Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 06-10-1985{ AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 10, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo. Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 28, 1985, and the Special Meeting Hold June 3, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. New Business 4. Consideration of Accepting 1984 Annual Audit Report. 5. Consideration of Adopting a Joint Powers Agreement for the SWC4. 6. Consideration of Providing Direction to City Staff for the Ongoing Preparation of the Revised Zoning Ordinance - Discussion Item. 7. Information Itom - Update on Nagotiations for the Relocation of the Senior Citizen Center. 8. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 28, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 13, 1985. 6. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the Construction of the Monticello Fire Hall. On May 21, 1985, the following bids were received for the construction of the now Fire Hall: Fullerton Lumber Company $456,900.00 Paterson Construction $475,000.00 Torwisscho Construction, Inc. $499,450.00 W. Gohman Construction Co. 6525,180.00 Great River Construction, Inc. 5607,500.00 The architect reviewed the bide submitted and felt that Fullerton Lumber Company was the lowest responsible bidder on the project and recommended awarding the contract to them. Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, questioned information supplied by Fullerton about projects currently being constructed by their firm and whether the City -o Fire Hall project would be delayed because of the number of projects currently under construction by the firm. A representative of Fullerton Lumbar Company noted that the listing of current jobs submitted with their bid was outdated and that most of the projects were alroady completed, and their supervisor for this job would be available almost immediately. Other concerns of the Council were whether the project would take the maximum 240 day time period listed in the bid proposal, which would put it into winter construction. The Fullerton representative felt confident that construction could be substantially completed within 6 months and hoped that construction could start within a couple of weeks. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution accepting the low bid from Fullerton Lumbar Company in the amount of $456,900.00 and authorizing the entering of a contract for the construction of the Fire Hall. Soo Resolution 1985 8 9. -1- Council Minutes - 5/28/85 5. Consideration of a Leaf Composting Site. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the proposed leaf compost site being planned adjacent to the City's dump site and Wright County Park off of west River Street. The proposed facility as designed would require leasing approximately 14,000 sq. ft. of land in Montfesippi Park and would require the lease from the Wright County Board. Mr. Simola noted that the County Board has indicated they would look favorably upon leasing this property to the City for the compost site. The facility would be screened by natural trees on the west side of the property and would have a fence and Class V driveway constructed on the balance of the property to completely enclose it. The estimated cost of preparing the site, including driveway and fencing, was estimated at $1,200.00. If approved, the site would be ready for loaf disposal starting this fall, with the compost available for usage in approximately two years. Motion was made by Bionigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to obtain a lease from Wright County for the 80' x 173, parcel in Montiesippi Park; and if approved by Wright County, authorizing the expenditure of approximately $1,200.00 to build the compost site. 6. Consideration of Variance Requent Appeal to Allow an Additional Sign to be Placed on an Exiatinq Building Site - Applicant, Dave Poternon'a Ford. Mr. Dave Paterson, owner of Dave Poterson'a Ford, requested approval to place an additional pylon sign at his dealership to advertise Ford Trucks. The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, denied the variance request to allow the third pylon sign because the property was already granted a variance a number of years ago for two signs, whereas the ordinance only allows one pylon sign. The applicant, an a result of the Planning Commission denial, was appealing the decision to the City Council. The representative of Monticello Ford requested that the additional sign be allowed to advertise truck 08109 and to gain additional exposure from I-94, which they fait their present signs wore not visible from I-94. The representative noted that Ford Motor Company owns the larger pylon sign that roado "Ford and Mercury", and the Company would not allow the dealership to place an additional sign on this pylon advortining Ford Trucka. In addition, the representative felt that the varianeo request was reasonable because the dealership does have over 1000 fact of highway frontage, which they felt would be adequate area to allow for additional pylon signs. f f -2- 0 Council Minutes - 5/26/85 After further discussion on the number of signs currently existing at the site, the Council indicated they may look favorably upon a request to replace the existing smaller Used Car sign with the Ford Truck sign and allow the owner to relocate the sign on the property. The Council noted that a new variance application would have to be filed with the Planning Commission if this alternative was pursued by Monticello Ford. After further discussion, motion was made by Maxwell to approve the variance requested by the applicant to allow three pylon signs. The motion died for a lack of a second; and as a result, the Planning Commission's denial of the variance stands. 7. Consideration of Preliminary Plan and Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovich. Mr. John Kornovich, owner of a 3.94 acre parcel of land lying north of County Road 39 and adjacent to Kampa Estates, presented a revised preliminary plan and concept plan for developing the parcel into four 12 -unit apartment buildings. The preliminary concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission earlier that consisted of four 12 -unit buildings and one 6 -unit structure for a total of 54 units. At the public hearing hold by the Planning Commission, numerous objections to the development were presented by the residents of Kampa Estates, including the large density of the piojoct and potential traffic hazards in a primarily residential, single family area. The developers noted that they mot briefly with the concerned residents in the area to address their concerns, and as a result revised the concept plan and reduced the number of units to 48 from 54 to allow for more groan area and wider parking lanoo and accoos drives. Additionally, the developers arc willing to moot all other requirements and concerns expressed by the City Planner and City staff when the development stage is started. Soma concerns of the Planner included reducing the size of the garage buildings to allow only six or eight garage structures per building rather than having one long, continuous garage building. The developers also agreed to provide whatever screening the City desires adjacent to the residential Kampa Estates, whether it would be in landscape architecture or a screened fenco. The proposed development would be constructed over a 2-yoar phase with initially two buildings or 24 units being constructed thio year, with the second two buildings in 1986. Mr. Joo Sehanon, resident of Kampa Estates, questioned why the Planning Commission didn't accept a petition against the project signed by area rasidonta and felt the development of this property should remain single family. Council member 8111 Fair noted .3- 0 Council Minutes - 5/28/85 `- that the property has been zoned multiple family for a number of years and that the community has to be receptive to all types of housing, including multiple; and the revised plan presented meets current City regulations regarding this type of development. After further discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the preliminary plan and concept plan as presented for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 48 units. 8. Consideration of Approval of Plana and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Sealcoating Project. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the proposed areas scheduled for Sealcoating during 1985. The estimated cost of the eealcoating program was $28,500.00 and would consist of eealcoating the following four areas: 1) Country Club Estates; 2) Prairie Road and north Marvin Elwood Road; 3) West River Street from County Road 75 to I-94; and 4) Dundas Road within the Monticello Oakwood Industrial Park. Motion was made by Maxwell, soconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the plane and specifications for aealcoating program and to authorize the advertising for bids. i 9. Consideration of Repairs to the Existing Water Tower. During the fall inspection of the water tower by the Water Tower Paint and Repair Company of Iowa, soma rivets in the tank were separating and pitting had occurred to the point that it could cause leakage in the near future. It was the company's recommendation that repairs be done with the annual cleaning scheduled for 1985. The Public Works Director noted that there are several alternatives in regards to repairing the water tower which hingo upon whether the City will in the near future construct a now reservoir on the Monte Hill. If a definite decision was made not to continue to use the existing water tower when a now tank in placed on the Monte Hill, minor repairs could be done at the existing water tower to keep it in a serviceable condition for approximately throe years. The estimated cost of those improvements was $4,737.00 to extend the life at least throe years. If in the future the City has plans to keep the existing water tower even if a now one is built, a full welding repair and wax coating of the existing water tower to give it an expected life of an additional 10-20 yearn was estimated at 59,808.00. To completely repair the seams and pitted areas and also coat the interior with an epoxy coating, which would be needed if the tower was to stand empty and still be part of the system after a now water Lover was built, was estimated at 816,716.00 by the repair firm. -4- v Council Minutes - 5/28/85 In looking at the three alternatives presented, it was recommended by the Public works Director that a full weld repair job be authorized with a new wax coating for approximately $9,900.00, which would give the water tower an estimated 10-20 year life and keep the tower in a serviceable condition, at which time later a decision could be made as to whether the tower should be dismantled and sold or kept within the present water system. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize repairs to the water tower by Water Tower Paint and Repair Company in the amount not to exceed $9,908.50. The actual repair cost will be on a time and material basis not to exceed this amount. 10. Consideration of Removing the Concrete Planters from Broadway and Returning Ownership to the Monticello Rotary Club. A number of years ago, the Rotary Club donated to the City 16 concrete planters that were placed in the downtown business area as a beautification program. Because of annual problems in maintaining each planter, the Rotary Club suggested that the concrete planters be removed. Although the Rotary donated the planters to the City, the City Public Works Department has agreed to remove all 16 planters and deposit them on City property owned adjacent to Jones Manufacturing. At that point, the planters would be turned over to the Rotary Club to sell as they wish. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and tnanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Department to move all the planters from public property right of ways and relocate the planters to City property adjacent to Jonas Manufacturing Company and authorize the Rotary Club to diopose of them. It was noted as part of the motion that none of the businesses would be allowed to purchase the planters and place them back on public proporty in the downtown area. 11. Conoidoration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment(a) to HRA. Recently, HRA member, Jack Roovo, resigned from the Committoo leaving a vacancy on his term until Decombor 31, 1988. Vx. Roger Hodtka has agreed to servo on the HRA Committoo if appointed to fulfill the remainder of Mr. Roovo-a term. Motion was made by Blonigon, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve tho appointment of Mr. Roger Hodtka to fill the unexpired torn of Jack Reeve on the URA Committoo. 12. Consideration of Bilis for the Month of May. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented. Council Minutes - 5/28/85 13. Clarification of Recent Planning Commission variances Granted to Doug Stokes. At the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Doug Stokes reapplied for variances to build a garage in his front yard four feet from his house and 27 feet from the front property line. All three of the requests still required variances,as 1) a garage is not allowed in a front yard unless it is attached to the house, 2) any detached accessory building must be 10 feet from an existing building, and 3) 30 feet is the minimum setback requirement from the front property line. During the Planning Commission's reconsideration of his request, a compromise was reached and variances granted to allow the garage to be located five feet from the house and to be down sized to a 26' x 38• structure with a 32 -foot front yard setback. The 32 -foot setback and 26 -foot wide garage were based on footages provided by Mr. Stokes, which turned out to be in error after actual measurements were taken on his property. A6 a result, if Mr. Stokes were allowed to build the 26 -foot wide garage as he proposed, the building would either have to be placed closer to his house or additional variances would have to be granted from the front yard setback requirement. The Building Inspector noted that to meet a 30 -foot setback and build a 26 -foot wide garage, the house would only be two foot from the garage, which did not allow enough room between the two buildings. It was recommended by the City staff that the garage be attached to the house to meet the setback requirements and still provide a 26 -foot width as Mr. Stokes had requested, or the garage would have to be reduced in width to meat all setback requirements. Based on the now data supplied regarding the actual footage available for building the structure, motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to reverse the Planning Commisoion-s variances granted and require that the garage be attached to the house if Mr. Stokes wishes to build the 26 -foot wide garage in order to moot all setback requirements of the ordinance. Rick WOlfatall$r Assistant Administrator -6- 0a MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL June 3, 1985 - 7:00 A.M. A special meeting of the City Council, being duly called by the Mayor and posted by the City Administrator, was held at 7:00 A.M., Monday, June 3, 1985, in the City Hall. Members present were Mayor Grimsmo, Council members Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen. and Jack Maxwell. Members absent: None. Also present were City Administrator Eidem, Finance Director Wolfsteller, and Dickman Knutson, representing Meadow Oak. The single agenda item and purpose for which the special meeting was called was to discuss a proposal to reapportion a certain amount of special assessments currently levied against Meadow Oak Estates. The proposal was to remove 5130,000.00 in special assessments from Meadow Oak Estates and respread said assessments in a proportionate way over outlots C and D in Meadow Oak. The Mayor called the meeting to order and asked City Administrator Eidem to give a brief background explanation on the proposal. Eidem explained that discussions with the developers of Ultra Homos had been meeting with City staff for approximately 12-15 months to work out a solution for the high special assessments ( currently in place against Meadow Oak Estates. He explained that under the current system, individual lots in Meadow Oak Estates would sell for approximately 517,000.00, while individual lots in outlots C and D (when roplatted) would sell for slightly over 58,000.00. Eidem explained that the intent of making the transfer and reapportionment of assessments would be to Sower the individual lot prices in Estates to approximately $13,000.00, while increasing the replotted individual lots in Outlets C and D to approximately $12,500.00. The intent is to make all lots approximately equal in cost so that they could be marketed mora effectively. With that, Eidem turned the floor over to Dickman Knutson, representing Ultra Homes, to explain the proposed financing and marketing tactics for the revitalized Salo of Meadow Oak building Sites. Mr. Knutson explained that he wan securing financing from Midwest Federal, personally, in order to buy out the two other partners in Ultra Homos, and further, to purchase Outlote C, D, G. and H. The money used to buy out the partnership and mcquiro the lots would provide enough income for Mr. Boyle to make the required payments to the Federal Land Bank, hence postponing the bank foreclosure Salo on Mr. Boyle's property. Mr. Knutson also noted that Midwant Federal has requested Ultra Homan to proceed with the roplat of Outloto C, D. G. and it before the and of 1985. They aro of the impression that platted lots will become more saleable and a bettor protection for the financial commitment. MM l_ Council Minutes - Special Meeting - 6/3/85 Both Council members Maxwell and Blonigen expressed substantial ' concern over the placing of assessments against unimproved lots. j Their concern stemmed from the fact that monies would be placed against unimproved lands, and the developers upon sale of the improved lots could simply walk away from the unimproved land leaving the City holding the debt on land that is unimproved. At that time, in order for the City to execute sales of the lots, the City would have to further invest monies to install the public improvements. Eidem explained that that was staff's concern all along and was also the primary reason that it took so long to arrive at an agreement. Eidem went on to say that it would be absolutely essential to enter independent contracts with Ultra Homes that provided some types of ironclad guarantees to the City to prevent developer walk away. Eidem indicated that such agreements had been executed with the Monticello Country Club during their replat and that with the City Attorney involved, he felt confident that a similar agreement could be achieved with Ultra Homes. Mr. Knutson indicated that while those documents were not prepared, Midwest Federal would be satisfied seeing a motion from the Council authorizing the respreading of spacial assessments, and directing the City staff and City Attorney to prepare and execute the required documents to achieve said respreading. , Mayor Grimamo asked if any supporting documentation had boon shown to City staff from Midwest Federal or Federal Land Bank, otc. Staff indicated they had not. Mayor Grimsmo indicated that any motion, in his estimation, must require that lettere be provided from the financial institution showing that the finance plan was, in fact, how it had boon presented to staff and Council. He than indicated he was ready for a motion. Motion by Fran Fair to grant approval to a reapportionment of $130,000.00 in spacial assessments, said assoosmanto to be proportionately removed from the individual lots within Meadow Oak Estates and reapportioned as lump oume against outloto C and D, said reapportionment to be contingent upon receipt of proper documentation from Midwest Federal that they are financing the restructuring of Ultra Homes, and further directing staff and City Attorney to prepare and execute the asneasmant roll and binding contracts for repayment. The motion was duly seconded by Dill Fair. Voting in favor: Grimamo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair. voting in the opposition: Jack Maxwell, Dan elonigon. Motion carried. Thorn being no other bueineas to be hold under the announcement of special mooting, the Mayor adjournod the mooting. 4Th.?AX'I-id.m` City Administrator Council Agenda - 6/10/85 4. Consideration of Accepting 1984 Annual Audit Report. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Rick Borden and/or Kim Lillehaug of Gruys Johnson 6 Associates will be present at the meeting to present an overview of the 1984 Audit recently completed. Each member of the Council should have received previously a copy of the Audit Report, and members of Gruys Johnson will be available to answer any questions you may have. A specific management letter to the Council was not prepared by the Auditors, as it apparently was not necessary to point out any specific problems. Mr. Kim Lillehaug indicated they may be preparing a typed summary that would highlight some details for the Council and may have this available for Monday night's meeting. Should any of you have any specific questions regarding the information presented in the Audit Report, you may contact myself prior to Monday night's meeting, and 1 will hopefully try to answer any questions. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The only action necessary by the Council is to accept the 1984 Financial Audit as presented so that a copy may be submitted to the State Auditor as required by Statutes. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy Of the Audit Report previously delivered. 6C Council Agenda - 6/10/85 �•- 5. Consideration of Adopting a Joint Powers Agreement for the SWCG. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The franchise to provide cable services to the 10 communities has been granted in all 10 communities and, obviously, construction is underway. The initial Joint Powers Agreement that the City entered when joining the Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communication Commission was specified for the sole purpose of preparing a Request for Proposals and reviewing bids and recommending franchising. Even though we are still meeting and keeping business up to date, technically the tasks an dofined under the original Joint Powers Agreement have been completed. It is now essential to create a new commission charged with the responsibility of administering the cable franchise on the behalf of 10 cities. The alternative to this action, of course, is for the City to withdraw from the Commission and simply choose to administer their own franchise. This, to me, does not seem realistic for a city our size with the limited amount of staff we have available. The Cable Commission, once put into place, would become the governing body of all 10 franchises, except that any formal action affecting the franchise would have to come from each individual city council. Much like what was done during the franchising process, the ultimate authority is always retained by the City, but the daily management of the system is delegated to the Commission. l_ The Joint Powers Agreement is virtually identical to the first one in terms of responsibilities and obligations of each city and their dolegatcs; however, the intent of the Commission has changed as I explained above. As you will also recall, the City made a contribution of $2,000.00 an the beginning which vas fully rofundad at a Council mooting a couple months back. Not only did we receive a refund for initial contribution, but for all axponaaa that had boon incurred by my carving as a dologato. This practice will continuo in that 3% of the annual operating revenue of Rite Cable Company is turned back to the cities in the form of a franchise fee. The Joint Powers Agreement does ask that the franchise foo returned to the cities be in turn dodicatod to the Commission to continue its ongoing cable operations. Thuo, after recovering the initial contribution and reimbursing the City Treasury, monios in excess of that reimbursable amount will be dedicated to the Cable Commission for their oporationo. Concoquently, the operation of thio Cable Commission draws not one tax dollar out of the community. In fact, what occurs is that the cable company must pay the Cable Commission to do business. Aloo part of the resolution is the appointing of dologateo to the Cable Commission. Since 1 have served on the Commioaicn since its inception and am currently carving as the Chair of the original Commission. I roquoot that my appointment be renewed so that I may servo on tho now Commiasion. Thio basically would IPM Council Agenda - 6/10/85 provide uninterrupted service. I should note that once the new Commission is established, there will be a new election for officers; and I may no longer serve as Chair as a result of that, but I still would prefer to be the delegate from Monticello. Currently, Shelly Johnson, Superintendent of Schools, is the City's alternate delegate to the Commission. I think this was totally appropriate for the first phase of cable franchising, but I think It would be appropriate at this time to put Rick Wolfst eller in as our official alternate. My rationale is based largely on the position that when decisions have to be made that affect City Ordinances and franchise, I think that Rick would have a far greater familiarity with municipal policies in the event that I am absent. I believe it would be far more beneficial to train Rick in cable technology (the little I know) so that he could easily fi 11 in at any meeting if I were unable to attend. I think it would also be more effective for the City since Rick's position with the City carries a certain amount of responsibility for decision making, which Shelly Johnson, as a non-employeo,would not carry any type of decision-making authority for the City. Lastly, Shelly has served as the official representative of the consortium of school districts within the 10 cities; and while the two bodies have worked fairly well together, there have been times when the two groups have boon adversarial over specific issues. I could foresee that with Shelly serving both as an official delegate of the school conoort ium and as a City representative to the Commission, there could develop a conflict of interest. Hence, I am requesting that the appointment of first delegate be made naming me, and naming Rick Wolfatollor am alternate delegate to the SWC4. 8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution entering a Joint Powcre Agreement for the administration of the Rite Cable Systom - this is simply a renewal of the Joint Powers Agreement that we havo been in the last two years, only opocifice now duties for tho Commisnion. As a subfunction of this appointmont, you can pick any delegates that you dssiro to servo on the Commission. 2. Do not adopt the Joint Powers Agreement - this would essentially say that we aro willing to take on our own cablo franchise and work independently of the Commission to administer that fronchiao. This. in fact, is a real option, but I think it is the least desirable at this time. Tho ro may tomo a point in the future whore we request to withdraw from the Commission in ardor to operate the franchise on our own. The Joint Powers Agreement loaves that option open to us, but I think that it is appropriate to remain a member of tho Commission at least for the time being. -3- Council Agenda - 6/10/85 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we enter the Joint Powers Agreement and requests the appointment of Eidem as first delegate and Wolfsteller as alternate delegate. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution to be adopted; Copy of the Joint Powers Agreement. -4- RESOLUTION 1985 A RESOLUTION AMENDING BY SUBSTITUTION THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OF THE SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, (hereinafter "City") has granted a cable communications franchise ordinance to Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd.; WHEREAS, on September 14, 1984, City was issued a Regular Certificate of Confirmation by the Minnesota Cable Communications Board relative to the Cable Communications Franchise; WHEREAS, City is an existing member of the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission; WHEREAS, City believes it to be in the best interest and the most efficient utilization of resources for City to amend the existing Joint and Cooperative Agreement to provide for the Administration of the cable communications system; WHEREAS, said joint and cooperative effort is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 471. 59, as amended; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Monticello shall participate in the Sherburno/Wright County Cable Communications Commission for the administration of the cable communications system; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the existing Joint and Cooperative Agreement is amended by substitution of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of a Cable Television Franchise; FURTHFR, that the appropriate officers of City shall execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement of the Sherburno/Wright County Cable Communications Commission and file i t appropriately with the City Administrator of the City of Monticello; FURTHER, that CL ty-s director shall be Thomas A. Eldem, residing at 104 Linn Street, Mon Y_lcnllo, MN 55362, whose phone number is (612) 295-3642; FURTHER, the City'e alternate shall be Rick Wolfatellor, residing at 113 Otter Crook Road, Monticello, MN 55362, whose phone number in (612) 295-3327. Adopted this 10th day of Juno, 1985. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Adminiatrator 0 June, 1985 SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION II JOINT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM I. PARTIES The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended. II. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this Agreement is to establish an organization to monitor the operation and activities of cable communications, and in particular, the Cable Communi- cation System (System) of the parties; to provide coordina- tion of administration and enforcement of the franchises of parties for their respective System; to promote the develop- ment of locally produced cable television programming; and to conduct such other activities authorized herein as may be necessary to insure equitable and reasonable rates and ser- vice levels for the citizens of the Members of the organiza- tion. III. NAME The name of the organization is the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission II. IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this Article shall have the meanings given them. J Section 2. "Commission" means the Board of Directors created pursuant to this Agreement. Section 3. "Council" means the governing body of a Member. Section 4. "Franchise" means that cable communications franchise granted by all cities in Article V, Section 1. Section 5. "Grantee" means the person or entity to whom a franchise has been granted by a Member. Section 6. "Member" means a municipality which enters into this agreement. V. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The municipalities of Big Lake, Buffalo, Cokato, Dassel, Delano, Elk River, Maple Lake, Monticello, Rockford, and Watertown, are eligible to be the original Members of the Commission. Any municipality served by a cable communications system through the same Grantee may become a Member pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Section 2. Any municipality desiring to become a Member shall execute a copy oU this agreement and conform to all requirements herein. Section 3. The initial Members shall be those Members who become Members on or before July 31, 1985. Section 4. Municipalities desiring to become Members d after the date specified in Article V, Section 3 may be admitted by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the C votes of the Members of the Commission. The Commission may i -2 0 J by resolution impose conditions upon the admission of addi- tional Members. VI. DIRECTORS: VOTING Section 1. Each Member shall be entitled to one (1) director to represent it on the Commission. Each director is entitled to one vote for each 800 dwelling units or fraction thereof located in the municipality represented by the director; provided; however, that each director shall have at least one (1) vote. For the purposes of this section, dwelling units of a governmental unit shall be that number determined by the most recent census or yearly estimation certified by a Member. Prior to December 31 of a each year, the Secretary of the Commission shall determine -� the number of dwelling units of each Member in accordance with this section and certify the results to the Chair. Three years after the inception of the Commission, or after the second annual report of the number of subscribers in all Members, whichever is sooner, the voting structure of the Commission shall be reconstituted to represent one vote per ' director based upon the number of subscribers or a fraction thereof of the municipality represented by the director; said number to be determined by amendment to this Agreement; provided, however, that each director shall have at least one vote. Section 2. A director shall be appointed by resolution / of the Council of each Member. A director shall serve until D57 i a successor is appointed and qualifies. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Commission, but nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a Member from reimbursing expenses of its director or otherwise compen- sating its director for service on the Commission if such compensation is authorized by law. Section 3. Each Member shall appoint.at least one alternate director. The Commission, in its By-laws, may prescribe the extent of an alternate's powers and duties. Section 4. A vacancy in the office of director will exist for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 351.02, or upon a revocation of a director's appointment duly filed by a Member with the Commission. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term of director by the Council of the Member whose position on the Board is vacant. Section 5. There shall be no voting by proxy, but all votes must be cast by the director or the duly authorized alternate at a Commission meeting. Section 6. A majority of the authorized votes of the Commission shall consitute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. Section 7. A director shall not be eligible to vote on q behalf of the director's municipality during the time said U municipality is in default on any contribution or payment to I the Commission. During the existence of such default, the C' - 4 - 0 vote or votes of Such Member shall not be counted for the purposes of this Agreement. Section 8. All official actions of the Commission must receive a majority of all authorized votes cast on that issue at a duly constituted meeting of the Commission. VII. EFFECTIVE DATE; MEETINGS; ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section 1. A municipality may enter into this Agreement by resolution of its Council and the duly authorized execu- tion of a copy of this Agreement by its proper officers. Thereupon, the clerk or other appropriate officer of the municipality shall file a duly executed copy of this agree- ment, together with a certified copy of the authorizing resolution, with the City Administrator of the City of Mon- ticello, Minnesota. The resolution authorizing the execu- tion of the Agreement shall also designate the director -and the alternate for the municipality on the Commission, along with said director's and alternate's address and phone num- ber. Section 2. This Agreement is effective on the date when executed Agreements and authorizing resolutions of four of the municipalities named in Article V, Section 1 have been filed as provided in this Article. Section 3. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement, the City Administrator of Monticillo shall call the first meeting of the Commission which shall be held no later than fifteen (15) days after such call. Section 4. The first meeting of the Commission shall be its organizational meeting. At the organizational meeting, the Commission shall select from among the directors a Chair, Vice -Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, and appoint any staff necessary to coordinate the activities of the Com- mission and to draft all necessary Commission documents. Section 5. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the Commission shall adopt by-laws governing its procedures including the time, place, notice for and frequency of its regular meet- ings, procedure for calling special meetings, and such other matters as are required by this Agreement. The Commission may amend the by-laws from time to time. ' -' Section 6. Officers of the Commission shall be elected for two-year terms. Officers completing one full two-year term shall only succeed themselves once in another full two- year term in the same office. VIII. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Section 1. The powers and duties of the Commission shall include the powers set forth in this Article. Section 2. The Commission may make such contracts, grants, and take such other action as it deems necessary and appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the organization. The Commission may not contract for the pur- chase of real estate without the prior authorization of the / Member municipalities. Any purchases or contracts made 6 - shall conform to the requirements applicable to Minnesota statutory cities. Section 3. The Commission shall assume all authority and undertake all tasks necessary to coordinate, administer, and enforce the Franchise of each Member except for that authority and those tasks specifically retained by a Member. Section 4. The Commission shall continually review the operation and performance of the cable communications system of the Members and prepare annual reports as required by the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and the FCC. Section 5. The Commission shall undertake all pro- cedures necessary to maintain uniform rates and to handle applications for changes in rates for the services provided by the Grantee. Section 6. The Commission may provide for the prosecu- tion, defense, or other participation in actions or proceed- ings at law in which it may have an interest, and may employ counsel for that purpose. it may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and duties. Such employees may be on a full-time, part-time or consult- ing basis, as the Commission determines, and the Commission may make any required employer contributions which local governmental units are authorized or required to make by law. Section 7. The Commission may conduct such research and investigation and take such action as it deems necessary, - 7 - Ob including participation and appearance in proceedings of State and Federal regulatory, legislative or administrative bodies, on any matter related to or affecting cable communi- cation rates, franchises, or levels of service. Section 8. The Commission may obtain from Grantee and from any other source, such information relating to rates, costs and service levels as any Member is entitled to obtain from Grantee or others. Section 9. The Commission may accept gifts, apply for and use grants, enter into Agreements required in connection therewith and hold, use and dispose of money or property received as a gift or grant in accordance with the terms 1 thereof. Section 10. The Commission shall make an annual, inde- pendent audit of the books of the Commission to be made and shall make an annual financial accounting and report in writing to the Members. Its books and records shall be available for examination by the Members at all reasonable times. Section 11. The Commission may delegate authority to its executive committee. Such delegation of authority shall be by resolution of the Commission and may be conditioned in such a manner as the Commission may determine. Section 12. The Commission may exercise any other power necessary and incidental to the implementation of its powers and duties. -8- IX. OFFICERS Section 1. The officers of the Commission shall consist of a chair, a vice -chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. A vacancy in the office of chair, vice - chair, secretary or treasurer shall occur for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of a director shall occur. Vacancies in these offices shall be filled by the Commission for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 3. The four officers shall all be members of the executive committee. Section 4. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and the executive committee. The vice -chair shall act as chair in the absence of the chair. Section 5. The secretary shall be responsible for keeping a record of all of the proceedings of the Commission and executive committee. Section 6. The treasurer shall be responsible for cus- tody of all funds, for the keeping of all financial records of the Commission and for Such other matters as shall be delegated by the Commission. The Commission may require that the treasurer post a fidelity bond or other insurance against loss of Commission funds in an amount approved by the Commission, at the expense of the Commission. Said fidelity bond or other insurance may cover all persons authorized to handle funds of the Commission. -9 - C-5), Section 7. The Commission may appoint such other offi- cers as it deems necessary. All such officers shall be appointed from the membership of the Commission. X. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. The fiscal year of the Commission shall be the calendar year. Section 2. Commission funds may be expended by the Commission in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by Minnesota Statutory Cities. Orders, checks and drafts must be signed by any two of the officers. Other legal instruments shall be executed with authority of the Commission, by the chair and trea- surer. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in accordance with the procedures established by law for Minne- sota Statutory Cities. Section 3. The financial contributions of the Members in support of the Commission Shall be in direct proportion to the number of votes to which the director representing the Member on the Commission is entitled. The annual budget shall establish the contribution of each Member for the ensuing year and a timetable for the payment of said contri- bution. Three years after the inception of the Commission, or after the second annual report of the number of sub- scribers to the cable system, whichever is sooner, the Com - mission shall reevaluate the proportion of the member con- tributions to the Commission. The remainder of any 14 franchise fee paid to the member by Grantee shall be used for cable -related expenses. Prior to the collection of franchise fees adequate to cover expenses, the Grantee, as a prepayment of the fees shall reimburse Members for all cable -related expenditures incurred by Members and the Com- mission. Section 4. The initial budget of the Commission shall be formulated by the Commission and submitted to the members within 120 days of the organizational meeting of the Com- mission. The initial budget of the Commission shall be deemed approved by a Member unless within 60 days of receipt of said initial budget a Member gives notice in writing to the Commission that it is withdrawing from the Commission. A proposed budget for any ensuing calendar year shall be formulated by the Commission and submitted to the Members on or before August 1. Such budget shall be deemed approved by a member unless, prior to October 15 preceding the effective date of the proposed budget, the Member gives notice in writing to the Commission that it is withdrawing from the Commission. Final action adopting a budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be taken by the Commission on or before November 1 of each year. Section S. Any Member may inspect and copy the Com- mission books and records at any and all reasonable times. All books and records shall be kept in accordance with nor- mal and accepted accounting procedures and principles used by Minnesota Statutory Cities. - 11 - 0 XI. DURATION Section 1. The Commission shall continue for an in- definite term unless the number of Members shall become less than four (4). The Commission may also be terminated by mutual agreement of all of the Members at any time. Section 2. In order to prevent obligation for its financial contribution to the Commission for the ensuing year, a Member shall withdraw from the Commission by filing a written notice with the secretary by October 15 of any year giving notice of withdrawal effective at the end of that calendar year; and Membership shall continue until the effective date of the withdrawal. Prior to the effective date of withdrawal a notice of withdrawal may be rescinded at any time by a Member. If a Member withdraws before dis- solution of the Commission, the Member shall have no claim against the assets of the Commission. A Member withdrawing after October 15 shall be obligated to pay its entire con- tribution for the ensuing year as outlined in the budget of the Commission for the ensuing year. Section 3. In the event of dissolution, the Commission shall determine the measures necessary to affect the dis- solution and shall provide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provi- sions of this Agreement. Upon dissolution of the Commission all remaining assets of the Commission, after payment of obligations, shall be distributed among the then existing - 12 - 5 Members in proportion to the most recent Member by Member breakdown of the franchise fee as reported by the Grantee. The Commission shall continue to exist after dissolution for such period, no longer than six months, as is necessary to conclude its affairs but for no other purpose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned municipality has caused this Agreement to be signed on its behalf this day of 1 1985. WITNESSED BY: of By Its By Its Filed in the office of the City Administrator of the City of Monticello this __ day of 1 1985. PREPARED BY: Thomas D. Creighton O'CONNOR & HANNAN 3800 IDS Tower 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 343-1298 DATED. May 24, 1985 Council Agenda - 6/10/85 6. Consideration of Providing Direction to City Staff for the Ongoing Preparation of the Revised Zoning Ordinance - Discussion Item. Mi.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Most of you attended the public hearing on Monday. June 3, and heard overwhelming opposition to the proposed PZ -R Zone on East River Street. Of all the persons speaking at the hearing, during any part of the hearing, only six discussed potential rezonings in areas other than East River Street. We also received two letters on proposed rezoning in other areas. Those eight comments will be reviewed, and adjustments can easily be made to accommodate the types of concerns expressed without jeopardizing the integrity of establishing zones. Even before the hearing was hold, staff discovered jogs in lines that might be needed to accurately reflect the use that has occurred. What was glaringly apparent in its absence were opponents to the PZ -R zoning west of Highway 25. Clearly, the opponents to PZ -R on East River Street aro clearly in opposition to any proposed development by Mr. Sandberg. Mr. Sandberg was the sole speaker in favor of the zoning change. What the staff would like from the City Council at this point is some direction to continue the preparation of the zoning map. I think I can safely speak for all the staff that there is no strong commitment that the river front lots be zoned any specific way. This, to me, is not a question of proper vs. improper zoning. This is a zoning question anticipating specific housing needs and how we might address those needs. It is my contention that both R-1 and PZ -R would be proper in this area. Consequently, the real decision is what is moot desirable to the greatest number of people. Clearly, to the people in the neighborhood, the R-1 zoning is desirable. The unanswered question is whether or not PZ -R would be desirable to a large number of people who currently reeido outside the aroo,but who may wish to catablish residences in the area in a multiple dwelling unit at some lata r data. All that staff desires from the City Council at this time is some sense of direction on how to proceed along East River Street. The entire map, of course, will be brought back to tho City Council when the lines have been adjusted, and each zone will be provided with rationale for you to make your final decisions. We simply aren't at that stage as yet. However, in light of the comments at the public hearing, staff wants to know the position of the City Council, at least in a general way, with respect to initiating a PZ -R Zone along the river and near the downtown. An I stated at the hearing, I would hope not to debate the marito of the map in Ito entirety, but simply receive some sense of d fraction so that staff can continua Ito work and research in establishing zone boundaries. Thorn are no alternative actions, staff rocommondatlon, nor supporting / documentation for thio item. -5. Council Agenda - 6/10/85 7. Information Item - Update on Negotiations for the Relocation of the Senior Citizen Center. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Since the Council authorized me to commence discussions for the acquisition of the Assembly of God Church and possible sale of the existing Senior Center site, I have had one opportunity to speak with Pastor Nordby. That discussion was not very fruitful in that he indicated their fixed asking price is $200,000.00, which is substantially higher than the appraisal figure that we had supplied to us by Jack Maxwell. Pastor Nordby indicated that at the time that appraisal was done, two additional appraisals were also done which placed the value of the building considerably higher. I requested that Pastor Nordby bring me copies of those, if he would, so that I could compare various figures and why there might have been a disparity in the appraisal. Pastor Nordby also indicated that they had authorized an appraisal now, and I informed him that we would porhaps look at hiring an appraiser to value not only the church building, but also our existing building. I made contact immediately with St. Cloud Appraisal, who apparently is so buoy and shorthanded duo to vacations that they could not possibly perform an appraisal for 2-3 weeks. I havo been given the name of another appraiser from Anoka, but I do wish to follow up on hie credentials and hio porformanco ( to data. As a result, the only thing that has occurred at this `-' point is that Pastor Nordby reaffirmed thair asking price of $200,000.00; and I indicated to him that, from a City perspoctiva, that amount of money was unworkable. I indicated to him that the amount of ropaire and conversions to that building would bo costly, and further, the improvements to parking lot, ote., would add more axponso. To furthor complicate that, it's my opinion that tho existing Senior site is limited in valuo. Granted, the building is basically sound, but its functional utility is extremely limited. Consequently, it ocams to me that whilo it is, in fact, commercial property and a basically sound building, it will not fetch a very attractive price on the open markot. An appraiser may show me to be wrong in that respect. I'm sorry to say that as of this writing. I do not have more to roport in terms of progr000 on thio issue. I had hoped to bo at a point where certain dollar figures had boon established, and the Council would have the ability to react to those fiduroo. Ono approach we could take would bo to make a determination of an offering pries basad on the appraisal we have on file. Such an offer would then put the burden of activity back on the sellers in that they would aithor have to accept, rofuao, or countor. The difficulty I face with the aboonco of an appraioal figure for the existing Senior site is formulating an extended budget for the relocation and renovation requirod for the Senior Center. -6- Council Agenda - 6/10/85 With respect to making an offer, we may wish to turn to the expertise of Jack on how to approach this matter. We may also wish to solicit offers for the existing site to use for a budget preparation. We know that there are parties who are interested in acquiring the property if the acquisition price is reasonable in terms of their own budget. We are, of course, faced with an "if -then" situation in that if we sell one structure, then we must buy or provide a new site for the Seniors. In reverse, if we acquire the new site, then we need some assurances that we can liquidate the old site and not be holding two properties. I do not have a firm recommendation on how we should proceed on this since data is limited. Perhaps Jack can provide greater in -sight into an effective procedure. There are no alternative actions, staff recommendations, nor supporting documentation provided at this tiwo. -7- INFORMATION ITEM SUBJECT: Annual City Payments to Township Resulting from 1974 Annexation Order Because of action by the state legislature in 1984, local government aids to townships were reduced by 508. The original shared revenue formula that was established under the Annexation Order utilized local government aids as an adjustment factor. With the reduction of local government aids by the legislature, the City would have had to pay the Township approximately 579,000.00, substantially higher than the projected 58,000.00. Accordingly, this figure would have increased significantly each ensuing year unless local government aids to townships were reinstated (an action which did not occur, nor do we anticipate). The final paragraph of the original Annexation Order issued in September of 1974 makes reference to the Municipal Commission retaining jurisdiction over the funding formula in the event that unforeseen extraordinary circumstances arise. It was the opinion of staff that the legislature's action to cut township aids in half were certainly unforeseen and wore certainly extraordinary. When we first discovered the tremendous increase that would have boon required under the formula, I made contact with the Municipal Commission to inquire how we would go about requesting their intervening to review the formula. _ The Municipal Commission, when I mat with them in St. Paul, directed me to inform the Council and that upon formal request by the City Council, they would than intervene to review the formula and payment procedure. I passed this information along to the Mayor, who felt in his judgement it would be moat beneficial to exclude the Municipal Commission, if possible, and begin working on a revised formula. The Mayor mot with the Chair of the Town Board and our respective attorneys on various occasions in an attempt to reach an agreement. At Arvo'o request, I did not bring the subject to the Council at largo until he had an opportunity to discuss it privately with the Town Board Chair. I did, however, make the decision to not issue a chock for $79,000.00 since I was still committed to the concept that an extraordinary circumstance had arisen. Over the last several months, several conversations have boon hold that eventually got us moving in the right direction. A discussion was hold on Wednesday morning, Juno 5, with Franklin Donn, Town Board Chair; William Radswill, Township Attorney; Cary Pringle, City Attorney; Rick Wolfstallor; Tom Eidam; and Mayor Crimomo. it was unanimously agreed that the formula, being at the morcy of state and federal legislators, no longer seemed workable and that it was, in fact, time to arrive at a now mothod of the City giving Township money for annexing the Nuclear Plant. Some discussion was hold on how we might resolve the question C relating to payments for 1984 and 1985, and then begin with a clean slate for 1986 and beyond. After considerable debate over an which document was the ruling document, since there was a minor difference in the formula used in two different documents, Chairman Dann indicated that he thought the Town Board would accept our proposed payment if we used the greater of the two inflation factors'. It has a net effect of increasing the City's payment to the Township by about $8,000.00. The Mayor indicated he didn't see that as a major problem. With respect to a payment plan for 1986 and beyond, it was agreed that a formula could not be adopted that related to external factors. Rather, it was agreed that payments from the City to the Township should be based on the value and the life of the Nuclear Generating Plant. Numerous suggestions were discussed with respect to burden, budget, fixed percentages, multi-year averages, etc. Ultimately, it was turned over to the City Attorney and the Township Attorney to attempt to arrive at a formula that will be based on a multi-year average also integrating value of the Plant. The intent is that a certain percentage of the revenue generated by ad valorem tax against the assessed value of the Nuclear Generating Plant will be turned over to the Township for use at their discretion. The intent is that there shall be no additional burden on all non -NSP taxable property. Presuming that the two attorneys can arrive at a formula which will protect both the City and the Town yet be seen as equitable, this formula will be brought to the two governing bodies for final adoption. At that time, a shared revenue typo of agreement will be presented for adoption as wall. As the discussion neared its close, Franklin Donn provided a figura that his records show the Township has (� boon receiving an adjusted gain of approximately $27,000.00 annually. He suggested that such a number be used as a starting point to begin determining averages. Whether or not that figure of $27,000.00 is valid will have to be determined by the City Attorney. As noted at the top of the page, this is strictly an informational item and not intended to tomo up for Council discussion as yet. It should also be noted that this payment issue is being hold separate and distinct from any inquiries into other annexation that may occur in the near future. That payment proposal is something that developed out of the original annoxation, and it is the Township's contention that it should have little or no bearing on any future annexation. With respect to the annexation study, that has not progrecood to any groat degree. We have mot with Township officials, City Engineer, and Consulting Planner to investigate the scope of any annexation study. That currently lion with Dahlgren. Shordlow and Uban, Inc. In summary then, staff and attorneys from both the City and the Town have mot with the Town Board Chair and City Mayor to propose a now revenue agreement. The matter has boon delegated to the two attorneys in an attempt to find a formula suitable to both portion. There is apparent agreement over the concept; and as the formula develops, it will be brought back before the City C I Council for formal action. In the meantime, any individuals who may have specific questions about how thio is progreaoing, the history, how it got whore it did, may contact me at their leisure. -2•