENUES AND PROCEEDS PLEDGED BY THE ISSUER TO THE PAYMENT THEREOF AND DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A PECUNIARY LIABILITY OF THE ISSUER OR OF ANY OF ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES AND NO HOLDER OF THIS BOND SHALL EVER HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPEL ANY EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE ISSUER OR THE STATE OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO PAY THIS BOND OR TO ENFORCE PAYMENT THEREOF AGAINST ANY PROPERTY OF THE ISSUER. THIS BOND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CHARGE, LIEN f OR ENCUMBRANCE,LEGAL OR EQUITABLE UPON ANY PROPERTY OF THE ISSUER AND THE AGREEMENT OF THE ISSUER TO PERFORM OR CAUSE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COVENANTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS HEREIN REFERRED TO SHALL BE SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE AVAILABILITY OF REVENUES OR OTHER FUNDS FURNISHED FOR SUCH PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINANCING AGREEMENT, SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL COSTS OF SUCH PERFORMANCE OR THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF. NEITHER THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NOR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NOR THE ISSUER SHALL BE OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE BONDS, THE INTEREST THEREON OR OTHER COSTS INCIDENT THERETO EXCEPT FROM REVENUES PLEDGED THEREFOR UNDER THE INDENTURE, AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE INDENTURE. NEITHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER, IF ANY, OF THE ISSUER, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE BONDS OR THE INTEREST THEREON OR OTHER COSTS INCIDENT THERETO. THE BONDS ARE NOT A DEBT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HUD, FHA, GNMA OR ANY OTHER AGENCY THEREOF AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE BONDS ARE NEITHER A MORAL NOR AN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION OBLIGATION OF THE ISSUER, THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS BOND, BE CONTROLLING AND SHALL BE GIVEN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CONTRARY IN THIS BOND NOTWITHSTANDING. 10. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any owner of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sale and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any owners from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. 11. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist and have been performed as so required by law. 12. The Officials of the Issuer, attorneys and other agents or employees of the Issuer are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor of the Issuer is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, any other member of the City Council of the Issuer shall be authorized to act in his capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the City Manager of the Issuer is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this Resolution, such documents may be executed by the City Director of Finance with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the Issuer. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,this 16th day of January, 2001. Jean L.Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Councilmember and was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. /0 STALL,OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on January 16, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full,true and complete transcript thereof. Witness,my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of January, 2001. City Clerk #2458812 v3-Resolution/41374 II CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2001 SECTION: Public Hearing SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation 00-09 ITEM NO.: Engineering Services Vacation of Right-of-Way for Part of Franlo David Olson Road Located in the Southeast'A of Section 25 Requested Action Move to: Close the public hearing and adopt the resolution vacating the right-of-way for part of Franlo Road as described in the resolution. Synopsis The development proposal for Bluffs East 17th Addition received preliminary plat approval on November 7, 2000. The vacation of part of the right-of-way for Franlo Road has been requested to accomplish the platting as proposed. Background Information Excess right-of-way was created by the westerly realignment of Franlo Road with the platting of Bluffs East 1t Addition by the Bluffs Company in 1983 to match pavement surfaces of Franlo Road, north of Pioneer Trail. The area requested for vacation will not be needed to accommodate the current or foreseeable roadway expansion projects at this intersection. As part of the review process, a preliminary design of the ultimate intersection geometrics was developed. The right- of-way remaining after the vacation will easily accommodate the proposed design. Preliminary investigation indicates existing private utilities are located within the vacation area, however, the Developer has agreed to pay for all relocation costs. Attachments Drawings 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PART OF FRANLO ROAD LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain right-of-way and drainage and utility easements described as follows: That part of Franlo Road located south of Hennepin CSAH lin the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 116,Range 22,Hennepin County,Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Southeast Quarter and a line drawn parallel with and distant 66 feet easterly of the easterly line of Block 3,Bluffs East First Addition; thence northerly along said west line 129.63 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the right 66 degrees 54 minutes 04 seconds, to the east line of Franlo Road; thence southerly along said east line to said parallel line; thence northerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning and there terminating. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 16, 2001, after due notice was given to affected property owners and published in accordance with M.S.A.412.851; WHEREAS,it has been determined that the said right-of-way is not necessary and has no interest to the public,therefore, should be vacated;and WHEREAS, the petitioner has agreed to pay and all costs of relocation of private utilities within the vacation area. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1) This vacation shall be valid upon receipt of verification from private utility companies of agreement from petitioner to fund the relocation of existing facilities. 2) Said right-of-way as above described is hereby vacated. 3) The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A.412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on January 16,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk .\ I N N• IN MOeft4 \ N • lr \ ,• . \ - . . • / p. \ / 6 1/4 . of ' . / • a• / . \.si. \\I. . ..,— .4_7,.....,.....\ 0 o, t b 0.' -Da:v 8 . , • . tt� . \IN 011 • \ 0 - . . \7:: , -.. 'd ro 1., 2 \ 1., .• •+ • \ .." oo ,I ' N (o w --•\-- . re) :\NI F. \ • \ 4% L.! N • e— j \ \ N 90 O▪ 111 . O ' • . \ 0 st w . . \ VI aQ • 1 - u • R • _ . ___. _.. nuruzvttnu" nun-tnlu LLit17A• 1 I AAA7 1 •9ACi CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Payment of Claims January 16,2001 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development and Payment of Claims Financial Services/Don Uram V-�-�—' Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 94670-94987 (from the IFAS system) Checks 96851-96885 (from the JD Edwards system) Wire Transfers 1000-1004 (from the JD Edwards system) Background Information As of January 2, 2001, the City implemented a new financial software program called JD Edwards. This system will be used for any purchases made or contracted services performed in 2001. Checks numbered 94670 through 94987 are part of the old IFAS system. This system will continue to be used for any 2000 invoices that are paid through the end of February 2001. You can expect to see this duplicate process through March 2001. Attachments City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 1/16/2001 Division Amount General Fund 329,281 111 General 3,891 113 Communication Services 4,378 114 Benefits &Training 8,801 115 Risk Management ' 5 151 Park Maintenance 1,164 156 Youth Programs 700 157 Special Events 500 158 Senior Center 92 161 Oak Point Pool 82 184 Fire 239 201 Street Maintenance 1,364 203 Fleet Services 181 601 Prairie Village Liquor 3,505 • 602 Den Road Liquor 3,468 603 Prairie View Liquor 13,011 • 701 Water Fund 266 803 Escrow Fund 60,000 Total JD Edwards 430,927 Total Previous System 618,804 Grand Total 1,049,731 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 11-JAN-2001 (15:37) DIVISION TOTAL N/A $1.00 LEGISLATIVE $1,961.49 LEGAL COUNSEL $13,708.73 CUSTOMER SERVICE $13,535.68 BENEFITS $2,417.99 TECHNOLOGY' $1,710.00 FINANCE $311.53 HUMAN RESOURCES $276.69 COMMUNICATIONS $2,500.00 CITY CLERK $368.51 HUMAN SERV $5,713.25 RISK MANAGEMENT $250.80 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION $2,879.78 ENGINEERING $391.03 INSPECTIONS $2,329.15 FACILITIES $2,584.19 POLICE $16,912.96 FIRE $6,067.58 ANIMAL CONTROL $1,022.00 STREETS/TRAFFIC $23,940.77 PARK MAINTENANCE $4,452.56 STREET LIGHTING $1,819.14 FLEET SERVICES $34,502:30 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $8,324.69 COMMUNITY DEV $20,237.90 COMMUNITY CENTER $4,651.25 HISTORICAL $37.50 YOUTH RECREATION $2,044.30 SPECIAL EVENTS $15.47 ADULT RECREATION $2,508.71 RECREATION ADMIN $306.28 ADAPTIVE REC $233.28 OAK POINT POOL $27.00 ARTS $108.30 PARK FACILITIES $445.00 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $24,72$.13 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $12,000.00 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $10,090.18 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $55,550.08 PRAIRIEVIEW $65,995.07 DEN ROAD $128,900.03 WATER DEPT $101,024.65 SEWER DEPT $2,253.20 STORM DRAINAGE $39,052.55 AGENCY FUNDS $613.29 $618,803.99* 3 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 1/16/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 1000 142,764 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Federal Taxes Withheld General Fund 1001 25,387 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund 1003 14,273 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 1004 6,933 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 96851 9,536 MASSMUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.' Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store 96852 490 PITNEY BOWES INC Other Rentals General 96853 3,000 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage General 96854 1,364 DTN CORPORATION Other Contracted Services Snow&Ice Control 96855 10,000 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BEVERAGE A Dues&Subscriptions Prairie View Liquor Store 96856 500 MISTY AND FRIENDS MOBILE ZOO Other Contracted Services July 4th Celebration 96857 30 PRESIDENT TOM PRESSER Conference Expense Fire 96858 175 QWEST Telephone Outdoor Center 96859 60,000 S&W PLASTIC Deposits Escrow 96861 12 TIME WARNER CABLE Cable TV Communication Services 96862 144,471 MEDICA CHOICE Medical Bills Prepaid General Fund 96863 61 RICHFIELD CITY OF Operating Supplies Fleet Services 96864 4,367 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Communication Services 96865 185 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT Deposits General Fund 96866 138 MRPA Conference Expense In Service Training 96867 82 NEILL ADVENTURE CLUB Open Fees Oak Point Operations 96868 200 RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. Deposits General Fund 96869 700 SPORTS WORLD USA INC Operating Supplies Summer Safety Camp 96870 245 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense In Service Training 96871 245 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense In Service Training 96872 245 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense In Service Training 96873 120 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense In Service Training 96874 280 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense In Service Training 96875 171 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE MN Waste Disposal Prairie Village Liquor Store 96876 276 DMX/MINNEAPOLIS Other Contracted Services Prairie View Liquor Store 96877 5 DRIVER&VEHICLE SERVICES Insurance Risk Management 96878 234 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General 96879 209 IOS CAPITAL Other Rentals Fire 96880 156 KEY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE INC Other Contracted Services Water System Maintenance 96881 2,597 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 96883 1,246 QWEST Telephone Water Utility-General 96884 112 STAR TRIBUNE Dues&Subscriptions General 96885 120 STATE OF MINNESOTA Licenses&Taxes Fleet Services 430,927 Total JD Edwards 618,804 Total Previous System 1,049,731 Grand Total I COUNCIL CHECK REGISI'E1t 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94734 $2,924.81 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE CO DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG 94735 $34.78 STOVRING, LESLIE MILEAGE AND PARKING ENGINEERING DEPT 94736 $105.00 THIELMAN, MARC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 94737 $60.84 TORMOEN, JUDY MILEAGE AND PARKING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 94738 $455.88 DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94739 $120.00 DNR ENFORCEMENT, FIREARMS SAFE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 94740 $15.00 EISCHENS, JULIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94741 $3,551.76 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAVEL COUNCIL 94742 $15.00 FERNHOLZ, SUSAN •ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94743 $265.07 GARTNER•REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 94744 $102.27 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 94745 $13.00 KLUTE, JOEL MILEAGE AND PARKING ICE ARENA 94746 $22.53 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SKATING RINKS • 94747 $241.65 VANSICKLE, PATTI SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 94748 $75.40 MUELLER, CYNTHIA MILEAGE AND PARKING AQUATICS & FITNESS SUPERV 94749 $39.98 HELLING, LAURIE MILEAGE AND PARKING RECREATION ADMIN • 94750 $48.32 PETTY CASH-NICOLE WEEDMAN REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 94751 $2,404.25 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE FIRE 94752 $46.80 WERTS, SANDY MILEAGE AND PARKING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 94753 $32.50 BERKHARDT, CHRIS BLDG SURCHARGES PLUMBING SURCHARGE 94754 $19.00 CARLSON, PAUL LICENSES & TAXES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 94755 $228.50 GILBERT MECHANICAL BLDG SURCHARGES MECH SURCHARGE 94756 $10.16 HALDEMANN HOMME INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 94757 $6,700.00 HAMLINE UNIVERSITY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 94758 $250.00 KALOGERSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94759 $41.00 KLUTE, JOEL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE ARENA 94760 $3,069.14 KMC TELECOM TELEPHONE GENERAL 94761 $77.03 KRESS, CARLA MILEAGE AND PARKING ADAPTIVE RECREATION 94762 $12.30 MENARDS SMALL TOOLS STORM DRAINAGE 94763 $11.00 NETZER, JUSTIN LICENSES & TAXES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 94764 $996.72 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 94765 $302.33 MINNEGASCO GAS DOUGLAS/MORE HOUSE 94766 $20.89 TYRA-LUKENS, NANCY TRAVEL COUNCIL 94767 $131.00 ACE ICE COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94768 $1,222.95 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94769 $68.29 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES . LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94770 $2,043.47 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94772 $4,622.30 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94773 $5,725.62 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94776 $18,635.25 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94777 $160.00 EXTREME BEVERAGE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94778 $192.00 FLAHERTYS HAPPY TYME COMPANY* MISC NON-TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94779 $209.00 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94780 $215.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94781 $9,265.61 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94783 $35,063.95 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94790 $1,952.89 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94791 $6,602.14 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94792 $414.83 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94793 $144.75 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94794 $377.98 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94795 $15,721.75 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94800 $889.74 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94801 $3,495.59 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE-LIQUOR #1 94802 $17,692.62 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 6 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94670 $26.98 ANDERSON, PATTY MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 94671 $79.80 BAKER'S PLAYS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WINTER THEATRE 94672 $27.00 BECKER, MARY LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 94673 $355.60 DOIG, LARRY SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 94674 $160.00 LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE PREPAID EXPENSES FD 10 ORG 94675 $68.00 LEE, RAE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 94676 $43.97 MANN, TRIA MILEAGE AND PARKING SPECIAL EVENTS ADMINISTRATIVE 94677 $1,744.00 MPCA PREPAID EXPENSES FD 10 ORG 94678 $5,711.17 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP .PREPAID EXPENSES LIQUOR STORE PVM 94679 $68.00 ROMAN, NHULANG LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 94680 $126.75 RUE, RODNEY MILEAGE AND PARKING ENGINEERING DEPT 94681 $90.00 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN MISCELLANEOUS IN SERVICE TRAINING 94682 $136.00 UHL, DAVID LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 94683 $723.25 UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE BENEFITS 94684 $560.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PREPAID EXPENSES FD 10 ORG 94685 $519.66 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94686 $56.61 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY, THE LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94687 $71.36 WARNER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94688 $183.91 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94689 $1,426.21 BELLBOY CORPORATION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94690 $5,469.40 DAY DISTRIBUTING , BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94691 $3,558.42 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94693 $10,841.85 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94694 $296.40 FLAHERTYS HAPPY TYME COMPANY* MISC'NON-TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94695 $871.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94696 $11,803.39 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94698 $18,118.33 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94703 $1,863.29 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94704 $3,929.02 MARK VII MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94705 $589.22 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94706 $174.30 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94707 $3,168.80 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94708 $516.50 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 'MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 94709 $17,947.72 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94712 $335.00 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94713 $1,640.29 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94714 $10,847.73 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94716 $8,865.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94717 $1,429.96 WINE COMPANY, THE WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94718 $3,467.25 WINE MERCHANTS INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94719 $339.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94720 $150.00 BROWN, KEVIN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 94721 $46.50 CULLIGAN WATER WATER SOFTNER OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 94722 $32.00 FILIMONOVA, OLENA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94723 $33.48 FREY, LYNDELL MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 94724 $229.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT ' 94725 $134.00 JOHNSON, RITA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94726 $35.00 LACKEY, SHARI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94727 $14.50 MCINTOSH, ELEANOR .OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL REC SUPERVISOR 94728 $105.00 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CERTIFI SCHOOLS FIRE 94729 $384.35 HELLING, LAURIE SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 94730 $67.00 OLSON, SUSAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 94731 $245.06 PITNEY BOWES RENTALS GENERAL 94732 $4,744.03 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AME LIFE EMPLOYERS SHARE BENEFITS 94733 $70.00 RANDLEMAN, CHERYL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS S COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94805 $9,239.31 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94806 $89.50 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94807 $113.65 WINE MERCHANTS INC WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 94808 $905.83 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 94809 $2,531.67 ARCH PAGING COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 94810 $23.96 AT&T TELEPHONE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94811 $1,010.00 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 94812 $59.15 CUMMINGS, KIM MILEAGE AND PARKING FIRE 94813 $13.57 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC • POSTAGE GENERAL 94814 $452.52 FREY, LYNDELL FURNITURE & FIXTURES CC CAPITAL OUTLAY 94815 $1,014.26 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94817 $413.99 HAUGEN, ROBERT MISC FIRE EQUIPMENT FIRE 94818 $46.16 JASMINE Z. KELLER GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 94819 $118.62 KEATING, MARY MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' 94820 $2,985.90 KMC TELECOM TELEPHONE GENERAL 94821 $99.96 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT MISCELLANEOUS POLICE 94822 $63.00 PUNTON, JASON SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 94823 $162.33 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94824 $61.35 SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORK INC BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINTENANCE 94825 $16.06 STAR TRIBUNE MISC NON-TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94826 $488.60 TRANS ALARM INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 94827 $276.69 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 94828 $398.96 ADVERTISING INCENTIVES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS' PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94829 $89.05 AIM ELECTRONICS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 94830 $1,691.49 AIR-HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94831 $85.79 ALLIED VAUGHN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 94832 $400.00 AMERICAN PLUMBING SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94833 $640.50 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94834 $372.75 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RENTALS POLICE 94835 $200.00 ANOKA HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLE TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE 94836 $36.38 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94837 $208.89 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94838 $1,231.39 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94839 $120.00 BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS POLICE 94840 $116.25 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 94841 $9.21 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 94844 $154.72 BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SKATING RINKS 94845 $168.51 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 94846 $771.00 BROWN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 94847 $1,671.00 BUCK, NATHAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 94848 $2,797.03 CARGILL SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL 94849 $73.14 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94850 $2,329.15 CENTURY PHOTO PRODUCTS PRINTING INSPECTION-ADMIN 94851 $1,680.00 CHANHASSEN, CITY OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE 94852 $106.50 CLAREYS INC EQUIP TESTING & CERTIFICATION SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94853 $192.60 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94854 $100.00 CONSOLIDATED MEDICAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT 94855 $507.50 CONVERGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC. TELEPHONE GENERAL 94856 $2,190.45 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 94858 $69.23 COUNTRY CLEAN CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 94859 $27.56 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 94860 $247.80 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94861 $131.30 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE MISCELLANEOUS POLICE 94862 $2,044.80 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94863 $297.45 CY'S UNIFORMS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94864 $20,614.91 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW AND UBAN DEPOSITS ESCROW 94865 $72.62 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 94866 $1,211.00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 94867 $662.94 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY IN CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR PARK MAINTENANCE 94868 $81.87 DAY-TIMER REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 94869 $20.00 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL STREET MAINTENANCE 94870 $1,710.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRACTED COMM MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 94871 $830.70 DEZURIK EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94872 $911.00 DNR EMBROIDERY •AWARDS VOLLEYBALL 94873 $12,000.00 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP BOND ISSUE COSTS $3,390,000 FACILITY BOND-2000 94874 $3,712.94 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94875 $148.53 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 94876 $7,104.30 DRT TRANSPORT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94877 $2,500.00 DS GRIFFEN & ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES 94878. $150.23 DYNA SYSTEMS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94879 $126.74 EARL F ANDERSEN INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 94880 $180.00 EKLUNDS TREE AND BRUSH DISPOSA WASTE DISPOSAL TREE REMOVAL 94881 $626.56 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 94882 $695.19 EMS OTHER EQUIPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94883 $39,040.25 F F JEDLICKI INC t IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS VILLAGE'.KNOLLS DRAINAGE IMPROV 94884 $2,108.55 'FASTENAL COMPANY SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94885 $312.08 THERMOGAS -COMPANY MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA 94886 $2,008.86 FORCE AMERICA EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE . 94887 $1,829.91 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94888 $142.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPA EQUIPMENT PARTS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94889 $9.59 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD EQUIPMENT RENTAL OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE .94890 $285.00 GREENMAN"TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN WASTE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ' 94891 $798.75 H&L MESABI . EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94892 $89.75 HACH COMPANY REPAIR.& MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE . 94893 $400.00 HAMILTON, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BROOMBALL 94894 $295.00 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES FLYING CLOUD FIELDS K15 94895 • $20,360.35. HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE - 94896 $3,327.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CHEMICALS_ WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94897 -$1,651.62 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 94898 $107.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 94899 $2,267.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER - AC . BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 94900 $5,088.25 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 94901 $464.00 HOLMES, TOM ' OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 94902 $842.20 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94903 $120.61 IMAGEMAX INC MICROFILMING SERVICE RECORDS MANAGEMENT 94904 $3,404.03 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS . 94905 $4,508.00 INGRAM EXCAVATING INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS EDEN CROSSING ROADS 94906 $1,165.05 ITRON INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER METER READING 94907 $1,819.14 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET LIGHTING 94908 $3,523.76 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE ' 94909 $527.18 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94910 $164.10 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 94911 $127.79 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 94912 $511.98 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94913 $13,708.73 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION 94914 $138.66 LANO EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94915 $4,550.00 LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COLUMBINE ROAD 94916 $12.00 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 94917 $732.72 LIGHTNING PRINTING PRINTING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 94918 $220.00 MAPLE GROVE, CITY OF RENTALS POLICE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94919 $75.22 MARKS CERTICARE AMOCO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94920 $439.85 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 94921 $614.85 MCNEILUS STEEL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94922 $625.00 MEALS ON WHEELS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 94923 $232.94 MENARDS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 94924 $38.70 METRO FIRE MISC FIRE EQUIPMENT FIRE 94925 $1,890.11 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* " RENTALS GENERAL 94926 $1.00 METROPOLITAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94927 $291.58 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS •OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FINANCE DEPT 94928 $45.35 MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASS PRINTING POLICE 94929 $238.46 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 94930 $1,246.24 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 94931 $1,229.76 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94932 $400.00 MURRAY, JOHN - OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL 94933 $11,969.39 NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP CLOTHING & UNIFORMS PARK MAINTENANCE 94934' $331.80 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 94935 $167.67 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 94936 $83.57 PETSMART CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 94937 $36.06 PITNEY BOWES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 94938 $840.00 PORTER, OMER T. OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FITNESS CLASSES 94939 $927.31 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT RADIO ANTENNA PROJECT 94940 $564.44 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN SMALL TOOLS PARK MAINTENANCE 94941 $378.00 PREUSSER, BRIAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL • 94942 $143.85 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94943 $106.80 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE .GENERAL 94944 $55,122.56 RMR SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER METER REPAIR 94945 $395.00 S/K WELL & PUMP INSPECTIONS CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER WELL #5 94946 $13.02 SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94947 $22.46 SH BARTLETT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE . 94948 $544.00 SHIRTS PLUS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 94949 $899.00 SMITH & WESSON OTHER EQUIPMENT POLICE • 94950 $76.56 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ' 94951 $758.80 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- ADVERTISING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 94952 $77.40 SPS COMPANIES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94953 $243.00 STEWART-HESTER, RENEE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES RECREATION ADMIN ' 94954 $280.00 STRASBURG, JOAN OTHER CONTRACTED, SERVICES BASKETBALL 94955 $2,378.90 STREICHERS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING POLICE 94956 $6,500.42 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES , WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN 94957 $4,167.06 SYSTECH SERVICES COMPUTERS POLICE 94958 $556.65 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94959 $348.11 TESSCO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 94960 $175.48 TIERNEY BROS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 94961 $6,344.10 TIM'S TOWER SERVICE INC. COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT RADIO ANTENNA PROJECT 94962 . $2,323.84 TKDA DESIGN & CONST WELL 14 94963 $633.68 TOTAL REGISTER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 94964 $181.68 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94965 $775.67 TWIN CITY WINDUSTRIAL CO. BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94966 $228.95 TWINCO ROMAX EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94967 $451.56 US FILTER/WATERPRO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 94968 $42.49 US OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 94969 $1,675.00 UTING, BRENDA WAGES NO BENEFITS COMMUNITY BROCHURE 94970 $14,289.14 VALLEY PAVING INC ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINTENANCE 94971 $1,520.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94972 $2,988.39 VESSCO INC BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94973 $77.15 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 9 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 11-JAN-2001 (15 CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 94974 $36.01 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY, THE MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94975 $1,293.55 WARD DIESEL FILTER SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 94976 $936.41 WARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS 94977 $252.50 WARWICK INDUSTRIAL INC. CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94978 $385.21 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE 94979 $182.28 WEST WELD REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94980 $79.36 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94981 $3,243.43 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC SAND SNOW & ICE CONTROL 94982 $2.45 WOLF CAMERA INC • PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE 94983 $261.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 94984 $559.75 X-ERGON REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 94985 $150.80 RESPOND SYSTEMS* SAFETY SUPPLIES RISK MANAGEMENT 94986 • $1,282.50 ZAHN, GERALD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 94987 $62.40 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY SUPPLIES POOL OPERATIONS $618,803.99* ! O CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 01/16/01 SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Anson Rezoning A . Michael D. Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .80 acres. Synopsis This is a rezoning of a single family lot from Rural to R1-13.5 located at 16850 Duck Lake Trail. Background Information No Developer's Agreement is necessary. The Council is requested to take action on the second reading ordinance. Attachments 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change 1 ANSON REZONING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District. Section 3. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of January, 2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of January, 2001. ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on ANSON REZONING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located AT 16850 Duck Lake Trail from the Rural Zoning District to the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) 3 Exhibit A Anson Rezoning Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 5, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the center line of Duck Lake Trail, 331.82 feet Northeasterly from its intersection with the West line of the East 40 rods of Government Lot 4, Section 5, Township 116, Range 22; thence North 265.52 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point on the East line of Government Lot 4, distant 200 feet North from the center line of said Duck Lake Trail; thence South to the center line of said Duck Lake Trail; thence Southwesterly to the point of beginning, except that part taken for road purposes and except the West 100 feet o the above described property. y CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager, Chris Enger First Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 2.22 relating to Boards, l y� Commissions, Citizen Advisory Commissions and Task Forces Requested Action Move to: Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 2.22 relating to Boards, Commissions, Citizen Advisory Commissions and Task Forces. Synopsis The modifications address two issues: 1) allows for the appointment of a Councilmember to a City- sponsored Task Force, and 2) eliminates three consecutive absences of a Board or Commission member as an automatic VACANCY and provides for a process for an advisory body to bring a Board or Commission member's absenteeism to the City Council's attention. Attachments Ordinance CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.2001-08,DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL MEETING DATES, TIME AND LOCATION FOR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED BOARDS & COMMISSIONS IN 2001. BE IT RESOLVED, that changes to the Scheduled Meeting Dates read as follows: Heritage Preservation Commission 3rd Monday—March,July and October meetings will be held at the Cummins House, 13600 Pioneer Trail ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on this 16th day of January, 2001. Jean L Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions January 16,2001 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager, Chris Enger First and Second Readings of an Ordinance Granting Everest Minnesota,LLC, a Cable ,C Television Franchise Requested Action Move to: Approve First and Second Readings of the Ordinance granting a cable television franchise to Everest Minnesota, LLC and adopt Resolution approving Summary for Publication. Synopsis The request for approval of a cable television franchise for Everest Minnesota,LLC, has been part of an advisory process of review by Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and is now ready for official action by the City Council. Brian Grogan, from Moss and Barnett,attorney for Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, is available for comments and questions as well as representatives from the cable company. Background In the spring of 2000,the City of Eden Prairie was approached by two franchise applicants wishing to compete against Time Warner Cable. In response to these requests, Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SSCC), of which Eden Prairie is a member, outlined a franchising process in compliance with Minnesota Statute 238. SSCC prepared model franchising documents including a Notice of Intent to Franchise and an Official Application Form. Each of the five member cities of SSCC published the Notice of Intent to Franchise in their newspaper of general circulation. In response to the notice, applications were received from Everest Connections Corporation(Everest) and WideOpenWest(WOW). On July 18, 2000, the City Council set the Public Hearing to Consider Resolutions Regarding Cable Franchise Applicant Qualifications for September 5, 2000. On August 3, 2000, Brian Grogan and Michael Nixt of Moss &Barnett(SSCC's legal representative) submitted to the City of Eden Prairie reports regarding WOW's and Everest's qualifications. These reports included resolutions for consideration by the City Council at the September 5 public hearing. On August 9, the SSCC passed resolutions regarding WOW and Everest qualifications. At the September 5 Public Hearing, the Council adopted Resolutions regarding findings of fact with respect to Everest's and WOW's proposals for cable communications franchises. Attachments Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance with Everest I 1- City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Everest Minnesota, LLC Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan,Esq. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612)347-0340 Facsimile: (612) 339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission 384413/1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE 1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE 1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS 1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL 2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE 2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 2 6.1 System Design 2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect 2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings 3 6.4 Parental Control Lock 3 6.5 Standby Power 3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions 3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities 5 6.8 Verification of System Construction 5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. 5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 5 7.1 Access Channels 5 7.2 Studio/Facilities 6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access 7 7.4 Regional Channel Six 7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel 7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 15 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 15 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 16 11.1 Payment to City 16 11.2 Bonds 16 11.3 Security Fund 17 SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT 20 SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 20 384413/1 3 SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 24 14.1 Other Franchises 24 14.2 Time of Acceptance;Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits 24 EXHIBITS Exhibit A-Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet A-1 Exhibit B -List of Public Schools and Buildings B-1 Exhibit C—Everest Minnesota,LLC Initial Programming C-1 Exhibit D—Minimum I-Net Performance Standards D-1 Exhibit E- I-Net User Sites E-1 384413/1 • • FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement,made and entered into this day of 2000,by and between the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and Everest Minnesota,LLC. WITNESSETH WHEREAS,Everest Minnesota,LLC has requested that the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct,maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the legal,technical and financial qualifications of Everest Minnesota,LLC and, after a properly noticed public hearing,has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to Everest Minnesota, LLC. NOW,THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota(hereinafter also known as the "City" or"Grantor")hereby grants to Everest Minnesota,LLC (hereinafter the"Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. and this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE Everest Minnesota, LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the"City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to as "this Franchise"or"the Franchise." SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. 384413/1 • SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL • This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on December 31,2015. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE • All notices,reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230 If to Grantee: Everest Minnesota, LLC 5555 Winghaven Boulevard O'Fallon, MO 63366 Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax(HFC) System to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's System will be designed to support a,forward bandwidth of 50MHz- 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of 5MHz—40 MHZ. As designed, the System will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The System shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within thirty-six(36)months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. • 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its"nodes"near schools where possible,without(in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. • 384413/1 4 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings • 1. The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service,the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter,if needed,to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System,the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service(Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. • 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide,for sale or lease, to Subscribers,upon request, a parental control locking device. 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions The City may request a State-of-the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In 384413/1 1 conducting a State-of-the-Art review,the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum,take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of-the-Art; - 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term"State-of-the-Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including,but not necessarily limited to,population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.)under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of-the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the City may not undertake a State-of-the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. • 3844I3/1Q 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers,or upon timely request by the City,underground lines and conduit,for City wires,fixtures, or City utilities,whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities by the Grantee or any other communication company. The City must pay for any added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may,in its sole discretion,retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8,up to a cap not to exceed$15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not already covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. • SECTION 7. - PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 7.1 Access Channels • A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government(PEG) Access Channels(the"Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access, one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access,and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System,reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel. C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come,nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least 384413/1 • one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday),for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield("Member Cities") at a location within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown,the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable • equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded • programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and 384413/1 / O 6 playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the PEG access facility. D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System,but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than$200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a)labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses; (f) equipment maintenance; (g)technical support; and(h)replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on • the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and programming. 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network,this independent,noncommercial,nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; • B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; 3844I3/1 f C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1 Institutional Network Facilities and Capacity; Cost Recovery by Grantee. A. The Grantee shall construct an institutional network which at the outset,consists of the following infrastructure: (i)bi-directional minimum six(6) count fiber optic lines in a ring and/or a star architecture to the locations within the franchise area as listed in Exhibit E("I-Net User Sites") as designated as primary sites by the City, (ii)bi-directional fiber optic lines in a star architecture from certain primary sites to certain secondary sites, as designated by the City and in a minimum quantity consisting of a four(4) count fiber per site and(iii) a minimum of a two(2)count HFC network per node to certain other secondary sites, as designated by the City. Within the first twelve(12)months from the effective date of this franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee,with a complete,detailed design and cost estimate for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety(90)days thereafter,the City, or its designee, shall work with I-Net users to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final architecture, site designation, fiber count of(i),(ii),(iii) subject to City or designee approval. Grantee shall not begin construction of the System prior to completion of the final I-Net design. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction, so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City,the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction within twenty-one(21)months from the effective date of this franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The institutional network shall have the infrastructure(and,where noted,the equipment)that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. B. I-Net Users may not sell or resell services or capacity to any third party. However,I-Net Users may provide services to themselves,including those which ' the Grantee otherwise sells to others(for example, an institution may provide Internet service to itself or to other institutions that the Grantee sells to others). The limitations of this paragraph shall not prevent the City, or its designee,from • subleasing,bartering, selling,reselling or giving away capacity on the Institutional Network to any other public or nonprofit entity for noncommercial 384413/1 Ii �PN . purposes that do not directly compete with any products or services offered by the Grantee. - C. The City or the institutions listed on Exhibit E("I-Net Users") shall be responsible for reimbursing Grantee for its Actual Cost of constructing and maintaining all portions of the I-Net required by this Section 8. The institutions listed in Exhibit E(the"I-Net Users") shall not be charged by the Grantee for usage of the Institutional Network. The City or other I-Net users may elect to pay the Actual Cost of the I-Net on a monthly basis, appropriately amortized over the life of the franchise. The terms and conditions of such payment option will be reflected in an I-Net service agreement to be developed prior to construction of the I-Net. Such terms and conditions must be in accordance with the other provisions of this section and associated exhibits. If future I-Net sites are identified and activated under Section 8.3 below, Grantee shall submit an invoice for those construction costs in a manner similar to submission of the initial construction costs of the I-Net. D. "Actual Cost", as used in this section,means the incremental cost to the Grantee of materials and capitalized labor necessary to install and construct fiber optic lines, coaxial cable, and/or equipment together with any permitted return on investment authorized by the FCC. E. Except as provided in this Section 8,I-Net Users connected to the I-Net via fiber or HFC shall be responsible for any end-user or interface equipment needed for transmission or reception of signals. However, Grantee shall provide at no charge, upon request and at the time necessary for use,modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution and city hall, as approved by the City or its designee. With respect to non-video end-user equipment,upon request by a designated institution, Grantee must either lease the equipment requested to the requesting institution or make reasonable efforts to arrange for the lease of such equipment. Within 30 days of a written request, Grantee must notify the requesting institution in writing of its ability or.inability to lease the requested equipment and the terms of such lease. If requested by City, Grantee shall serve as purchasing agent for City allowing City the benefit of Grantee's purchasing power and Grantee shall at all times provide City with any requested assistance regarding the appropriate type of equipment. City, its designee, or the requesting institution may,however,purchase or lease the equipment from any vendor. F. All I-Net Users shall be connected via fiber optic lines or a combination of fiber optics and coaxial cable as determined by the City to a hub located within the System. The I-Net architecture shall facilitate transmission of all required signals within City boundaries,transmission of signals beyond City boundaries within the • franchise area, and transmission of signals to other networks in the Twin Cities area. The Grantee shall provide and install all equipment and infrastructure 384413/1 /3 necessary,which is reimbursable to Grantee under same terms and conditions set forth in Section 8.1(C),to achieve the required level of interconnection with other Twin Cities area I-Nets provided by Grantee. Specifically,this includes,but is not limited to,interconnecting the I-Net with I-Nets that have been or may be constructed in adjacent systems. Grantee shall also work with the City to establish interconnects with the Connecting Minnesota Network. G. I-Net equipment at the hub(s) shall be connected to a gas powered generator capable of providing continuous electrical power, or equivalent, and to an uninterruptible power supply that both conditions commercial power and provides for zero transfer time between normal commercial power and hub back-up generators. 8.2 Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial Portions of the Institutional Network. A. The hybrid fiber-coaxial("HFC")portion of the I-Net shall provide 450 MHZ of activated capacity(5-42 MHZ for upstream channels and 54-450 MHZ for downstream channels)to the HFC I-Net Sites. The HFC I-Net shall have fiber introduced into it to limit amplifier cascades to no more than five(5). B. All I-Net distribution system power supplies shall have the standby capability of providing at least three(3)hours of backup power and shall have status monitoring installed in them. Prior to battery failure,the Grantee shall connect I- Net Node power supplies to portable generators capable of producing adequate electrical current until commercial power is restored. 8.3 Future Fiber to the Institution Requirements. A. The City, or its designee,may identify certain I-Net sites that will not be activated at the time the initial I-Net is activated. So long as such sites are located on the I- Net User Sites List, Grantee agrees to include splice points and splice point housings on those portions of the system where additional fiber will need to be deployed or additional connections will need to be made. Upon notification from the City,the Grantee will provide cost estimates within ninety(90) days of a request by the Grantor for I-Net extension to the additional sites. B. The City, or its designee,may also identify sites following completion and activation of the I-Net. Estimated costs for serving those sites will be provided within ninety(90) days of notification by the City. If an extension of the I-Net is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty(120) days from the initial request. The fiber-optic lines required by Section 8 shall be passively terminated to standard connectors at the patch panel of the telephone equipment room of each site or at another designated location. • 384413/1 '9 8.4 Grantee's Use of I-Net Capacity. The I-Net shall be for the exclusive use of the City and I-Net Users throughout the term of the Franchise, or any renewal or extension thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Grantee may use capacity on the I-Net,including for lease or other commercial purposes, provided that the City and I-Net Users are not using such capacity and further provided that the Grantee's use does not interfere with use of the I-Net by the City or I-Net Users. Upon receiving oral or written notice from the City,the Grantee or a lessee shall immediately cease using the I-Net for any purpose that the City, in its sole discretion, determines is interfering with I-Net Users' communications. The Grantee or a lessee may appeal any determination of City concerning I-Net interference to the City within ten(10) days of the date that the requisite notice is received by the Grantee. Any such appeal shall: (i)be in writing; (ii) list the reasons that the City's determination regarding interference with I-Net Users' communications is incorrect; and(iii) include any other information the Grantee or a Lessee wishes the City to consider. Within forty-five(45) calendar days of receiving a written appeal under this paragraph, the City shall: (i) determine whether the City's conclusion that the Grantee or lessee was interfering with I- Net Users' communications was justified; and(ii)inform the Grantee or lessee in writing of its findings. This provision shall not limit any other appeal rights of Grantee. Use of the I-Net by the City and I-Net Users shall, at all times,have priority over any use(s)by the Grantee or any lessee. The Grantee or a lessee shall terminate its use of any channel capacity on the I-Net within six (6)months after receiving notice from the City that the City or any I-Net User has determined to use such capacity. Any agreement entered into by the Grantee and a third party for the lease of I-Net capacity shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise. 8.5 I-Net Performance Standards. A. The Grantee shall maintain the I-Net in accordance with technical and performance standards set forth in Exhibit D (Minimum I-Net Performance Standards). The Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee,upon request, with reports of the performance of the I-Net and the Grantee's compliance with the aforementioned technical and performance standards. B. If at any time,the performance of the I-Net is not in compliance with pertinent technical and performance standards, and continues to be in non-compliance for a period of fifteen(15) days after notice and opportunity to correct is given to Grantee, then affected City or other I-Net Users may cease payment until the non- compliance situation is resolved. C. City or I-Net Users may ultimately terminate their use of and payment for I-Net infrastructure based on repeated, demonstrated non-performance or non- compliance by Grantee with the terms of this Section 8 and the associated Exhibits, after giving Grantee notice and opportunity to correct the problem • causing non-performance or non-compliance. Grantee will also be liable for all other applicable non-compliance penalties contained in the Franchise. 384413/1 8.6 Completion of the Institutional Network. A. Construction of the Institutional Network pursuant to this Section 8 shall be deemed completed upon satisfaction of the following: B. The Grantee shall notify the City, or its designee,in writing at least ten(10) days in advance of completion of construction of each I-Net Node, I-Net site on the ring,I-Net star connection, and HFC end-of-line. The notice shall include the date the Grantee is prepared to conduct an OTDR test at 1550 nm and 1310 nrn end-to-end,RF noise, distortion and peak-to-valley tests according to FCC rules, • NCTA Recommended Practices and other acceptable test methodologies and other applicable tests. The City, or its designee, shall have the option of attending any test conducted pursuant to this paragraph. All tests must be successfully completed. The fiber optic test shall be deemed successfully completed if the optical performance standards in Exhibit D are met or bettered. The coaxial tests shall also be deemed successfully completed if the specifications detailed in Exhibit D are met or exceeded. C. The City,or its designee, shall also have the option of conducting a physical inspection of the construction and connections to each I-Net site and each I-Net Node. This inspection shall be conducted no later than the date of the test in Paragraph A. D. After completing installation to each I-Net site or each I-Net Node,the Grantee shall provide the following documentation to the City, or its designee,: splice locations,panel numbers, cable numbering schemes, location of splitters, location of all RF actives and passives, OTDR,other optical,RF and coaxial test results and documentation, and any other pertinent documentation. 8.7 Institutional Network Security. The Grantee and the City shall at all times use reasonable efforts to protect the security of the Institutional Network. For purposes of this paragraph, "to protect security"means to protect those physical elements of the Institutional Network under the party's direct control from unauthorized intrusion, signal theft,tampering,wiretapping or other actions that might: (i) compromise the integrity of or degrade the signals carried over the Institutional Network; or(ii)result in the unauthorized interception and disclosure of information. Grantee's hub site shall be made available,upon request, for placement and operation of end user supplied equipment. 8.8 Institutional Network Repair and Maintenance. A. The Grantee shall maintain,repair,reconstruct and, as necessary,replace the fiber optic or HFC portions of the I-Net and shall recover the Actual Cost for such activities from the City and I-Net Users, as set forth in Section 8.1. 384413/1 B. The Grantee shall maintain,repair,reconstruct, and, as necessary,replace portions of the Institutional Network plant, as described in subsection(i) and(ii)below, during the term of this Franchise or any extension thereof: 1. Preventative and routine maintenance of the I-Net shall be performed in the same timeframe and in the same fashion as routine and preventative maintenance are performed for the Grantee's subscriber network. Actual or potential problems discovered during the course of preventative and routine maintenance shall be immediately reported to the City. After informing the City of an actual or potential problem,the Grantee shall, within a reasonable period of time,prepare and transmit a report to the City describing the corrective action,if any,that was or will be taken. 2. Within sixty(60)minutes of receiving notice or otherwise learning of a maintenance or repair problem,the Grantee's technicians shall begin actively working on the problem. The Grantee shall work on the problem continuously until it is resolved.Notwithstanding the above,the Grantee shail`meet the network availability standard described in Exhibit D for each site on the I-Net. 8.9 Institutional Network Ownership. .The I-Net is a dedicated transmission path owned and maintained by the Grantee and governed by this Agreement. The obligations for provision of the I-Net will convey to all successors and assigns. If at any time,the I-Net is considered abandoned as such is defined in this Franchise,ownership shall convey to the City at the City's discretion. The City and the sites to which infrastructure is provided via the I-Net will use the I-Net in accordance with the limitations of this Franchise. 8.10 In lieu of the design options described in Sections 8.1(A) and 8.2(A),the Grantee may provide an institutional network in compliance with this Section 8.10 as follows: A. A minimum of one pair(two (2) dark fibers) of single-mode fiber optic cable to each of the buildings in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt of such infrastructure, and broadband data-over-cable connections to the buildings listed in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt of data-over-cable services. The City may designate certain sites to receive an additional or two additional pairs of fiber(for a total of 4 or 6 fibers)for which the City or pertinent I-Net User, as determined by the City, shall pay the incremental cost. Specifically,the I-Net shall be of a Star,Ring or point-to-point configuration extending along pathways from the I-Net hub(s)to the I-Net User Sites, as determined by the City, serving public buildings,including,but not limited to,the municipal buildings,K-12 public and private non-profit schools, college(s) and library(s) listed in Exhibit E. Additionally, the City may subsequently designate • new facilities or locations to be connected to the I-Net. 384413/1 1 B. Concerning the broadband data-over-cable HFC connections, Grantee shall provide such connections to the facilities in Exhibit E as determined by the City. The broadband data-over-cable HFC connections may be enabled by a separate part of the residential subscriber cable system upstream and downstream spectrum, as determined by the City. Grantee shall provide all necessary Cable Modem Termination System(CMTS) equipment,routers, switches, translators, ' hardware, software and other network components, such that each broadband data-over-cable system connection provides an aggregate data rate of at least three (3)MBPS in a downstream direction and an aggregate data rate of at least three (3)MBPS in an upstream direction at each site connected. The broadband data- ' over-cable system shall also enable the City, School District and other I-Net User organization locations to develop separate Virtual Private Networks (VPNS)that shall connect back to the respective City, School District or other organization's data center. Each broadband data-over-cable system connection shall also enable multiple IP addresses and MAC addresses to be facilitated at each site. Grantee shall provide the number of cable modems required by the I-Net user at each HFC location. Grantee shall monitor the bandwidth usage of its data network to ensure available bandwidth for residential customers and I-Net Users. When I-Net Users cannot achieve the minimum rates specified above at least 90%of the time, or otherwise do not have sufficient bandwidth to support their data communications requirements (as determined by the I-Net User), the Grantee's engineering team will determine from where the traffic is originating,what kind of traffic is being transmitted and the best approach to add capacity. Upon approval of the approach by the City, additional capacity shall then be added to the network which may include provision of a separate bandwidth upstream and downstream for the I-Net users that would enable I-Net Users to achieve at least the minimum data rates specified above. A schedule will be generated to add capacity to the network; and,the additional capacity shall be completed and made available within 90 days from an I-Net User request. C. The City may identify HFC I-Net sites following completion and activation of the I-Net. Estimated cost for serving those sites will be provided within ninety(90) days of notification by the City. If an extension of the HFC system is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty (120) days from the initial request. D. The data-over-cable system connections shall be installed complete with all necessary DOCSIS-compliant(latest version) cable modems at pre-determined demarcation points chosen by the I-Net User. As part of the standard installation, coaxial cable shall be run to each designated building to the demarcation points. 8.11 Design Within the first twelve(12)months from the effective date of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee,with a complete detailed design and cost estimate • for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety(90) days thereafter,the City, 384413/1 if 1 or its designee, shall work with I-Net Users to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final architecture, site designation and fiber count are subject to City or designee approval. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction, so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City,the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction within twenty-one (21)months from the effective date of this Franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The Institutional Network shall have the infrastructure (and,where noted,the equipment) . that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall,upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties,but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random _ survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2)response to customer complaints; (3)billing practices; (4)programming; and(5)Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base. 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall,within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who may be interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384413/1 11 whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent(5%) of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount,nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of$300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation,there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the full amount of any • compensation,indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee,including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate),up to the full amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by 384413/1 �0 Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any,public property, and taxes due to City,which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. Upon completion of the System as described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of$100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. • C. City may, in its sole discretion,reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance,the Grantee shall within ten(10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security.Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders,permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security may be terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required,the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require the establishment of that fund and may recover its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of$2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign,pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security for any purpose. C. Within ten(10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A)of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384413/1 T aI Franchise in particular Section 11(G)herein, City in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: 1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with • Section 6.1 hereof,unless City approves the delay,the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents,reports or information or to cooperate with City during an Application process or System review,the penalty shall be$50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be$50.00 per day for each . day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to,the implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City,the penalty shall be$100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or • continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a • violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. • 384413/1 F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty(30)days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security,the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may,within 10 days of receipt of notice,notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has,in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of the above-described time. 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City,then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation may be extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform,provided Grantee commences corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence, as determined by the City,to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. 384413/1 YID. 3 I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced,City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds,without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations,duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto,including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City,be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default,shall not be a waiver . or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages,monies or penalties from the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure to act,by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or • otherwise. SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line(i.e.high-speed cable modem services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie,Edina,Minnetonka,Hopkins and Richfield,Minnesota,the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise. • 13.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For purposes of this subsection,a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal,which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires,cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384413/1 �� Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s)wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City,shall be void as to Grantee,subject to the following requirements: A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or • substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City,the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues,the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level,but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise,but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity,then Grantee shall pay the same fee,but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota,then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels,the City shall,upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise,reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels,but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise,but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels,or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels,then the City shall reduce • the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: 384413/1 (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public,educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25%or more but less than 50%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three public,educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50%or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public,educational and governmental Access Channel. If at any time,a wired competitor provides channels for public, educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to • provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee,the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise,including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules,but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities,then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield,Grantee shall continue to provide the • • same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384413/1 ,.} (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield,the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds, equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision,the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield,the City shall not require Grantee to meet the Franchise provision. 384413/1 If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. • If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor,it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a"wired competitor"as defined above;it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days,the City shall: (1)pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2)declare why the entity in question . is not a wired competitor; or(3) state that the"wired competitor"is subject to a • requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process,the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process • that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee,the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement,including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City,may be part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie,Edina,Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. B. Grantee will,in good faith, apply for and accept,if offered to it, a Franchise(similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance;Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City by . Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. 384413/1 B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. , also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety(90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA By City Clerk Its: (SEAL) EVEREST MINNESOTA,LLC By Its: (Corporate Seal) 384413/1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , by ,the of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , by , the of Everest Minnesota, LLC, on behalf of the company. Notary Public 384413/1 2 0 EDIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Percentages Based on Revenue&Bad - Total Revenue Debt Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Payment Basic 0 Eden Prairie 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Outlets 0 Edina 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment Rent 0 Hopkins 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay TV 0 Minnetonka 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay Per Event 0 Richfield 0% 0 • 0 0 0 0 Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE% 0 TOTAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 • 384413/1 EXHIBIT B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Central Kindergarten Center 8100 School Road Forest Hills Elementary - 13708 Holly Road Prairie View Elementary 17255 Petersborg Road Cedar Ridge Elementary 8905 Braxton Drive Eden Lake Elementary 12000 Anderson Lakes Parkway Oak Point Intermediate School 13400 Staring Lake Parkway Central Middle School 8025 School Road Eden Prairie High School 17185 Valley View Road Education Center 8040 Mitchell Road School District Admin Bldg 8100 School Road School Transportation/Grounds Bldg 8055 Wallace Road PUBLIC BUILDINGS Eden Prairie Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie Liquor Store 1 16502 W. 78th Street Eden Prairie Liquor Store 2 8018 Den Road Eden Prairie Liquor Store 3 950 Prairie Center Drive Parks Maintenance Facility 15150 Technology Drive Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Senior Center 8950,Eden Praiire Road Outdoor Center 13765 Staring Lake Parkway Environmental Learning Center 14100 Technology Drive Cummins-Grill Homestead 13600 Pioneer Trail Douglas/More Homestead Historic Site 8107 Eden Prairie Road Riley/Jacques Farm Historic Site 9100 Riley Lake Road Edenvale Park 7300 Edenvale Blvd. Homeward Hills Park 12000 Silverwood Drive Nesbitt Preserve Park 8641 Center Way Prairie View Park 17255 Petersborg Road Miller Park 8405 Shoreline Drive Round Lake Park 7550 Constitution Avenue Staring Lake Park 14800 Prairie Trail Baker Road Reservoir 6341 Baker Road Hidden Ponds Reservoir 7401 Dell Road Marketcenter Reservoir 12190 Singletree Lane Well No. 2 7955 Mitchell Road Well No. 3 7599 Mitchell Road Well No. 4 14522 Martin Drive Well No. 5 7569 Corporate Way Well No. 6 14900 Valley View Road 384413/1 3 Well No. 7 15580 Valley View Road Well No. 8 7200 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 9 _ 6975 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 10 6910 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 11 15160 Technology Drive Well No. 12 8090 Mitchell Road Well No. 13 7940 Wallace Road Well No. 14 14550 Lone Oak Road 384413/1 33 EXHIBIT C EVEREST NIINNESOTA,LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety(90)days prior to System activation 384413/1 „am `m y EXHIBIT D MINIMUM I-NET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Signal Quality The Institutional Network shall achieve the performance standards listed below,where applicable for fiber and/or fiber/ITFC-based transmissions,under worst-case conditions for communications occurring between: • Any institution to any institution • Any institution to hub or headend and vice versa • Any institution to any subscriber and vice versa For Institutional Communications Incorporating HFC Infrastructure • Noise and Distortion Performance—Under worst-case channel loading (including both analog and digital signals), the combined upstream and downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Carrier to noise ratio=45 dB or better - Carrier to composite triple beat=55 dB or better - Carrier to second order distortion=55 dB or better - Carrier to cross modulation=55 dB or better • Data Communications—For any data communications link on the network,the Network shall provide the capability for a Bit Error Rate (BER)to be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9, except where the • link is 50%or more coaxial cable,the BER shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 8. This standard shall be met or exceeded under Normal Operating Conditions. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. • Network Availability—For each user of services on the network,network availability shall be equal to or better than 99.965% (no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. • Signal Level Variation—The worst-case signal level variation(peak to valley) shall be better than or equal to N/10+2(where"N" equals the number of RF amplifiers in cascade from the HFC node). For End-to-End Fiber-Based Institutional Communications • Optical System Noise Performance—Under worst-case link loss as measured for any voice,video or data service, the combined upstream and 384413/1 'f- .35 downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Signal to noise equals 60 dB or better for links that utilize Grantee supplied equipment. For all other links,the network shall be capable of providing a signal to noise of 60 dB or better,dependent upon end-user equipment. • Optical Received Power Level at the Institution For all links that utilize Grantee-supplied equipment,the optical power level for any service delivered to the designated demarcation point at each I-Net user location shall meet or be better than 0 dBm and shall,in all cases, enable operation within the equipment manufacturer's minimum specifications. For all other links on the network,I-Net users shall be able to satisfactorily employ non-custom network transmission and reception equipment, and the I-Net shall enable operation within the manufacturer's minimum specifications for such equipment. • Network Availability—For each user on the network, network availability on the backbone or for fully redundant,diverse path connections from hubs to user sites, shall be equal to or better than 99.99% (no more than 53 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. For each user on the network,network availability for standard connections from the hub to the user site shall be equal to or better than 99.965%(no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user)as measured on annual basis. For purposes of this Exhibit D,the network shall be defined as"unavailable"under the standards herein for any given user when such user: a. Cannot,because of a network problem,measured by SNMP software or other appropriate software and associated hardware, or through a failure of a Grantee- provided interconnect,transmit video,voice and/or data communications to,from, and/or on the network. Such problems shall be the result of a failure of one or more of the following: 1)the fiber optic cabling, connections and transmission equipment on the network and/or the coaxial cabling,connections and RF transmission equipment on the network; 2)the transmission equipment at Grantee's headend; 3)the transmission and network equipment at the customer's premise(if such equipment is provided by Grantee); 4)network powering systems; 5)the network equipment, connections and cabling,network management,hardware and software,and related equipment provided by Grantee at Grantee's headend; and/or 6) any other Grantee-provided transmission or network component; and or, • b. Experiences, due to a network problem,video,voice and data transmissions that are below the standards set forth in this Franchise and/or this Exhibit; and/or, 384413/1 D/S, c. Experiences,due to a network problem, a data communication packet loss of greater than ten percent(10%). For purposes of this availability standard,network problems shall not be defined as: infrequent scheduled preventative maintenance as long as I-Net users are notified well in advance,according to the provisions of the Franchise. Except as • otherwise provided for herein,network availability is subject to the force majeure provisions of the Franchise and those conditions which are not within the control of the Grantee. • Network downtime shall include,but not be limited to,network failures caused by: third party actions;commercial power outages of a typical,non-catastrophic nature; and power failures and other disturbances caused by weather occurrences typical to the Twin Cities area. Grantee shall comply with the requirements of Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair to restore service following any of these occurrences. Grantee will give the City and affected I-Net users notice in the event of any of the foregoing occurrences. • Data Communications—For any data communications link on the network,the Bit Error Rate(BER) shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9. This standard shall be met or exceeded under.Normal • Operating Conditions. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. Service Response Network Maintenance—Grantee shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and performance of the I-Net from the demarcation point within a facility through the network, including the I-Net headend. Routine and preventive maintenance shall be performed continually on the network to ensure that it meets all performance criteria detailed herein. Specific Performance Oversight Responsibilities of the Grantee will include: (1) Monitoring the operation of the fiber based transport backbone in conjunction with I-Net users; (2) Performance and fault monitoring of the transport backbone and distribution system in accordance with same terms and conditions referenced in Section 8.1(C); (3) Monitoring of selected parameters and tables to allow for early identification of potential service problems; (4) Monitoring and analyzing I-Net performance; and (5) Logging and reporting,as required,of data gathered from above monitoring activities. 384413/1 Pe Preventive Maintenance/Service Interruptions—I-Net users will be notified at least seven days in advance of any scheduled maintenance that may interrupt service on the I-Net, unless I-Net users agree to waive such time frame. Where possible, such maintenance will be scheduled at times of low usage. Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair—Response to all network problems shall occur at all hours (24 x 365). Specifically,when Grantee receives a trouble call or alarm, either by internal monitoring or by City,the Grantee's Network Operations Center will ensure that appropriate technical support shall respond within 10 minutes after receiving a call related to a network problem(under Normal Operating Conditions the initial page to the technician on call for I-Net problems will be within the'10 minute time frame). The Grantee shall then work continuously until the problem is resolved. Network Support—Grantee shall provide an appropriate complement of administrative,headend and field personnel at all times to meet the performance criteria detailed herein. Service Call Processing and Tracking—Grantee will establish mechanisms and procedures for all I-Net users to quickly and easily report System problems. All trouble or service calls will be documented,processed, and completed in an expedient manner. Documentation will include monthly I-Net service call reports, as required,which will include a breakdown of reasons and resolutions as well as call handling efficiency. Notwithstanding the staffing,testing and equipment and response requirements set forth herein,the Grantee will provide the in-house and/or contractor staff, spare and back-up equipment,test and maintenance equipment and additional steps necessary to ensure that the network performs reliably in accordance with all standards detailed herein. Network Performance Testing Proof of Performance—Proof of performance testing will be conducted on the I-Net two (2) times per year at the same time residential subscriber system testing is performed during the months of January/February and July/August. Several geographically diverse I-Net test point locations for each ring and an additional test point per node will be established which are representative of worst-case performance for the area. Testing shall be completed at the mutually agreed upon entry demarcation point at the institution. All active channels upstream and downstream shall be tested afeach test point location. If the testing will subject such channels to service interruptions, Grantee will work with Users to schedule the testing so as to minimize its impact upon the Users. Testing shall be performed to ensure compliance with all the network performance specifications included in this Appendix and applicable Service Agreements. Tests shall be performed using standard test methodologies, as mutually agreed to by the City and Grantee. Power Supply Inspections—All network power supplies and back-up devices will be continuously status monitored and manually inspected at least twice per year,which will include the following checks and tests: 384413/1 _DA 3 • Full load transfer-and runtime test • Battery condition and maintenance check, including replacement if required • Status monitoring functional test I-Net User Location Performance Testing—All network performance specifications shall be met at each I-Net user location, and the network shall at all times enable I-Net user video,voice and data communications to be successfully transmitted in accordance with the reliability and availability standards incorporated herein. Grantee shall schedule with each user such testing as required to ensure successful network performance at each I-Net user location. Physical Network Characteristics—The physical and electrical configuration of the I-Net will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Inspections of all cable runs and components will be made by Grantee during the I-Net construction process to ensure the integrity of the network and Grantee shall keep records thereof. • Performance Documentation—All tests and checks will be documented and, upon request, filed with the City. At the City's request, all testing processes may be conducted under the observation of a representative from the City. • All network performance standards herein relate to Grantee-supplied transmission and network, facilities, infrastructure, equipment and other components. • 384413/1 D� � I, EXIT E I-NET USER SITES [to include all schools and public buildings located within each member city] 384413/1 go CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-2001 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2-2001 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 16th day of January, 2001; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: A. Ordinance No. 2-2001 is lengthy and/or contains charts. B. The text of the summary of Ordinance No. 4-2001, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices. E. Ordinance No. 2-2001 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof of publication,within twenty(20) days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on January 16, 2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk -I � CITY OF EDEN PR A1RIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3-2001 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC, ("GRANTEE" OR"WIDEOPENWEST ") TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN. On January 16, 2001, the City of Eden Prairie ("City") adopted a Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance for WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. The Ordinance serves two purposes. First, it is intended to provide for and specify the means to attain the best possible cable television service for the public by providing requirements for cable television with respect to technical standards, customer service obligations, and related matters. Second, it grants a non- exclusive cable television franchise agreement to WideOpenWest to operate, construct and maintain a cable television system within the City and contains specific requirements for WideOpenWest to do so. The Ordinance includes the following: 1) requires WideOpenWest to construct and maintain an 860 MHz capacity cable system; 2) imposes a franchise fee of five percent (5%) of annual gross revenues; 3) establishes a franchise term which will expire on or about January 2012; 4) requires the provision of service to new developments making channels available for public, educational and governmental programming with WideOpenWest to provide support of such programming through the term of the franchise; 5) requires an institutional network which will serve all schools and public buildings within the City consisting of two fibers which will be completely paid by WideOpenWest; and 6) requires a forty-eight (48) month construction schedule. It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Ordinance 3-2001. A copy of the entire Ordinance shall be available at the Eden Prairie City Hall. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of January, 2001, and fmally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of January,2001. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 392236/1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions January 16,2001 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager, Chris Enger First and Second Readings of an Ordinance Granting WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC, a Cable Television Franchise Requested Action Move to: Approve First and Second Readings of the Ordinance granting a cable television franchise to WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC, and adopt Resolution approving Summary for Publication. Synopsis The request for approval of a cable television franchise for WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC, has been part of an advisory process of review by Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and is now ready for official action by the City Council. Brian Grogan, from Moss and Barnett, attorney for Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, is available for comments and questions as well as representatives from the cable company. Background In the spring of 2000,the City of Eden Prairie was approached by two franchise applicants wishing to compete against Time Warner Cable. In response to these requests, Southwest Suburban Cable Commission(SSCC), of which Eden Prairie is a member, outlined a franchising process in compliance with Minnesota Statute 238. SSCC prepared model franchising documents including a Notice of Intent to Franchise and an Official Application Form. Each of the five member cities of SSCC published the Notice of Intent to Franchise in their newspaper of general circulation. In response to the notice, applications were received from Everest Connections Corporation(Everest) and WideOpenWest(WOW). On July 18, 2000, the City Council set the Public Hearing to Consider Resolutions Regarding Cable Franchise Applicant Qualifications for September 5, 2000. On August 3, 2000, Brian Grogan and Michael Nixt of Moss &Barnett (SSCC's legal representative) submitted to the City of Eden Prairie reports regarding WOW's and Everest's qualifications. These reports included resolutions for consideration by the City Council at the September 5 public hearing. On August 9, the SSCC passed resolutions regarding WOW and Everest qualifications. At the September 5 Public Hearing, the Council adopted Resolutions regarding findings of fact with respect to Everest's and WOW's proposals for cable communications franchises. Attachments Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance with WideOpenWest City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan,Esq. MOSS&BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612)347-0340 Facsimile: (612)339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission 384412/1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE 1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE 1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS 1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL 2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE 2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 2 6.1 System Design 2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect 2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings 3 6.4 Parental Control Lock 3 6.5 Standby Power 3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions 3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities 4 6.8 Verification of System Construction 5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. 5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 5 7.1 Access Channels 5 7.2 Studio/Facilities 6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access 7 7.4 Regional Channel Six 7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel 7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8 8.1. General 8 8.2 Design. 8 8.3 Usage Fee. 8 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity. 9 8.5 Equipment Responsibility. 9 8.6 I-Net Agreement. 9 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 10 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11 11.1 Payment to City 11 • 11.2 Bonds 11 11.3 Security Fund 12 384412/1 3 SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT 15 SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 15 SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 19 14.1 Other Franchises 19 14.2 Time of Acceptance;Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits 19 EXHIBITS Exhibit A—Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet A-1 Exhibit B—List of Public Schools and Buildings B-1 Exhibit C-WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC Initial Programming C-1 384412/1 1 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement,made and entered into this day of ,2000,by and between the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC. WITNESSETH WHEREAS,WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC has requested that the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS,the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate,construct,maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS,the City reviewed the legal,technical and financial qualifications of WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC and,after a properly noticed public hearing,has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota(hereinafter also known as the "City"or"Grantor")hereby grants to WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC(hereinafter the "Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. and this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the"City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to as "this Franchise"or"the Franchise." SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. 384412/1 5 SECTION 4. EI ThCTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on January 1,2012. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE All notices,reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344-2230 If to Grantee: WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Two Carlson Parkway, Suite 350 Plymouth,MN 55447 Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax(HFC) system to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's system will be designed to support a forward bandwidth of 50MHz- 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of 5MHz—40 MHZ. As designed, the system will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The system shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within forty-eight(48)months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its"nodes"near schools where possible,without(in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. • • 384412/1 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings 1. The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service,the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, if needed,to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System,the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service(Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease,to Subscribers,upon request, a parental control locking device. 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions • The City may request a State-of-the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In 384412/I • conducting a State-of-the-Art review,the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum,take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of-the-Art; 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term"State-of-the-Art"shall mean equipment or facilities that: 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to,population, density, Subscriber penetration,etc.)under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of-the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the City may not undertake a State-of-the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers, or upon timely request by the City,underground lines and conduit, for-City wires, fixtures, or City utilities,whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities by the Grantee or any other communication company. The City must pay for any added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. 384412/1 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may,in its sole discretion,retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8,up to a cap not to exceed$15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not already covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. SECTION 7. PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 7.1 Access Channels A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government(PEG) Access Channels(the"Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access,one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access, and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System,reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel. C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come,nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday),for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running,and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then 384412/1 ci have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels • without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie,Edina, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield("Member Cities") at a location • within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access,production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown,the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for.public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the PEG access facility. 384412/1 (0 D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System,but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than$200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins,Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers'bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a)labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c)facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses; (f) equipment maintenance; (g)technical support; and(h)replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production • and programming. 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has . been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network,this independent,noncommercial,nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and • E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by 384412/1 Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1. General. A. Grantee shall provide Grantor an Institutional Network("I-Net")in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Section 8 and an agreement("I-Net Agreement") entered into between Grantor and • Grantee. B. Grantee shall build and maintain an I-Net consisting of one pair(two (2) dark fibers)of single-mode fiber optic cable. The I-Net will be of a Star or point-to-point configuration serving the I-Net user sites listed in Exhibit B of the Franchise. The I-Net user sites(as designated in Exhibit B), and any new public facilities constructed during the term of the Franchise Agreement,will be connected to the Grantee's hub site and an umbilical fiber cable which will be connected to the central hub site serving the Franchise Area. The I-Net fibers will be part of the Grantee's subscriber network maintained at the same level as the Grantee's active subscriber network. C. The I-Net will be connected, in the I-Net user sites, at a pre-determined demarcation point chosen by the Grantor,with a rack or equivalent device installed to mount to Grantee's fiber optics connectors and patch panel. Fiber will be run to each designated building in conduit with locator tape as part of the standard installation. D. Grantee will provide professional engineering and consulting for the design and use of the I-Net. 8.2 Design. Within no more than three (3)months after the effective date of the Franchise Agreement, Grantee and its network consultants will provide a Design of the I- Net capacity requested by Grantor. The Design shall include the following: (i) a walkout of the I-Net user sites to which I-Net capacity will be provided; (ii) a detailed network design; (iii) a breakdown of all material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide I-Net capacity and(iv) any material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide inter-City Connections as set forth in Section 8.7 hereof. Upon receipt of the Design, Grantor shall have one (1)month to enter into an I-Net Agreement. 8.3 Usage Fee. Throughout the term of the Franchise, commencing upon activation of the I-Net capacity,neither the City nor any I-Net user site shall pay Grantee a Usage Fee. 384412/1 l Any costs associated with usage of the I-Net capacity,maintenance of outside plant and maintenance,replacement and diagnosis of electronic equipment necessary to provide I-Net capacity shall be borne by Grantee. 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity. A. Grantor Use. Grantor may use the I-Net capacity set forth in the I-Net Agreement for those services which Grantee may legally provide under federal, State and local law. Grantee's provision of telecommunication services will be according to prevailing law. Grantor shall only use the I- Net capacity for noncommercial, governmental communication uses in accordance with this Franchise and the I-Net Agreement. B. Grantee Use. Grantee shall own all equipment and Facilities, outside the demarcation point used to provide the I-Net capacity to Grantor. Grantee shall have the right to use any bandwidth or I-Net capacity not specifically guaranteed to Grantor under the I-Net Agreement. The I-Net Agreement shall provide that in the event Grantee shall cease operation of the cable system during the term of the Franchise Agreement for any reason, without a transfer of the Franchise Agreement being approved by Grantor, the ownership of all equipment and Facilities comprising the I-Net (specifically including any I-Net equipment designated as owned by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise) shall transfer to the Grantor. 8.5 Equipment Responsibility. A. Grantor and Grantee will mutually determine a physical demarcation point. The fiber, coaxial cable, equipment and electronics outside the demarcation point will be owned and maintained by Grantee and will not be the responsibility of Grantor. This demarcation point will normally be located inside Grantor's public buildings, similar to the telephone company. Grantor will guarantee that Grantee will have unrestricted access to the demarcation point within such municipal buildings to provide adequate maintenance and technical support. B. All equipment related to the provision of I-Net capacity will be identified in writing with applicable technical descriptions and ownership designation. Grantor's equipment inside the demarcation point shall be purchased by Grantee,but selected in conjunction with Grantor. The Grantor shall make reimbursement for the purchase of the equipment inside the demarcation point to the Grantee. Ongoing maintenance of all equipment inside the physical demarcation point that interfaces with Grantee's equipment will be the responsibility of the Grantor. 8.6 I-Net Agreement. A. The I-Net Agreement between Grantor and Grantee shall be coterminous with the term of the Franchise Agreement, as set forth in Section 4 hereof. 384412/1 '3 B. If at any time Grantor desires additional capacity or services,the I-Net Agreement will be amended. Payment of costs for any additional equipment necessary to increase capacity in the future shall be the responsibility of Grantor. C. At the termination of the Franchise Agreement, Grantor shall maintain the right to continued use of the I-Net under mutually negotiated terms. 8.7 Grantee shall provide at no charge,upon request and at the time necessary for use, modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution, each city hall, as approved by the City. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall,upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties,but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1)audio and signal quality; (2)response to customer complaints; (3)billing practices; (4)programming; and(5)Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent Or less of the total customer base._ 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall,within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who may be interested in • service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384412/1 1� I7 whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent(5%)of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the • amount paid is in fact the correct amount,nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of$300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation,there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result,including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee,including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs • (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by 384412/1 Vt, '5 Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any,public property, and taxes due to City,which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. Upon completion of the System as described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of$100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. C. City may, in its sole discretion,reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance,the Grantee shall within ten(10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders,permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction,operation or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security maybe terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required, the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require the establishment of that fund and may recover its costs,reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of$2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign,pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security for any purpose. C. Within ten(10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages • to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384412/1 1,6 Franchise,in particular Section 11(G)herein, City in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: 1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with Section 6.1 hereof,unless City approves the delay,the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents,reports or information or to cooperate with City during an Application process or System review,the penalty shall be$50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C,the penalty shall be$50.00 per day for each day,or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City,the penalty shall be$50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be$200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to,the implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City,the penalty shall be $100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be • considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be • imposed. E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a • violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. 384412/1 ,Y3 17 • F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty(30) days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security,the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may;within 10 days of receipt of notice,notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact,occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of the above-described time. 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute,the claim is upheld by the City,then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation may be extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform,provided Grantee commences • corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence, as determined by the City,to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated • in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. 384412/1 / 1 I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds,without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto,including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City,be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages,monies or penalties from the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act,or failure to act,by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be,deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line(i.e.high-speed cable modem services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie,Edina,Minnetonka,Hopkins and Richfield,Minnesota,the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise. 13.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal,which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384412/1 Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s)wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City,the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level,but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise,but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity,then Grantee shall pay the same fee,but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota,then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels,the City shall,upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise,reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels,but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise,but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels,then the City shall reduce • • the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: 384412/1 lP7 zo (i) Tithe wired competitor passes less than 25%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) • If the wired competitor passes 25%or more but less than 50%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield,Grantee shall provide at least three public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50%or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public, educational and governmental Access Channel. If at any time, a wired competitor provides channels for public, educational.and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public,educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee,the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a • cable Franchise,including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules,but it is required to • provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities,then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25%of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the • same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384412/1 /a (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25%or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie, Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50%or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield,the City shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental • access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds, equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision,the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain-a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision,then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, • Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50%or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina,Eden Prairie,Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield,the City shall not require Grantee to meet the Franchise provision. 384412/1 1� �� If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a"wired competitor"as defined above;it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days,the City shall: (1)pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the entity in question is not a wired competitor; or(3) state that the"wired competitor"is subject to a requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. • SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City,may be part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina,Hopkins,Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. • B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept,if offered to it, a Franchise(similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms-and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to • City by , . Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. 384412/1 7' )3 B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. , also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee,that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety(90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA By City Clerk Its: (SEAL) WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC By Its: (Corporate Seal) 384412/1 ,2(1 ,9 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , by ,the of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF ) )ss: COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , by ,the of WideOpenWest Minnesota,LLC,on_behalf of the company. Notary Public 384412/1 3125 EXHIBIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Percentages Based on Revenue&Bad Total • Revenue Debt Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Payment Basic 0 Eden Prairie 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Outlets 0 Edina 0% 0 0 0 .0 0 Equipment Rent 0 Hopkins 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay TV 0 Minnetonka 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay Per Event 0 Richfield 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE% 0 TOTAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 384412/1 EXHIBIT B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Central Kindergarten Center 8100 School Road Forest Hills Elementary 13708 Holly Road Prairie View Elementary 17255 Petersborg Road Cedar Ridge Elementary 8905 Braxton Drive Eden Lake Elementary 12000 Anderson Lakes Parkway Oak Point Intermediate School 13400 Staring Lake Parkway Central Middle School 8025 School Road Eden Prairie High School 17185 Valley View Road Education Center 8040 Mitchell Road School District Admin Bldg 8100 School Road School Transportation/Grounds Bldg 8055 Wallace Road PUBLIC BUILDINGS Eden Prairie Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie Liquor Store 1 16502 W. 78th Street Eden Prairie Liquor Store 2 8018 Den Road Eden Prairie Liquor Store 3 950 Prairie Center Drive Parks Maintenance Facility 15150 Technology Drive Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Senior Center 8950 Eden Praiire Road Outdoor Center 13765 Staring Lake Parkway Environmental Learning Center 14100 Technology Drive Cummins-Grill Homestead 13600 Pioneer Trail Douglas/More Homestead Historic Site 8107 Eden Prairie Road Riley/Jacques Farm Historic Site 9100 Riley Lake Road Edenvale Park 7300 Edenvale Blvd. Homeward Hills Park 12000 Silverwood Drive Nesbitt Preserve Park 8641 Center Way Prairie View Park 17255 Petersborg Road Miller Park 8405 Shoreline Drive Round Lake Park 7550 Constitution Avenue Staring Lake Park 14800 Prairie Trail Baker Road Reservoir 6341 Baker Road Hidden Ponds Reservoir 7401 Dell Road Marketcenter Reservoir 12190 Singletree Lane Well No. 2 7955 Mitchell Road Well No. 3 7599 Mitchell Road Well No. 4 14522 Martin Drive Well No. 5 7569 Corporate Way Well No. 6 14900 Valley View Road 384412/1 Y41(),-"t, Well No. 7 15580 Valley View Road Well No. 8 7200 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 9 6975 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 10 6910 Edenvale Blvd. Well No. 11 15160 Technology Drive Well No. 12 8090 Mitchell Road Well No. 13 7940 Wallace Road Well No. 14 14550 Lone Oak Road • • 384412/1 B a,S EDIT C WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA,LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety(90) days prior to System activation 384412/1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3-2001 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3-2001 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 16th day of January, 2001; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: A. Ordinance No. 3-2001 is lengthy and/or contains charts. B. The text of the summary of Ordinance No. 3-2001, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices. E. Ordinance No. 3-2001 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof of publication,within twenty(20) days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on January 16, 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-2001 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO EVEREST MINNESOTA LICENSEE, LLC, ("GRANTEE" OR "EVEREST") TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN. On January 16, 2001, the City of Eden Prairie ("City") adopted a Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance for Everest Minnesota Licensee, LLC. The Ordinance serves two purposes. First, it is intended to provide for and specify the means to attain the best possible cable television service for the public by providing requirements for cable television with respect to technical standards, customer service obligations, and related matters. Second, it grants a non- exclusive cable television franchise agreement to Everest to operate, construct and maintain a cable television system within the City and contains specific requirements for Everest to do so. The Ordinance includes the following: 1) requires Everest to construct and maintain an 860 MHz capacity cable system; 2) imposes a franchise fee of five percent (5%) of annual gross revenues; 3) establishes a fifteen(15) year franchise term; 4) requires the provision of service to new developments making channels available for public, educational and governmental programming with Everest to provide support of such programming through the term of the franchise; 5) requires an institutional network where the City will pay the incremental costs associated with the provision of additional fiber and the cost for any extension of the fiber beyond those locations where Everest is installing fiber as part of its subscriber network; and 6) requires a thirty-six(36)month construction schedule. It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Ordinance 2-2001. A copy of the entire Ordinance shall be available at the Eden Prairie City Hall. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of January, 2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of January, 2001. ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 392242/1 3I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2001 SECTION: Petitions and Requests SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposal from Michael ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation McCollum Robert A. Lambert Director X Requested Action Move to: Reject both proposals from Mr. McCollum regarding the lot at 9999 Turnbull Road. Or Move to: Give indication to Mr. McCollum that the City would consider a split and direct him to submit a subdivision proposal through the platting process. Or Move to: Take no action. Synopsis Mr. McCollum requests the City Council consider either allowing him to split off the house and sell the remainder of his 8.2 acre lot to the City or split the lot into two roughly equal four-acre parcels with a conservation easement over all of the land outside the MUSA line. Mr. McCollum does not state a price for the sale of the lot, although he refers to the land as worth"many hundreds of thousands of dollars." Background In 1984, Mr. John Turnbull was granted a subdivision of a 15.2-acre lot into two lots subject to a commitment to convey a conservation easement over the southern 390 feet of this particular lot. Mr. McCollum's property is the western most lot of that two-lot subdivision. Mr. Turnbull provided a conservation easement to the City; however, the conservation easement was not ever filed before the lot was sold to the McCullom's; therefore, there is no conservation easement on this lot at this time. The existing MUSA line is depicted on the attached drawing. There is no incentive for the City to ever support moving the MUSA line further down on the bluff, nor is it likely there ever would be an incentive to grant lots less than 10 acres outside the MUSA line on the bluffs; therefore,there is little need for the City to purchase this bluff property in order to protect it from development on the face of the bluff. If water and sewer are ever extended to this site there will be pressure to extend the MUSA line down the bluff in order to help pay for the cost of City Council Agenda 5/4/99 Preserve Park Renovation Page 2 extending water and sewer. That may be one reason why water and sewer may never serve these parcels. Attachments: Letter from Michael D. McCollum Diagram of Area BL:mdd H:\Lambert 2000\McCollum Memo a MICHAEL D. McCOLLUM & ASSOCIATES 1460 INTERCHANGE TOWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE: (612)545-8000 600 SOUTH HIGHWAY 169 FAX: (612)545-2670 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55426 • Of Counsel: William C.Geimer November 21,2000 Michael D. Franzen • City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485 • RE: 9999 Turnbull Road(Lot 1,Block 1, Turnbull Addition) . . Dear Mr. Franzen: I am in receipt of your letter. of.November 20, 2000 which appears to be largely responsive to. a previous.proposal I had made.some time ago for possible subdivision of'my property at 9999 Dell Road. Because it appears to me that a large misunderstanding may have occurred and•because our. prior proposals have been substantially modified and are further modified by this letter I trust you will forward this letter to the City Council in the next"for your information packet"so that the Council may.be fully advised in this matter. You have advised the Staff can support either of two (2) development options for this parcel: . • 1. Development of the land into smaller lots when sewer and water is extended to this site. 2. Development of the property into two lots with dedication of the land outside the MUSA line to the City. We believe both proposals have serious drawbacks,both for the City and for us: The first proposal, maintenance .of the current status quo-will inevitably lead to future demands for development in this area which, while they may be of lower scale than others, most . certainly as a matter of economics will involve far more development activity than what we have proposed. Having viewed the site I am sure you and Mr. Lambert agree it is largely buildable meadow from a development standpoint. I believe that Judee and I share Mr. Lambert's concern that buildout along this or three or four similar "fingers" of land along the bluffs should be 3 • avoided if possible, and since this parcel is the only one of its kind adjacent to the Rielly Creek Big Woods Conservation Area I should think the City Council would be concerned about the long-range implications and having to revisit this issue in the future when the dynamics of development in this area have changed. The second proposal more closely approximates our discussions to date; however, it would amount to our dedicating land worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars to the City while substantially impairing the market value of the remainder. We are not wealthy and simply lack the means to make this generous grant. Largely, the staffs proposal and our own turn upon thee-distinction between easements and ownership and we believe this distinction to be much more than semantic. We believe, and I am confident we are correct, and our professional appraisers tell us, that in a buyer's eyes there is a very large distinction between offering 8.2 acres for sale, most of which is subject to • • conservation easements, and offering 2 acres for sale. Even if this distinction is not meaningful • from the standpoint of future development it is everything in terms of market value. Mr. Lambert himself rejected the notion of public ownership in this site because it would invite trespass and be harmful to the environment. Bearing this in mind, for the benefit of clarity and to assist the City Council in this and future deliberations we wish to withdraw all prior proposals, respectfully decline the alternatives you have offered and instead submit the following which we think will bear serious and favorable attention by the Council: 1. Split off the house and sell the remainder to the City._We remain amenable to sale of this land should the City Council make revisions to the approved capital improvement program and reiterate our willingness to allow acquisition .on a contract basis to enable the City Council to plan for the acquisition and any necessary bond issuance several years down the line. 2. Split the lot into two roughly equal 4+/- acre parcels with a conservation easement over.all of the land outside the MUSA line. This is a much broader proposal than any of us have discussed to date and assumes that after division our house would remain, as would one adjacent buildable lot. Everything south of the MUSA line would be protected by a conservation easement prohibiting future construction, now and in the future. This is, I should think, entirely consistent with the City's intentions for this area. Because our rgprcl nbo t ve buibe due s sl , acceptance of this proposallae-would effectivelyeighors d bar no futureha development ldal alonglots this entireto portionteepopes of the bluff and most of the area south of the Big Woods even when sewer and water is extended to this area and would most certainly eliminate much or most of the need to extend sewer and water at all. 9 Because of my pending retirement and our relocating to Florida we believe this proposal represents the last best opportunity to keep this area wild. Acting upon your advice we have retained a surveyor to develop a proposed plat and pad for a single residence on the adjacent site. All we will be looking for is enough land to accommodate our current house, one other and to accommodate amenities such as a garage or swimming pool, etc. and we will instruct our surveyor to use these criteria. We believe this proposal is fair to us and either of the alternatives we have proposed should generate a high degree of interest on the part of the City. It is our earnest hope that the City Council will either direct you to begin negotiations to acquire this parcel or invite review of our plan when the survey is,com e. • truly yours, • • • . " . Michael D.McCollum MDM:jls • • • • • • • • a . . 4 . - g I .0 0. ' ' 1 _ r . A/i . i---6p . • .g 1.-$la 0.,c; A . i r.' \ - • � !Q- z ' . ,eaa § n 2 J 5 _-- • / / ' (i --- \ . i - ' g. .,,,,..s%..;. ,-4 6 r 4',er '' ._______, 7 // . • . 'O. ... ?' : ice . \/?' -� / ! N. 1- \ IV) 1 ( I( •I 't g : 2 tt'n % 1 lal it- ---4---;\ ,-- -. ---' //// . ; , ,...j...\ 4c;stk k . , _ — - 7111111P1 - ------\---1713\ ! , -� . A l� \ \ \/ \. \ / ) .1 _ , , . . .,., fV ) ' . i• 1\ i.. . . / ) 2,. -it ) )) \ ,,,, , „, .....--- -- i5A- /I / . , . • _. . . /' / 7/ ,tf".:6 N> 4 // 1 1 ,...i_ - . • _. ( y . / • . a -.).)2-,../:/// , . (1, .i . / ,,,,.., ./..,,,, ______ --1.. r` 7Z ! ;. MICHAEL D. McCOLLUM & ASSOCIATES 1460 INTERCHANGE TOWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE: (612)545-8000 600 SOUTH HIGHWAY 169 FAX: (612)545-2670 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55426 Of Counsel: William C.Geimer January 5, 2001 Mr. Robert Lambert City Parks Director City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road- Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485 Dear Mr. Lambert: Enclosed please find attached correspondence and exhibits. I am by duplicate copy of this letter furnishing a copy to the City Clerk together with my request that this letter,and exhibits be furnished to the City Council in its information packet in connection with its forthcoming meeting on January 16, 2001. truly you Michael D. McCollum MDM:jls Enclosures C: Mike Franzen City Planner MICHAEL D. McCOLLUM & ASSOCIATES 1460 INTERCHANGE TOWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE: (612)545-8000 600 SOUTH HIGHWAY 169 FAX: (612)545-2670 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55426 Of Counsel: William C.Geimer January 5,2001 Mr. Robert Lambert City Parks Director City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 RE: 9999 Dell Road(Lot 1, Block 1, Turnbull Addition) Dear Mr. Lambert: I have reviewed your staff recommendation against my proposals in this matter and must admit I am both shocked and dismayed by its contents. Your staff memo is so full of errors, half truths and misstatements of fact that I have to question at this point the good faith of our dealings to date. I find your report is misleading to the City Council both as to our proposals and the background of this matter, and I urge you to.review both the record and your reasoning behind this matter. In fact, based on your staff memo I find it necessary to provide the City Council with the true facts so that it can even properly consider the matter. This letter will constitute my written remarks in support of our proposal and I am requesting that it be entered as a part of the record. Absent a favorable expression of interest by the Council at its January 16, 2001 meeting I see little point in going forward. If, however, the Council after being apprised of the true facts in this matter wishes to pursue these matters on a timely basis we remain amenable to doing so. The Property. The Council should know that our parcel is 8.2 acres, bordering the south edge of the Riley Creek Big Woods and extending all the way to the River Bluffs. As such, it is one of the largest remaining undeveloped lots on the bluff in southwest Eden Prairie. The northern 1/3 of the property including almost 500 feet bordering the Big Woods is within the MUSA line, a fact you choose to ignore and which in fact is the very basis of our proposals (see map). The Proposals. This property will be placed on the market in April, with or without City approval of our proposed division, in view of my pending retirement to Florida. It is that fact, and that fact alone, that has generated our proposals to the City and which gives rise to a limited opportunity for all parties to act at present to obtain a favorable result not only for ourselves but for the taxpayers. When this property is placed on the market its status must be certain. _ Judee_and I initially proposed sale of a-portion of our property at a favorable price to the City as -- - - a valuable addition to the Big Woods, which would allow the conservation area and public access from it to extend all the way to the bluff. We had proposed to yourself and Mr. Franzen a sale on interest only terms with no payment of principal until funding could be achieved or found by the City in later years. Price and terms were never discussed, as you rejected the idea immediately. Given this lack of interest we proposed a split into two 4-acre parcels to allow us to achieve fair value from our property. We realized the City has little or no interest in furthering development on the bluff but reasoned that since the City has no rights in our parcel and has in the past expressed its wishes to preserve the bluff(particularly in view of criticism it has received due to development on the north end) an offer would be well received to place the entire southern portion of our property south of the MUSA line, most of which is bluffs and big woods, under a conservation easement. The addition of a buildable lot next door, we reasoned, would offset any buyer concern over the fact that the remainder could no longer be developed. We are offering, for a truly minor concession as regards a single building space that is already within the MUSA line to conserve most of the south boundary of the Riley Creek Big Woods Conservation Area—paid for by taxpayer referendum— and to give the City not only rights it does not currently have but the means and method to preserve this entire area. We are absolutely shocked and amazed by your recommendation against such a proposal. Background. You claim that the City was supposed to receive a"conservation easement" over our property as a result of a prior split in 1984 but "the conservation easement was never filed before the lot was sold to the McCollums". That is an untrue and totally irresponsible statement, highly misleading to the City Council and would lead the Council to believe that somehow Judee and I acted in bad faith. Be assured, your comments are not well received on this end. If you would read the record, as I have, you would discover that in 1984 John Turnbull applied for subdivision of his 15.2 acre parcel. Ours is the western 8.2 acres of that lot. Turnbull was granted variance provided a "scenic" easement over the "steep slope" area was furnished by February 9, 1985. Turnbull, however, had sold the west portion of the parcel (ours) to Kenneth and Mary Kunstmann. The Kunstmanns signed a "scenic" easement on May .16, 1985 but it was never executed by the City, never recorded, has the wrong legal description, was not joined in by the mortgagor as required, does not qualify as a conservation easement and is defective in a host of other ways. Judee and I in fact bought eight years later from the Bank, which foreclosed the Kunstmanns. We had never met the Kunstmanns and had no notice of these matters, whatsoever, until this year, some 16 years after the fact. Moreover, what you mislead the City Council into believing was a "conservation" easement allowed tree cutting, non-permitted construction and the only requirement was that the area remain "predominantly"natural. In fact, the easement purported to be in favor of the City but denies the City or the public the right to even enter the property(Section D). - Your-negative recommendation; therefore, appears to be little more than a punitive action to remedy some perceived wrong. The fact is, Judee and I are innocent purchasers. The fact equally remains that the City of Eden Prairie currently has no rights, whatsoever, easement or otherwise, over our parcel. We did not create these facts but did seek to remedy them by our proposal. You suggested the very proposal you are now recommending. against. You, Sir, were present at the meeting between us and Mike Franzen on October 25, 2000 in which we discussed alternatives for our property. Presumably, you attended because of our expressed interest in selling our land for park purposes but since you have indicated no interest in that arrangement I am at a loss as to your continued interest in this matter. Both you and Mr. Franzen stated, however, that you would recommend in favor of a split into two distinct parcels provided the split was accompanied by a "donation" of the small portion of our property immediately appurtenant to the bluff and a conservation easement over a portion of the remainder. You may recall this was Mr. Franzen's suggestion and while were lukewarm on the subject of donating the land itself we agreed to keep an open mind. This meeting was followed on October 27, 2000 by your visit to the property, at which time you and I personally walked the land. You stated, having viewed the property, that public ownership of just the bluff would invite trespass and conflict with adjacent private residences. You agreed with my suggestion that we engage a surveyor, present a preliminary proposal and develop a formal plat proposal with easements showing how the land and woods would be preserved. Adopting your suggestion and that of Mr. Franzen we did exactly that which was proposed. It is small wonder, therefore, that Judee and I were very surprised by Mr. Franzen's proposal (see attached letter) to support a split but only if we donate the bulk and in fact most of our land to the City. We promptly replied that this was not our agreement but in.fact expanded our proposal to conserve all of the land south of the MUSA line. Both Judee and I have discussed and have a very clear understanding on what was said and by whom. You may attempt to deny these matters, Mr. Lambert, but how do you reconcile the fact that Mr. Franzen had indicated a split would be favorable if we donated all of our land with your claims and your staff memo? This is a land grab, plain and simple. It is clear from Mr. Franzen's letter that you neither oppose development or a split—for a price. Regretfully, your action confirms what we had suspected. It is very clear to us that the City does not want to buy this land if it can extort it. Your heavy-handed demand, and that of Mr. Franzen, . that we convey the bulk of our property just to achieve a single split accompanied by your current and very obvious threat to refuse future division and deny city services in perpetuity as is outrageous as it is offensive. Your staff recommendation, fairly summarized, amounts to a do-nothing proposal accompanied by your advice that the bluff may be preserved by perpetual denial of city services to this area accompanied by refusal to permit further division based on that denial. As a former Assistant City Attorney, I can advise you that thinking is both misguided and dangerous. It is misguided in that the City Council, we trust, knows it is only wishful thinking to suppose that development pressure will never occur in this area. In fact, it is present already. Your thinking is dangerous in that it implies spot zoning and denial of available services, both of which are illegal and will land the City in Court in a contest by either me or my successors in title which it will most surely lose. • The City has a.unique opportunity between now and April. to acquire rights over our parcel which would allow it to preserve the bluff and which would give it both the means and the method to do so at no cost, whatsoever, to the City. Your backward-looking attitude will do nothing but leave the area open for development and the City open to litigation when sewer service becomes available in this area, as it must, either via Dell Road, Beverly Drive or Highway 212. Moreover, I think we all have to view expansion of the MUSA line as inevitable, if not near term at least in the future. The MUSA line is intended to provide orderly development, not to prevent it in perpetuity at the whim of your department, as you suggest. If the Council wishes, we are prepared to submit specific proposals for (a) sale of our property or in the alternative (b) division accompanied by easements but in view of our experience with your, office we require the City Council's preliminary expression of favorable interest before doing so. Absent such expression at its January 16, 2001 meeting we will as a matter of economic necessity proceed to sell the property as a single block and without any easement or other rights in favor of the City. I fail to see how such action could be either in our best interests or that of the residents of Eden Prairie. Very truly yours, Michael D. McCollum p.s. Since the plat carries a dedicated road, I am wondering when it will begin to plow it like the rest of Eden Prairie. This whole question of demands without services bears examination. p.p.s. If the Council wishes us to refine our proposal it should instruct Al Grey, City Engineer, to allow access to public records which he is refusing to my surveyor. His continued refusal will result in my commencing suit. MDM:jls Cr tt ct Qot- gour tnv survey/ For Michael McCollum 9999 Dell Road.ajen Prairie.MN Book Page File 6475 • M ,ir TURNBULL ROAD ®Avf tG j-'ooia C{L t)7ia,n. "i1nt oJ� ,, ' .::: ....z. _,_..›....._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ 1\ -7,--....... ---.., ,i' - ..1: j ----_________---„,....., ` M • s / I % �� ; w z• ' \ Scale: 1"�6O' 'I House s.o r`«s. 5. • ���o • No.9999 -► •a: p / � .� �u • I Wife .cC e� L.—e till . aI I N 4 • I l, zl l I �t II _,bG O•rted 'eon c ry ►i t Descript on: - • Lot 1, B ock 1, Turnbull Addition Lot Area 345,671.55 sq.ft. 7.93 Acres • • • ' . I. I. • I I I -r 5, Drainage & Utility Easement 1 „�- R'3�9,79 • S=-� HNY. No. 2l2 Q o� RAN LINE, _ 'va6 04,1.6 ►l This plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my 'D.- dirP't siioervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor in^� �. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 1/16/01 SECTION: PETITIONS AND REQUESTS SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Hartford Development Land Use Concept Michael D. Franzen Presentation , Synopsis At the time of this writing, Rottlund was continuing to work on alternatives and were uncertain of what would be presented at the Council meeting. Depending on the presentation, the Council may wish to continue the item further for staff review. Background Since the Council Workshop on January 2, 2001, staff has been working with Rottlund Homes on the financial analysis of the Hartford Commons project. The current analysis projects that a TIF District containing 194 housing units and 30,000 square feet of commercial space is required to fund a $2.5 million tax increment note. Total tax increment generated would be $6.8 million, requiring the City to make a local contribution of about$340,000 to the project. Because of this, staff has suggested to Rottlund that they develop plan alternatives that would eliminate or reduce the City's financial contribution. Richard Palmiter and Tim Whitten made a presentation to the City Council on January 2, 2001 on a mixed use commercial and townhouse plan for the Hartford property. The plan included 30,000 square feet of commercial and 302 townhouses. The City Council asked staff to evaluate the plan and determine what waivers would be needed from the City Code. Concept Plan The most recent plan includes 302 townhouses and 30,000 square feet of commercial. The project will require the following residential waivers from the City Code. • Building height above 45 feet. • Density increase from 17.4 to 21 units per acre. • Exterior materials for less than 75%face brick and glass. • Front yard setback from 35 feet to 15-20 feet. 1 These waivers may have merit for the following reasons. 1. Creates an area of high density housing close to commercial services. 2. Provides a better transition next to existing residential neighborhoods than the existing commercial zoning. 3. Creates a mixed-use project following the principles of smart growth and new urbanism with access to sidewalks and bus service. 4. Creates internal private green spaces. 5. No garages face the exterior of the project. 6. There are 5 different housing types with multiple building elevations, which helps create architectural diversity. The project will require the following commercial waivers from the City Code. • Commercial parking waiver from 180 spaces to 76. • Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. The parking waiver cannot be supported. Existing commercial developments need parking at 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. Providing the additional parking is possible, but will result in a different unit mix, a reduction in housing units, or a smaller commercial area. The setback cannot be supported. Green area and plantings in front of the buildings facing Prairie Center Drive is needed to help break up the building mass. If a front door image with access to the sidewalk along the City streets can be created,then setback waivers may have merit. Rottlund will be revising the plan to provide the required parking for the commercial area. Attachments Memo from Don Uram Letter from Rottlund Homes MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Chris Enger, City Manager FROM: Don Uram,Financial Services Director DATE: January 12,2001 SUBJECT: Hartford Commons Development Introduction The following analysis was based on plans presented to the City Council at their workshop on January 2, 2001. Staff has worked with Rottlund Homes on plan alternatives,which may be presented to the Council on January 16. Any changes to these plans will impact the financial analysis. Financial Analysis To help justify the use of Tax Increment Financing for Hartford Commons, Rottland Homes has provided Staff with their preliminary project pro forma. After meeting several times with them and reviewing the line-item details, Staff makes the following observations: 1. Unit prices range from$129,900 to $234,000. About 70% (210)of the units will have a base price of$169,900 or less. Upgrades to these units will add to the price. • 2. Pro-forma requires a 25% gross margin. 3. Land cost for 17.88 acres is $6.5 million or$8.35 per square foot. Comparable land sales may be: a. Home Depot(Retail) - $7.50 per sq. ft. b. Honeywell(Ofc./Housing) - $5.21 per sq. ft. c. Silvercrest(Senior Housing) - $5.91per sq. ft. d. Prairie Crossroads (Ofc./Whrs.) - $5.16 per sq. ft. 4. Interest Reserve(carrying costs) of about$1.0 million has been included. 3 Based on information provided by the developer,the major factors contributing to the $2.5 million difference between revenues and expenses are: • Total unit count of 302 at a density of 2lunits/acre. • Unit mix with about 70%of the units with a base price of less than$169,900. • Land cost equal to $8.35 per sq. ft. • Required gross margin of 25%. • Carrying costs of$1.0 million. The developer is requested that the City establish a non-qualified housing district to fund a tax increment note of$2.5 million. Unlike a pay-as-you note where the City pays the developer semi-annually the amount of TIF received for the district,the developer would sell the estimated TIF revenue stream. Based on an interest rate of 10%,total TIF required over 15 years to fund a$2.5 million note is $6.8 million. A district containing 194 residential units and 30,000 square feet of commercial space is required to generate this amount. Since the district is non-qualified, the City must also contribute 5% of the total TIF generated or about$340,000. Financially, Staff has the following concerns: 1. Amount of public subsidy needed to develop a market-rate project. 2. Determining a funding source for the City's estimated$340,000 local contribution. 3. Property tax difference between a commercial project valued at$15 million ($675,000) and the remaining housing units (108 units - $350,000)not included within the TIF district. In simple terms, an annual difference of $325,000 totals $4,875,000 over 15 years. Once the TIF district is decertified, it will about take about 40 years for the project to break even from a property tax standpoint. For these reasons, Staff has suggested project development alternatives that would: 1. Reduce or eliminate City financial participation. 2. Provide ownership housing that meet the guidelines of the Livable Communities Act. Rottland Homes continues to work on alternatives that will accomplish these goals. Lj JAN-11-2001 12:14 ROTTLUND HOMES MN 651 638 0501 P.01/01 qDZI bA i D BERNARD E-3UILDERS do DEVELOPERS 6 C.°ravel,,FTHE prITTLUNP GOPia1M'-;Ne. • January 11, 2001 Mr.Donald R. Uram City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485 Re; Hartford Commons Eden Prairie,MN Dear Don: Since the city council workshop meeting on January 2,2001,we have spent a great deal of time working with our engineers and consultants to verify our concept plan and financial requirements. In addition,we have had several meetings with various city staff members to review the details of this project. We have concluded that Hartford Commons has great merit and should go forward as a unique housing development. We propose to enhance the quality of the project by committing to selling a minimum of ninety(90)housing units that will qualify as"affordable,"as defined by the Metropolitan Council, (today set at$ 134,400). - In order to achieve this plan,we will need the city of Eden Prairie to participate by providing TIF, in the form of a$2,500,000 Non-Qualified Housing District. The city's financial advisor, Springsted, Inc.,has prepared a financial analysis that indicates the feasibility of this request. • We are looking forward to our meeting with the city council this Tuesday evening. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, t_e.--,6„.I 0. p��s Richard C.Palmiter Vice President .7...CG5 CENTRC POINTp,ORtIVC PosEVILLC,MN 55113 1'4I.„ (651)63$•0600 FAX:(551)638 0501 • TOTAL P.Ci 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2001 SECTION: Reports of Director Parks and Recreation Services SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed Task Force ITEM NO: Parks and Recreation for Developing Program and Design for Purgatory C , Robert A. Lambert Director Creek Recreation Area Entry Requested Action Move to: Create a PCRA Task Force and adopt a mission and charter And Move to: Authorize a Request for Proposal for consultant services for Developing the Program and Design of the Purgatory Creek Area Entry Synopsis Staff is recommending the City Council appoint a Task Force to assist City staff and a consultant in developing the program for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry and the concept design of the park entry based on the program. The Council may wish to consider a makeup of the Task Force including a representative of the City Council, two members of the Planning Board, two members of the Program Board, one member of the Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory Commission, and two residents at large to form a Task Force that would begin meetings in February and submit final recommendations to the City Council in July of 2001. We would anticipate this Task Force would submit three alternate concept plans to the Program Board, the Planning Board and the City Council to provide an opportunity for input during the process prior to submitting a final recommendation in July. Background Over the last 20 years, the City has reviewed a variety of concept plans for the entry to the Purgatory Recreation Area. The Watershed District has completed construction of the dike on the north end of this project and will be dredging the pond north of the dike and adjacent to the City park entry during the winter of 2001/2002. It is prudent for the City to have the final plans and specifications for the parkland adjacent to this pond completed prior to the dredging in order to eliminate duplication of effort in construction of the pond edge in that location. The City and Watershed District may wish to jointly develop the water treatment portion of the project and the park facility as a single contract in order to reduce construction costs and shorten the length of the time for development of this project. 1 City Council Agenda 1/16/2001 Proposed Task Force for Developing Program and Design for Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry Page 2 The City has designated this project as a tax increment financing project for 15 years and has petitioned the Watershed District to complete the project as soon as possible. The Watershed District portion of the project will include completing the dredging of the pond north of the dike, as well as construction of a trail around the entire wetland complex, and continuing the trail down the Purgatory Creek Valley south to Staring Lake Park. The final phase of the Watershed District Project will be to construct an outlet control structure at Staring Lake and a trail from the trail around Staring Lake easterly along the north side of Purgatory Creek to Creek Knoll Road. The entry to the large conservation area is a seven-acre park site at the intersection of Technology Drive and Prairie Center Drive. The City currently owns five and one half acres at that site with an additional acre and one half owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation that is excess right-of-way along Technology Drive. The combination of this excess right-of-way and City land constitutes the seven acres for Eden Prairie's "downtown park." Although, there have been many different uses proposed on this parkland, the location of the park, the access to the park, and the limited size of the park will pose severe limitations on many of the previous concepts. The City must now decide how we want to use this park and what type of uses are critical to developing and maintaining a "vitality" in Eden Prairie's downtown area. This park will also help ensure that Eden Prairie has a focal point for public functions in our downtown area. Once the "program" is agreed upon, the consultant will be able to develop several concept plans that will attempt to meet those program needs. It will be also critical to involve adjacent property owners in the design review process, including representatives from ADC, the Transit Hub, the Flagship Corporate Center, the Flagship Athletic Club, and owners of the apartment complexes on the south end of the marsh. The preliminary cost estimate for the Watershed District's Staring Lake Outlet/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Project is $4,054,500. This amount does not include development of the City park that is the entry to this Recreation Area. The City has 1.2 million dollars of TIF money budgeted for the City's portion of this total project. Approximately $60,000 of that money will go toward the City's cost for trail construction of the Watershed District's project and an additional $250,000 toward Watershed District engineering, legal and permit fees. The remaining money will be available for architectural and engineering design fees, as well as the construction costs of the City's project. It is most likely that the final plan will have to be constructed in phases when other funding sources are available. BL:mdd TASK FORCE CHARTER STATEMENT. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Task Force—2001 Purpose Statement: Establish a design program and concept plan for the development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry and adjacent wetland complex. Roles and Responsibilities: Task Force Responsibilities a. To select a consultant to lead the Task Force through the process of developing a program that will eventually dictate the design and concept plan for the seven acre entry site and transition to the wetland complex. • b. Review all available data pertinent to making a decision regarding the design program for this site, including previous concept plans for this site, adjacent land uses, and input from the Community Forum and Community.Survey. c. Tour other similar urban parks. (Optional) d. Develop a list of facilities and uses that would be desirable for this location. Review estimated costs for construction of each,type of use, estimated annual operating cost to maintain each use and estimated revenue.(from uses that would generate revenue). e. Prioritize uses and direct consultant to develop three concept plans that meet the highest priorities as determined by the Task Force. f. Obtain input on concept plans from the Parks and Recreation Citizens Advisory Commission,Planning Board,Program Board and the City Council. g. Submit final concept plan to the City Council no later than July 15, 2001. Presentation to include rationale for development of the program, list of prioritized facilities, estimated construction cost for each phase (if project is proposed by phase) and estimated annual revenue and expenses for the project upon completion. Consultant's Responsibilities a. Prepare a work task outline that details work to be accomplished at each Task Force workshop. Task Force Charter Statement January 5, 2001 Page 2 b. Lead the Task Force through each workshop to accomplish the plan. c. Collect existing information from the City, including information on past concept plans, existing adjacent land use information and information on owners or contacts for representatives of large land uses adjacent to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, baseline information, including topography, soils, wetlands, woodlands, existing infrastructure and private development, planned infrastructure and utilities and planned land use.. _ d. Establish study area base map from existing City.resources. e. Identify study area physical issues, opportunities and constraints. f. Conduct up to eight interviews with adjacent property owners or stake holders to solicit input and summarize those interviews for the Task Force. g. Establish development program options and alternatives concepts. Consultant will subsequently refine alternative concepts to provide up to three concept plans. h. Prepare for and present concepts to the Community Program Board, the Planning Board and the City Council. i. Upon review by the Planning Board, the Program Board and City Council, work with City staff to refine the preferred scheme, expand detail and intent of the • design, identify potential costs and logical project phasing. j. Prepare the summary technical memorandum with supporting text and diagrams and make final presentation to the City Council in July 2001. Staff Responsibilities a. Provide direct support to the Task Force and consultant regarding workskhop notifications, provide background information, including previous studies, concept plans or technical information, provide air photos, base map and identification of the stake holders to be interviewed. b. Provide all information collected from the Community Forum and Community • Survey relating to this project. c. Work with the consultant in assessing concept alternatives to arrive upon the preferred scheme d. Provide cost estimates regarding operational costs and projected revenues of any proposed revenue producing facilities. 5 Task Force Charter Statement January 5,2001 Page 3 e. Develop agendas and provide support materials. Proposed Membership One Council representative, two Program Board Representatives, two Planning Board representatives, one Parks and Recreation Citizen Advisory Commission member and two citizens at large. Chair—Council Representative Staff Liaison—Bob Lambert, Director Parks and Recreation Services Staff Support Stuart A. Fox, Manager Parks and Natural Resources;Laurie Obiazor, Manager Recreation Services - Duration: February 2001 until July 2001 H:/Lambert 2001/Task Force Charter Statement • 10 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: January 16, 2000 SECTION: Director of Public Works Services Report SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: h EM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Services 1-494 Update and Authorization of Consultant Eugene A. Dietz Services Requested Action Move to: Approve staff solicitation of professional services for preliminary design of improved access to the Market Center Area from I-494 and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the resulting professional services agreement. Synopsis Staff will provide a brief overview of the schedule, proposed improvements and critical issues regarding the addition of a third lane on I-494. Further, staff is requesting that the City hire an engineering firm to help identify viable alternatives for improving access to the Market Center Area—specifically Eden Prairie Center. Background Information MnDOT is just now concluding the finalization of the Environmental Impact Statement as it relates to the interim projects for I-494 for an addition of a third lane in each direction — east of TH 212 in 2003 and north of TH 212 in 2007. It is expected that the Commissioner of Transportation will announce the findings in January and a series of informational meetings in each of the affected communities will commence. It is expected that the informational meeting in Eden Prairie will be held in mid-February. When the specific date, time and location are known, staff will forward the information to City Council. In Eden Prairie, except for the specific projects to enable the widening of 1-494 to three lanes in each direction, there are no additional improvements contemplated with this pair of projects. Through a letter from Mayor Harris and an additional letter from City staff and several meetings, we have asked MnDOT to identify the impacts of these projects as it relates to providing additional access, specifically the other half of a diamond at Prairie Center Drive, in the future. Although MnDOT is willing to explore the issue to some level, they cannot commit staff time on the subject until after mid-February. MnDOT proposes to bring the final layout plans for these two projects to all City Councils for approval in the spring. Unfortunately,'coming to an agreement on how best to provide access to the Market Center Area will not receive the kind of attention (due to the timing) that staff believes it deserves. Therefore, staff is suggesting that we hire an engineering consultant immediately to begin scoping the different alternatives that may exist for additional access. The goal will be to develop our own ideas on solutions to the problem in preparation for meeting with MnDOT in February. The last issue that Council should be aware of is the change in design requirements for the _ - installation of noise walls. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contemplated two noise walls—one near the motels at TH 212/I-494 and the other along the westerly side of I-494, north of Valley View Road. The current design standards and associated analysis do not support the installation of either wall and therefore they are not being proposed. A noise wall near the motels would be beyond our expectations, however, the other noise wall would have been for the benefit of some of the residents in the Topview neighborhood. This is likely to be an issue that MnDOT will have to address at the informational meetings with area residents. The City will be supplying MnDOT with address labels for all properties within one-half mile of the proposed projects. Staff will be available to address these issues in more detail at the Council meeting. • G:ISSAICOUNCIL 200111-494 Update and Authonzation of ConsuitantServices 01-16-01.doc