HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000905_regular-- RO ,LCAL
Maetzold.
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 5,2000 - 200 P.M.
- Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, Jcldson, illy, anc ayor
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Johnson and seconded
by Member Hovland approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF AUGUST 15, 2000, APPROVED Motion
made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland approving the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of the Edina City Council on August 15,2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
BOY SCOUT TROOP 123 WELCOMED Mayor Maetzold noted the presence of Boy Scout Troop
123 and their leader from Shepherd of the Hills Church who are working on their Citizenship in - the Community merit badge. I *PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET OF OCTOBER 3,2000, FOR PLANNING MATTER Motion
made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland setting October 3, 2000, for
Planning Matter:
1) Preliminary Rezoning - R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PCD-1, Planned
Commercial District (Edward and Lisa Noonan)
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. .
*RESOLUTION NO. 2000-87 LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR 3205/3219 WEST 60m
STREET (STEVEN M. PAQUIN AND TEFF MILLER) Motion made by Member Johnson and
seconded by Member Hovland, approving the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-87
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A LOT DIVISION FOR
3205/3219 WEST 60m STREET
WHEREAS, the following three properties are described as separate parcels at present:
PARCEL A
Lot 2, Loken's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PARCEL E:
Commencing at a point 586.674 feet West of the Northeast comer of the South
of the Southwest 9'4; thence South 161 feet; thence North 161 feet; thence West 55
feet to the point of beginning.
Combined with platted Torrens property (not adjacent to divided parcel):
The North 128 feet of Outlot 1, Loken's 3rd addition.
Page 1
Minutes/Edina Citv CounciVSeptember 5,2000
PARCEL C
The West 11.94 feet of the East 531.674 feet of Le North 161 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 28, Range 29,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the owner of Parcel A has requested the lot division as follows: - PARCEL A
Lot 2, Loken’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota will now include the
West 5.747 feet of the East 525.927 feet of the North 161 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 28, Range 29,
Hennepin County, Minnesota and
WHEREAS, the owner of Parcel B has requested the lot division as follows:
PARCEL B:
Commencing at a point 586.674 feet West of the Northeast corner of the South 1h
of the Southwest 1h; thence South 161 feet; thence North 161 feet; thence West 55
feet to the point of beginning and will now include the West 5.747 feet of the
East 531.674 feet of the North 161 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 20, Township 28, Range 29, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
Combined with platted Torrens property (not adjacent to divided parcel): the
North 128 feet of Outlot 1, Loken’s 3rd addition.
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code Section 810 and it has been
determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of
Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said newly created Parcels as separate tracts of
land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as
contained in the City of Edina Code Sections 810 and 850;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the
conveyance and ownership of the above described tracts of land (PARCEL A and PARCEL B)
as separate tracts of land are hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code
Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance there of as
separate tracts of land but only to the extent permitted under Code Sections 810 and 850
subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Ordinances are now waived for
any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the
provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with
the pertinent Ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as
may be provided for by those Ordinances.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
Adopted this 5& day of September, 2000.
“BID AWARDED FOR REEL GRINDER FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion made by
Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland for award of bid for a reel grinder for
Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, North Star Turf, at $16,450.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
I
I
Page 2
MinutesEdha City CounciVSeptember 5,2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-92, PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS FOR WideopenWest Minnesota, L.L.C., AND RESOLUTION
APPLICATION FOR EVEREST CONNECTION CORPORATION Manager Hughes
introduced Tim Gustin of Moss and Barnett Law Firm who provided an overview of the process,
presented the findings from the commission and summarized the report prepared by Moss and
Barnett.
NO. 2000-93, PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE I
Tim Gustin, explained the law firm had been retained by.the City of Edina and the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission to review the qualifications of the two cable television applicants,
WideOpenWest (WOW) and Everest Connections. In the review, relevant statutory procedures
were followed. Each applicant had to possess three qualification standards: legal, technical and
financial; in order to construct, own and operate a cable communications system within Edina.
Mr. Gustin said both applications were similar, as both are start-up companies. Legally, both
companies have stipulated that they are qualified to do business in the State of Minnesota as
owners and operators of a cable system. Because both are start-up companies, neither has a
record of accomplishment and making it difficult to state their technical qualifications. Mr.
Gustin added the management teams for both companies were impressive. He continued stating
it would be difficult to ascertain the financial qualifications for either company. Typically past
performance would examined and compared to other providers but with two start-up companies
this cannot be done. However, he added both companies have raised sigruficant capital and
shown promise with other resources in various ways. Other jurisdictions have requested a
sigruficant performance bond to protect them in case the project would not be completed.
Mr. Hughes said he understood there was a basic legal principle from the FCC requiring the City
to take steps fostering competition. He asked what steps the City would follow if they approve
resolutions. Mr. Gustin replied the FCC and various courts encourage competition, which lowers
prices, and increases the level of service. If the resolutions are adopted, the next step would be
negotiating with both providers for a franchise agreement. Minnesota law requires the franchise
agreement be no less favorable or no more burdensome than that granted to the incumbent
provider, Time Warner. Mr. Hughes asked if this would be implemented by way of an ordinance
at a later date. Mr. Gustin responded affirmatively.
I
Council comments
Member Faust said she understood if a company has all the necessary qualifications they cannot
be denied the right to install a cable system. She asked if there was a Limit to the number of
companies that could be granted a franchise. Mr. Gustin answered more companies could
request franchises. Member Faust asked if the companies could be required to co-locate. Mr.
Gustin said co-location may encouraged but not be required. The City's right-of-way ordinance
must be followed by any provider. Member Faust asked if a company could wire one-half of the
City. Mr. Gustin said-the franchise document could require full-city performance. The City
would have remedial provisions it could take in addition to being protected by a performance
bond. Member Faust asked if provider would offer different programming. Mr. Gustin answered
programming is up to each franchisee, but the City may require local access availabity. Member
Faust asked if other cities are being asked for approval. Mr. Gustin answered that all the cities in
the Southwest Cable Commission have been approached.
Page 3
Minutes/Edina Citv CounciVSeptember 5,2000
Member Johnson asked if any cities have refused the franchise requests. Mr. Gustin said no.
Member Johnson asked why better-financed applicants have not applied. Mr. Gustin said all the
larger providers were already up and running. Mr. Johnson said the large start-up capital costs
must be underwritten in their subscription fees. Mr. Gustin said if an adequate performance
bond was in place, the companies should be allowed to take the risk. The performance bond will
cover any work left unfinished. Member Johnson asked if the City could be held responsible for
any costs associated with a failure of either company. Mr. Gustin responded that the
performance bond would cover such failures. Member Johnson asked if other areas have two
cable providers. Mr. Gustin said locally there are two providers in the St. Cloud area, but many
larger cities have competing providers. Member Johnson asked if Mr. Gustin believed these
proposals would be approved by all the cities. Mr. Gustin believed most cities would approve the
proposals. The downside of the proposal was the disruption of rights-of-ways during the
installation process.
I
Member Hovland asked what an adequate performance bond would be. Mr. Gustin said at
present The Warner has a bond with a limit of $300,000 which reduces to $100,000 when the
system was complete. Mi. Gustin said he believed the new franchisees bonds need to be higher.
Member Hovland asked if WOW and Everest were aware of the proposed amount of
performance bonds. Mr. Gustin said yes. Member Hovland asked if either company has
presented finanaal statements or pro-formas. Mr. Gustin said confidential projected finanaals
were presented. Because they are new companies the documents show funds that have been
raised from various sources. Member Hovland asked what was the ratio of debt to equity
financing. Mr. Gustin said he was not aware of the ratio. Member Hovland asked if the franchise
would preclude control programming. Mr. Gustin responded that all that can be controlled was
the mix of programming, not the content Member Hovland asked about prohibiting adult
channels. Mr. Gustin said federal law prohibits controhg specific channels. Member Hovland
asked if the ordinance would include a timeline for completion of the project. Mr. Hughes said
the ordinance was the vehicle used to award the franchise. Mr. Gustin said it would be similar to
the granting of the Time Warner franchise.
Mayor Maetzold said he read in the documents that 60 months would be allowed for completion
of the project but he did not see this in the resolution. Mr. Gustin said the timeline would need to
be fine-tuned but the estimates provided by WOW and Everest was 60 months. Mr. Hughes
explained the resolution validates the qualifications of the applicants. Issues such as time to
complete and bond requirements, etc., take the form of the agreement and ordinance and would
be adopted at a later date.
Mr. Hughes said the Sunday Star Tribune had an informative article on the issue of over-building
in providing a second cable system. The conclusion of the article was that there was a lot of over-
building going on but the jury was out on how deep the market was and how many over-
builders could be supported in any metropolitan area. He clarified that the City cannot mandate
Time Warner to retail-wheel new franchisees signal over their infrastructure similarly, to what
happens with long-distance carriers. Mr. Gustin stated the right-of-way ordinance would address
to what extent co-location could be allowed. Member Johnson asked if that was a matter of
negotiation. Mr. Gustin said it was a matter of negotiation.
Page 4
Minuteskdina City CounciVSeptember 5,2000
Member Hovland asked for clarification on the resolutions as presented. Mr. Hughes clarified
that Exhibit 'ID" was similar to the resolution adopted for the cable commission. The document
makes it more particular to the City of Edina rather than the cable commission.
Member Faust said she envisions building more skyways rather than tunnels with the amount of
equipment installed under the streets.
I
Member Johnson asked if the proposed providers will be using fiber-optics or conventional lines.
Mr. Gustin said they would use fiber-optics. The trend would be to have internet, cable,
telephone, etc., from one provider. Member Johnson asked if the proposed franchisees will be in
competition with Time Warner and USWest and other phone providers. Mr. Gustin said yes.
Member Hovland asked clarification about language in the resolution that, 'an ordinance
awarding a franchise should be introduced to the City Council for consideration and action'. He
suggested the word 'potentially' be added to the phrase preceding the word awarding. Mr.
Gustin noted that once the proposed franchisee was qualified on the three fronts, there would be
an obligation to award and grant the franchise.
Member Johnson asked if the resolutions were adopted at this time was it a done deal. Mr.
Gustin said the franchise document would need to be drafted and approved by the Council.
Member Johnson said in essence if this was approved at this time, there will be two new
franchisees in the City without us having knowledge of their financial condition. Member Kelly
added that was what the FCC meant when they passed the telecommunications act. Mayor
Maetzold reiterated that much of this has been all guided by federal law. Member Hovland
voiced concern if a franchise was approved and then was never acted upon by the franchisee. He
questioned what would happen if someone objects to the award of the franchise while they hold
a license to put a franchise in place. Mr. Gustin said negotiations would take as long as necessary
but time restrictions could be imposed for a completion date. Member Kelly said technically, the
analysis has taken place, the Southwest Cable Commission counsel has said both companies meet
qualifications. Modest requests can be made to the providers but it would really be a rubber
stamp. Member Hovland says he saw a distinction between established companies and start-up
companies in that established companies have proven fitness. He voiced concern that there
would be a lack of control without an ordinance in place. Member Kelly said there was no
aesthetic quality here like there was antennas because everything was under the street. The only
way a legitimate claim can be made would be if it poses a risk to health, safety and welfare of our
citizens.
Member Hovland voiced additional concern. Attorney Gilligan said the control will be in the
franchise agreement that sets forth terms and requirements of the performance bond. If the
performance bond were not posted, the franchisee would be in violation of the ordinance and the
franchise could be cancelled at that point. Member Johnson asked if a cancellation would be done
by the Commission or individual cities. Mi. Gustin said the process would start with the
Commission but be completed by each city. Member Johnson asked if the Edina City Attorney
would be involved in the negotiations. Attorney Gilligan elaborated that Moss and Barnett
would negotiate the model franchise ordinance with each cable company, it would be approved
by the Commission and then go to the cities for individual adoption. Member Johnson asked if
each city would have a separate bond. Mr. Gustin responded yes. Mr. Hughes noted the first call
he received was from WideOpenWest and passed them on to the Southwest Cable Commission
I
Page 5
MinutesEdina City Council/September - 5,2000
after asking if they were interested in operating in all five cities. He concluded that the City has
an obligation to allow these sorts of providers to use our rights-of-way to build these systems.
We further have an obligation to say it has to be done on the basis of a level playing field and that
the new operators are given a better or worse deal than the incumbent enjoys here. He believes
the requests being considered have looked at the existing franchise with Time Warner and are
bargaining correctly that their franchise agreement was going to be identical in order to comply
with the law. The issues on the new franchises are finite in nature. He suggested thinking big
issues like franchise fees, and public access availability that must be consistent between the .three
providers. Things like performances bonds are more up for negotiation. Member Johnson
inquired whether the Commission regulates fees charged by the providers. Mr. Gustin said the
Commission does but was enforced by each city's individual franchise. Member Faust said this
competition was welcome and thanked them for taking the risk to come here.
I
Public comment
Betsy Edwards, WideopenWest, said she understood approval of the resolution grants
permission to negotiate a franchise agreement, She explained that WOW has plans to bring the
capability of high-speed internet to the City. It will consist of fiber and be an 'always on'
connection that is very fast, The internet connection will be open-access allowing residents to
chose their internet provider. WOW will offer fantastic CATV as well with new features never
before offered. IP protocol telephony or phone calls made over the internet will also be offered.
WOW's presence will foster competition and the existing provider will perk up their service in an
attempt to maintain their subscribers. The WOW management team comes mainly from RCN
with systems in operation in the eastern states. WOW's plan was to have as little disruption of
land as possible.
Jed Jenkins, 5708 Olinger, asked what the cost will be for the internet service. Ms. Edwards
estimated the cost at $35 - $39 per month. If other services are purchased as well there was a
package discount
Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing on the application for cable
television franchise from WideOpenWest MINNESOTA, L.L.C. Member Johnson seconded the
motion.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its approval:
A RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO WideOpenWest Minnesota, L.L.C's
PROPOSAL FOR A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-92
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes tj 238.08(a) mandates that the City require a franchise
for any cable communication system providing service within the City; and
WHEREAS, Federal law at 47 U.S.C. @ 541(a) provides that a city "may not unreasonably
refuse to award an additional competitive franchise"; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully followed the franchise procedure required by Minnesota
Statutes tj 238.081 by publishing once each week (June 21,2000, and June 28, 2000) for two
successive weeks in the Sun-Current, a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable Communications
System; and
Page 6
Minutes/Edina Citv CounciVSeptember 5,2000
WHEREAS, the Notice stated all eight (8) criteria outlined in Minn. Stat. 8 238.081
Subd. 2; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the published Notice, the City mailed copies of the Notice of
Intent and the Official Application Form to WideOpenWest ("WOW"), as well as other
interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City's Official Application Form required that proposals for a cable
communications franchise contain responses to each of the items identified in Minnesota
Statute 8 238.081 Subd. 4; and
WHEREAS, the City's closing date for submission of applications was set at July 14,
2000, which complied with the statutory minimum of 20 days from the date of first
publication; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined to call a Public Hearing to consider the
application received from WOW at its regularly scheduled September 5,2000, meeting; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak to the City
Council. The City Council imposed no time limitations or other constraints on presenters, and
interested parties had every opportunity to present information regarding this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed all information and documentation presented
to it regarding WOW's proposal and qualifications to construct, own and operate a cable
communications system within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City, as a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
("Commission"), retained the law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association to assist
the Commission and City in conducting the procedure required under Minnesota Statutes
8238.081 and reviewing the application submitted by WOW as well as comments and
information from interested parties; and
WHEREAS, based on information and documentation made available to the City, the
report dated August 3,2000, prepared by Moss & Barnett with respect to WOW's application
and the recommendation of the Commission, each of which is hereby incorporated in this
Resolution by reference, the City Council has reached conclusions regarding WOW's legal,
technical and financial qualifications.
NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby resolves as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The City hereby finds that WOW's application of July 14, 2000, complies with the
requirements of Minnesota Statute 8 238.061; and
The City finds that WOW possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial
qualifications to construct, own and operate a cable communications system within
the City; and
The City has determined that an ordinance awarding a franchise to WOW should be
introduced to the City Council for consideration and action; and
The contents of the franchise should be substantially the same as the franchise
ordinance currently held by the City's existing cable television operator, KBL
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., doing business as Time Warner Cable ("Time
Warner"), throughout the existing term of Time Warner's franchise which will
expire on or about December 31,2011.
A construction bond should be required of WOW as part of any franchise award to
provide the City with security in the event damage to the City's rights-of-way
should arise which WOW is unwilling or unable to cure.
Subject to all applicable laws, the City shall regulate the provision of cable
television services within the City in a competitively neutral manner and shall
enforce the terms and conditions of all cable communications franchises in
Page 7
MinutesEdina Citv Council/September 5,2000
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations in a consistent manner against
all franchised cable operators so that no one operator is given an unfair competitive
advantage over the other.
7. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the
mandates contained in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable provisions
of federal law including 47 U.S.C. ij 541(a).
Passed and adopted this 5th day of September, 2000.
Member Hovland seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Resolution adopted.
Tim Gustin, explained the law firm had been retained by the City of Edina and the Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission to review the qualifications of the two cable television applicants.
In the review, relevant statutory procedures were followed. Each applicant must possess three
qualification standards, legal, technical and financial in order to construct, own and operate a
cable communications system within Edina.
Carol Olsent, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm representing Everest Connections, commented that the
proposals are nearly identical. The Everest Connection wiIl be a 850 megahertz connection with
300 video channels. Basic cable will be 80 channels and have a price point where bundling
services together wiIl be more cost effective or at approximately $80 per month. She believes it to
be misleading to say Everest and GLA are start-up companies; they started in 1991 as a part of
Brooks Fiber Company which was subsequently sold to MCI Worldcom. Management of Brooks
Fiber bought back the GLA Everest component. Ms. Olsent named locations where Everest has
built with great success. Major funding for the franchise is in place from Utilicorps, a company
similar to NSP of Kansas City. Everest expects to announce major vendor equity in the near
future as well. Ms. Olsent added that the Public Utilities Commission and the northwest suburbs
deemed Everest as financially qualified to do the complete build.
I
Member Hovland made a motion to close the public hearing on the application for cable
television franchise for Everest Connection Corporation. Member Johnson seconded the
motion.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-93
A RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO EVEREST CONNECTIONS CORPORATION'S
PROPOSAL FOR A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes ij 238.08(a) mandates that the City require a franchise
for any cable communication system providing service within the City; and
WHEREAS, Federal law at 47 U.S.C. ij 541(a) provides that a city ''may not unreasonably
refuse to award an additional competitive franchise"; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully followed the franchise procedure required by Minnesota
Statutes ij 238.081 by publishing once each week (June 21, 2000, and June 28, 2000) for two
Page 8
MinutesEdina Ciw CounciVSeptember 5,2000
successive weeks in the Sun-Current, a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable Communications
System; and
WHEREAS, the Notice stated all eight (8) criteria outlined in Minn. Stat. § 238.081
Subd. 2; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the published Notice, the City mailed copies of the Notice of
Intent and the Official Application Form to Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest"), as
well as other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City's Official Application Form required that proposals for a cable
communications franchise contain responses to each of the items identified in Minnesota
Statute § 238.081 Subd. 4; and
WHEREAS, the City's closing date for submission of applications was set at July 14,
2000, which complied with the statutory minimum of 20 days from the date of first
publication; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined to call a Public Hearing to consider the
application received from Everest at its regularly scheduled September 5,2000, meeting; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak to the City
Council. The City Council imposed no time limitations or other constraints on presenters, and
interested parties had every opportunity to present information regarding this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed all information and documentation presented
to it regarding Everest's proposal and qualifications to construct, own and operate a cable
communications system within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City, as a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
("Commission"), retained the law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association to assist
the Commission and City in conducting the procedure required under Minnesota Statutes
§238.081 and reviewing the application submitted by Everest as well as comments and
information from interested parties; and
WHEREAS, based on information and documentation made available to the City, the
report dated August 3,2000, prepared by Moss & Barnett with respect to Everest's application
and the recommendation of the Commission, each of which is hereby incorporated in this
Resolution by reference, the City Council has reached conclusions regarding Everest's legal,
technical and financial qualifications.
I
NOW THEREFORE, the City hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City hereby finds that Everest's application of July 14,2000, complies with the
requirements of Minnesota Statute § 238.061; and
2. The City finds that Everest possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial
qualifications to construct, own and operate a cable communications system within
the City; and
3. The City has determined that an ordinance awarding a franchise to Everest should
be introduced to the City Council for consideration and action; and
4. The contents of the franchise should be substantially the same as the franchise
ordinance currently held by the City's existing cable television operator, KBL
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., doing business as Time Warner Cable ("Time
Warner"), throughout the existing term of Time Warner's franchise which will
expire on or about December 31,2011.
5. A construction bond should be required of Everest as part of any franchise award to
provide the City with security in the event damage to the City's rights-of-way
should arise which Everest is unwilling or unable to cure.
Page 9
Minutes/Edina Ciw Council/September 5,2000
6. Subject to all applicable laws, the City shall regulate the provision of cable
television services within the City in a competitively neutral manner and shall
enforce the terms and conditions of all cable communications franchises in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations in a consistent manner against
all franchised cable operators so that no one operator is given an unfair competitive
advantage over the other.
7. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the
mandates contained in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable provisions
of federal law including 47 U.S.C. 9 541(a).
Passed and adopted this 5th day of September, 2000.
Rollcall.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Resolution adopted.
"RESOLUTION RELATING TO MLC TOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Motion
made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland approving the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-88
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows:
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 permits two or more governmental
units, by agreement of their governing bodies, to jointly and cooperatively exercise any power
common to each of them; and
WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Joint and Cooperative Agreement to
develop programs on matters of mutual concern and interest and identify, review and actively
oppose proposals which may be in conflict with the interest of the members.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Mr. are hereby
authorized and directed to execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement as amended and
attached hereto.
I
Adopted this 5th day of September, 2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
"EDINA VISION 20/20" UPDATE GWEN Mr. Hughes informed the Council that throughout
the strategic planning process, "Edina Vision 20/20", the public has been encouraged to
partiapate and feedback encouraged. Recently, community members were Mce asked their
opinion of the City's proposed mission and vision statements and long-range plan. Each time,
letters were sent to various community leaders and documents posted on the City's website for
feedback. To date, approximately 12 responses have been received via letter, e-mail and
telephone. Residents who responded were pleased with the plan labeling it "comprehensive",
''responsive'', and ''a good beginning". Each respondent did offer suggestions as well. Mr. Hughes
presented a summary of the resident comments. He reported staff has taken all of the comments
into consideration and an executive summary will be prepared for wider distribution.
Member Johnson made a motion adopting the "Edina Vision 20/20" strategic planning final
document as presented. Member Faust seconded the motion. I
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Page 10
MinutesEdina City CounciVSeptember 5,2000
Motion carried.
"RESOLUTION 2000-86 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR 494/l69
PROPERTY Motion made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland
introducing the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-86
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXECUTION OF DEED
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SALE
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY
(49q69 Property)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina (the "City"), as
Section 1. Recitals.
follows:
The City has entered into a Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement")
dated November 15,1999, with DRF Holding LLC (the "Purchaser") in which provides the sale
by the City of certain real property to the Purchaser.
Section 2. Execution of Deed and Other Documents.
The Mayor and City Mr. are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the
City to execute and deliver the deed transferring title to the real property to be sold by the City
to the Purchaser pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, and to execute and deliver on behalf of
the City any other documents to be executed and delivered by the City in connection with
such sale.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
"RESOLUTION NO. 2000-89 HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 5,2000, SET FOR VACATION
OF UTILITY EASEMENT FOR LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1 (BRENDAN GLEN) Motion made
by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland approving the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2000-89
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
DATE OF OCTOBER 5,2000, FOR VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT
FOR LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1, BRENDAN GLEN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL, that the Council shall meet at EO0
P.M. on the 5th day of October, 2000, in the Council Chambers of Edina City Hall, to consider
the vacation of utility easement for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Brendan Glen.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of
such hearing and improvement as required by law.
Adopted this 5th day of September, 2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
"RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85 SUPPORTING LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES "BUILDING
QUALITY COMMUNITIES" CAMPAIGN Motion made by Member Johnson and seconded
by Member Hovland approving the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
COMMITMENT TO "MINNESOTA CITIES: BUILDING QUALITY
I
Page 11
Minutes/Edina Citv CounciVSeptember 5,2000
COMMUMTIES" EFFORT WITH LEAGUE OF MIMVESOTA CITIES I WHEREAS, the top values and priorities of citizens include safety, family, job
opportunities, health, the well-being of children and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, many of the services cities provide directly enhance those citizen priorities;
and
WHEREAS, the connection between city services and how they benefit citizen
priorities and concerns is not always understood by citizens; and
WHEREAS, it is one of the responsibilities of city officials to ensure legislators, media
and citizens understand their governments through open and frequent communication using
various avenues and means; and
WHEREAS, it is important to encourage citizens to actively participate in city
government, to share their views and to work in partnership with city officials to ensure that
the needs of the community are met; and
WHEREAS, partnerships developed between citizens and city officials can result in
greater understanding of the connection between Minnesota's high quality of life and the
services provided by Minnesota cities, as well as in greater trust by citizens of the efforts of
their city government;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina hereby declares its
commitment to join in the. "Minnesota Cities: Building Quality Communities" statewide
educational effort in cooperation with our fellow members of the League of Minnesota Cities.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
I "SUMMARY OF THE EIS FOR RICHFIELD BEST BUY REDEVELOPMENT PRESENTED
Motion made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland acknowledging receipt
of the summary of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Richfield Best Buy
redevelopment.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
Bill Berg, 5525 Hansen Road, read a letter he had submitted to the Council regarding the use of
Garden Park as a staging site by the City for their projects. He noted that C.P. Kennedy of The
Westchester, 5525 Hansen Road #111, wrote with similar concerns as well as Jack Anderes, 5525
Hansen Road #106. Staff responded that the area would be monitored more closely and cleaned
UP-
*JXEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 3,2000, SET FOR TAX RATE INCREASE Motion made by
Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hovland setting October 3,2000, as hearing date
for authorizing a property tax increase.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-90 APPROVED SETTING MAXIMUM TAX LEVY Mr. Hughes
explained that the maxirnum proposed tax levy of $14,438,346 on total expenditures of
$20,647,425 is proposed. The levy and expenditure amounts are the amounts agreed to during the
budget assumption meetings. The proposed tax levy of $14,438,346 if approved, becomes the
maximum allowed levy and cannot be increased beyond this amount. The expenditure budget of
$20,647,425 may be increased or decreased in the budget process as long as the tax levy is not
increased.
Page 12
MinutesEdina City CounciVSeptember 5,2000
Member Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-90
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDINA FOR YEAR 2001,
AND ESTABLISHING THE PROPOSED
TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2001
I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Budget for the City of Edina for calendar year 2001, is hereby proposed
as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,647,425
Section 2. Estimated receipts other than General Tax Levy, including HACA Aid, are
TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS $6,209,079
Section 3. That there is proposed to be levied upon all taxable real and personal
FOR GENERAL FUND $14,438,346
hereby proposed as follows:
property in the City of Edina a tax rate sufficient to produce the amount as follows:
Member Hovland seconded the motion.
Rollcall: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-91 TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING AND BUDGET ADOPTION
DATES SET Director Wallin presented a calendar of dates available to hold the City's Truth in
Taxation hearings. He recommended the Council set Monday, December 4,2000, at 5:OO P.M. for
the Truth in Taxation initial hearing and Monday, December 11, 2000, at 5:OO P.M. for the
continuation hearing; and Tuesday, December 19,2000, for the budget adoption hearing. I
Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-91
A RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATES FOR
TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARINGS AND BUDGET ADOPTION
WHEREAS, the City of Edina is required to inform Hennepin County of its Truth in Taxation
Hearing dates as well as the Budget Adoption Hearing date:
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council sets:
TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATES:
Monday - December 4,2000
Monday - December 11,2000
BUDGET ADOPTION HEARING DATE
Tuesday - December 19,2000
5:OO P.M.
5:OO P.M.
200 P.M.
Passed this 5& day of September, 2000. Member Johnson seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Resolution adopted. I
CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Hovland approving payment of the following
claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated August 31,2000, and consisting of 74
pages: General Fund $1,739,826.43; CDBG $10,847.00; Communications $3,651.00; Working
Page 13
MinutesEdina CiW Council/S ep t emb er 5,20 0 0
Capital $61,499.34; Construction Fund $59,180.87; Art Center Fund $21,341.38; Golf Dome Fund
$914.49; Aquatic Center Fund $9,873.47; Golf Course Fund $70,638.34; Ice Arena Fund
$23,246.40; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes $43,094.7l; Liquor Fund $404,994.44; Utility Fund
$342,157.41; Storm Sewer Utility Fund $5,921.73; HRA Fund $768.08; Payroll Fund $170,000.00;
TOTAL $2,967,955.09. Member Johnson seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Maetzold adjourned the Council
Meeting at 8:40 P.M.
Page 14