Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/27/2014
anaw 0 01b ON - NO A-Qmffil j'f ga s, M L M CITY COUNCIEETING A'%-ff-JvP-JNDA LAUDERDALE - MAY 27 2014 74,30 P,M. TUESDAY 4 LAUDERDOALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at me ino. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER I 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of the May 13, 2014 City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $25,634.59 4. CONSENT a. April Financial Report b. Copier Lease Agreement 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. Emmett Coleman, Vice President of Government Affairs, Comcast 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Ordinance 14-03 Pertaining to Health and Safety; Nuisances Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. 8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Cable Franchise (Resolution 052714A)North a. Renewal of Comcast of Minnesota Caeran, Suburban Cable Commission Executive Director Cor Wilson b. Ordinance 14-03 Pertaining to Health and Safety; Nuisances c. Farmers Market Guideline s/Policies 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA lo. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. Review of Fines for Payable Offenses b. Ramsey County Economic Prosperity Report by Ryan O'Connor — June 24 12. WORK SESSION a. opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member I of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. b. 2430 Larpenteur Avenue Improvements c. Community Development and Sanitary Sewer Lining Update 13. ADJOURNMENT LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page I of 4 May 13, 2014 Mayor Dains called the City Council meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Councilors present: Mary Gaasch, Roxanne Grove, Lara Mac Lean, and Mayor Jeff Dains. Councilors absent: Denise Hawkinson. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; Jim Bownik, Assistant to the City Administrator; and Kevin Kelly, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Dains asked for changes to the meeting agenda. There being none, Councilor Grov'i moved to approve the agenda. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ® Mae Lean moved to approve the April 22, 2014 City Council meeting minutes. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Grove moved approval of the claims totaling $120,128.77. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Mae Lean moved approval of the Consent Agenda which included the PCIC Minutes, F Investment Report, Public Entity Innovations Grant Application, Resolution 051314B Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board, and the purchase of fire hydrant markers. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Special Recognition - Peace Officers Recognition Week The Mayor and Council expressed their appreciation for the services of the St. Anthony Police Department and lauded them for being one of the best forces in the metro. Councilor Mac Lean moved to adopt •Resolution 051314A. A •Resolutionto Recognize an Prclaim lice Week in the City f Lauerale. Cuncilr Gaasch secded ho te mtion and it passed unanimously. I oPooddooon Informational Presentation -Annual City -Wide Garage Sale Bownik presented information on the City -Wide garage sale which will be being held on May 17 starting at 8:00 a.m. Public Hearing - Annual MS4 Public Hearing A Public Hearing is held annually to allow the public to comment on the City's storm water management program. The City program covers everything from education and outreach to violation enforcement. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 4 May 13, 2014 - Mayor Dains opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Public Hearing - Tobacco Ordinance Butkowski stated that the draft tobacco ordinance reflects the changes recommended by the Cit Council at the first meeting in April. This public hearing afforded affected persons one last opportunity to comment on the ordinance before adoption. I Mayor D. opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Katie Engman from the Association of Non - Smokers Minnesota thanked the Council for preventing addiction by working to keep tobacco out of the hands of children. Engman credited the Council with setting penalties above the State minimums. [-\4ayor Dains closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Discussion Items Music under the Trees and City Sponsored Farmers Market Bownik stated that Music under the Trees will be held on July 17 in coordination with a farmers market being organized by PCIC member Susie Zahratka. To get the farmers market off the ground, staff was seeking Council approval to have the City sponsor all three markets this year. Zahratka plans to organize an independent board to run the farmers market next year. Councilor Grove praised the work of the PCIC and the energy brought by the new board members. Councilor Gaasch moved to authorize the farmers markets as City -sanctioned events for 2014. Councilor Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Social Media Policy Staff has long discussed the merits of having a social media presence like a Facebook page. The issue is devoting enough staff time to make it successful. Recently, Susie Zahratka of the PCIC volunteered to take on that responsibility. As the City is subject to -laws that private citizens are not, staff prepared a social media policy for Council consideration. Councilor Gaasch moved to adopt the Social Media Policy as presented. Councilor 11fac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCI MEETING MINUTES I Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 4 May 13, 2014 Agenda items for the May 27 Council Meeting may include a discussion of the future use of 2430 Larpenteur Avenue and a presentation from Cor Wilson of the North Suburban Cable Commission regarding the franchise renewal with Comcast. Mayor Dains explained that the Council was moving into the work session. Work sessions are continuation of the meeting but not aired on community television. Mayor Dains asked if anyone wished to address th e Council. No one came forward. I Owner of Best Hawn, Larry Kasella Larry Kasella addressed the Council and provided information regarding his business. He plans to lease or purchase the building at 2520 Larpenteur Avenue. Kasella said he has been in business for 15 years. He reasoned that Best Pawn is the ultimate recycler as 99% of the merchandise they sell is used. - Mayor Dains explained that three residents have called in opposition to a pawn shop opening in the City. Councilor Mac Lean was concerned with security and Kasella responded that Best Pawn follows the letter of the law in regard to recording transactions. Councilor Gaasch commented on the quality of references and the overall material in the packet but expressed concern that a pawn shop could increase policing costs. Kasella stated if the City Council allowed Best Pawn in the City, the Rapit Print building would house on-line sales and be additional warehouse and office space for Best Pawn. The Council thanked Kasella for his presentation. Co -Owner of Gentleman Scholar Distillery, Jon Bohlinger Butkowski stated that Gentleman Scholar (GS) is leasing property owned by Bolger Printing with the plan to start a micro distillery. Jon Bohlinger was present at the meeting to discuss their plans and introduce the Council to their company. Bohlinger said that GS has been a company for a year and there are 14 other micro distilleries in the state, three of which are in operation. GS is currently in the process of getting its federal permit, and when it's secured, it will apply for the Minnesota permit. GS will produce gin and vodka at first and may produce Whiskey in the future. GS is hoping to start production in July. Bohlinger stated the base grain of the alcohol will be milled corn. GS will purchase blank spirits for distillation into gin and vodka. This means they will not have stored grains on site. After a few more questions, the Council thanked Bohlinger for his presentation and wished him luck. LAUDERDALE CITY • MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 4 of 4 May 13, 2014 Community Development and Sewer Lining Project update Butkowski stated the sewer lining project is moving forward. She also stated that Corval (1633 Eustis) removed a number of trees on the northern edge of their property to re -pave and improve their parking lot. Butkowski also stated that city consultant Paul Bilotta left Stantec to take a -position with the City of Roseville. There ® no further business on the council agenda, Councilor Gaasch moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Mae Lean seconded the motion and it carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfullv submitted, Kevin Kelly Deputy City Clerk P �1' L MtW 91011WAIR QAFJ Payroll 05/23/14 Payroll: Direct Deposit # 501803-501811 05/23/14 Payroll: Payroll Liabilities, e -payments 887E -890E 05/27/14 Claims: Check #'s 22207-22238, e -payment 891 E 00 ';40SRKM Total Claims for Approval $255634.59 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/21/14 4:20 PM Page 1 *Claim RegisterS, 052314pyril MAY 2014 Claim Type Direct Claim# 3973 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING S Ck# 000887E 5/2112014 CashPayment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 5/23/2014 Payroll $2,329,56 1 nvoice Cash Payment G 101 -21701 FEDERAL TAXES 5/23/2014 Payroll $1,236.66 Invoice Transaction Date 5/21/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 21, ;ir�� 10100 Total -,;�,-,���,��,-,,,,�,e�f�,�-P,�ir7,-,,,,,En��=��-�,I $3,566.22 W 1" zlm��MW7��,,M,�,& -, �,Q-MWI�0 '� M Claim# 3974 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Ck# 000888E 5/21/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 5/23/2014 Payroll $2,513.63 Invoice Transaction Date 5/21/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE illi., w 1w=W1MV1Lr 10100 Total $2,513.63 ................... . ........... Claim# 3975 PERA Ck# 000889E 5/21/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA 5/23/2014 Payroll $17724.66 Invoice Transaction Date 5/21/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total =i� anj $11724.66 Claim# 3976 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Ck# 000890E 5/21/2014 Cash Payment G 101 -21702 STATE WITHHOLDING 5/23/2014 Payroll $17161.47 Invoice Transaction Date 5/21/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total TL 11 ---111 a7 $1,161.47 Claim Type Direct Tota $8,965.98 Pre -Written Check $8,965.98 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $8,965.98 Co""ITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/22/14 1:58 PM Page 1 I na Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Paid Chk# 000891 E 5/22/2014 N RTH STAR BANK, CHECKING STMT 0 E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $52.40 Deposit Coupon Books otal NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING STMT $52.40 Paid Chk# 022239 5/27/2014 1910 WALNUT STREET R 101-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS $30.00 Refund Social Room Rental Total 1910 WALNUT STREET $30.00 Paid Chk# 022240 5/27/2014 AFSCME G 101-21709 UNION DUES $111.38 5/14 Union Dues Total AFSCME $111.38 Paid 022241 5/27/2014 BLUE CHIP TREE CO. INC. E 405-48500-325 LARPENTEUR AVE IMPROVEM $800.00 Tree removal at 2417 Larpenteur Total BLUE CHIP TREE CO., INC. $800.00 T'1=11111t� :11-11-, Mill%.'U�' 11'1-;"*�Cw11Cw.- Paid Chk# 022242 --l— I �WltA=.Z��nm=��!E4%=VM��TM---,�,-�,�_x 5/27/2014 G & K SERVICES E 602-49100-425 CLOTHING $59.32 4/14 PW Clothing E 601-49000-425 CLOTHING $59.33 4/14 PW Clothing Total G & K SERVICES $118.65 Paid. Chk# 022243 5/27/2014 HUGHES AND JOSEPH E 101-41500-300 LEGAL FEES - PROSECUTING $850.00 4/14 Legal Fees Total HUGHES AND JOSEPH $850.00 Paid Chk# 022244 5/27/2014 INTEGRA E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $46.51 5/14 Fax Line Total INTEGRA $46.51 Paid Chk# 022245 5/27/2014 MAMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFERENCES $20.00 5/14 Luncheon Mtg. - HB Total MAMA $20.00 Paid Chk# 022246 5/27/2014 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC E 101-41200-438 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS $107.51 2014 MCMA membership renewal - HB E 101-41200-438 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS $30.00 2014 APMP membership renewal - KK E 101-41200-438 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS $30.00 2014 APMP membership renewal - JB Total MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC $167.51 Paid Chk# 022247 5/27/2014 NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY CASH E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $32.06 Plants & Potting Soil for City Hall E 405-48500-325 LARPENTEUR AVE IMPROVEM $46.00 Ramlow Easement Recording E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $49.00 Purchase First Class Stamps E 101-41200-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $6.00 U of M Parking - HB E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $21.01 Coffee and Filters E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $16.29 Ream of 11 X1 7 Paper. E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE $9.07 Battery for PW Garage E 101-41200-308 TRAIN I NG\CONFERENCES $15.00 APMP-JB CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/22/14 1:58 PM Page 2 Paid Chk# 022252 5/27/2014 SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE Paid Chk# 022254 5/27/2014 XCEL ENERGY, PARK_ & GARAGE E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC $29.25 Check Amt Invoice Comment $29.24 E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFERENCES $15.00 APMP - KK E 201-45600-440 MEETING EXPENSES $28.00 PCIC Pizza E 101-41200-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $8.00 Victory Ramp Parking - HB E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFERENCES $15.00 APMP - JB E 101-41200-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $6.00 U of M Parking - KK E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $11.40 Purchase of assorted stamps Total NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY CASH $277.83 Paid Chk# 022248 5/27/2014 POSTMASTER - STAMPS E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $98.00 2 rolls of stamps Total POSTMASTER - STAMPS $98.00 4 4' Paid 2 4 5/27/2014 RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP k C & REV E 101-43000-313 SNOW & ICE REMOVAL $1,483.54 3/14 & 4/14 Snow Plowing Total RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV $1,483.54 4 F-� ,`,r Paid Chk# 022250 5/27/2014 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE E 101-43000-382 WATER $6.45 1 Q14 Water Service - 2430 Larpenteur otal ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE $6.45 Paid Chk# 022251 5/27/2014 STANTEC E 101-48100-306 CONSULTING FEES $74.00 Enineering Services - Consulting E 405-48500-304 ENGINEERING $2,897.50 Enineering Services - Larpenteur Ave E 602-49100-304 ENGINEERING $59.00 Enineering Services - Stormwater Total STA TEC $3,030.50 Paid Chk# 022252 5/27/2014 SUBURBAN ACE HARDWARE Paid Chk# 022254 5/27/2014 XCEL ENERGY, PARK_ & GARAGE E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC $29.25 4/14 PW and Warming House E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC $29.24 4/14 PW and Warming House E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES $63.33 4/14 PW and Warming House E 101-45200-383 GAS UTILITIES $63.32 4/14 PW and Warming House Total XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE $185.14 Paid Chk# 022255 5/27/2014 XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING E 101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $494.09 4/14 Street Lights Total XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING $494.09 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING $7,935.05 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/22/14 1:58 PM Page 3 Check Amt Invoice Comment IT Fund Summary 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 101 GENERAL $3,985.90 201 COMMUNITY EVENTS $28.00 405 TIF -PROJECTS $3,743.50 601 SEWER UTILITIES $59.33 602 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $118.32 $7,935.05 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent —X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Every month I provide the Council with an updated copy of the city's finances. Following are the revenue, expense, and cash balance reports for April 2014. OPTIONS: By approving the consent agenda, the Council acknowledges the city's financial report for April 2014. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:55 AM Page 1 Cash Balances Current Period: APRIL 2014 MTD MTD Current FUND Descr V7, Account Debit Credit Balance _77 CASH GENERAL G 101-10100 $109,371.16 $95,470.16 -$2,575,865.53 COMMUNITY EVENTS G 201 -10100 $87.59 $0.00 $9,367.34 COMMUNICATIONS G.202-10100 $5,136.98 $2,115.02 $3,290.42 RECYCLING G 203-10100 $52.60 $3,289.51 $107,422.28 03 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE G 304-10100 $37.67 $0.00 $76,928.23 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STREETS G 401 -10100 $282.25 $0.00 $576,368.63 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS G 402-10100 $12.97 $3,246.50 $26,479.22 CAPITAL IMPROVE STORM WATER G 403-10100 $88.58 $0.00 $180,893.67 PARK IMPROVEMENT G 404-10100 $141.46 $0.00 $288,867.35 TIF -PROJECTS G 405-10100 $212.47 $3,138.00 $433,888.76 SEWER IMPROVEMENT G 407-10100 $213.71 $0.00 $436,407.27 DEVELOPMENT G 414-10100 $18.65 $0.00 $38,082.34 SEWER UTILITIES G 601 -10100 $10,041.48 $14,569.65 $458,857.70 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND G 602-10100 $1,919.25 $3,999.65 $88,645.40 Tota I CAS H $127,616.82 $125,828.49 $149,633.08 PETTY CASH GENERAL G 101-10200 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 Total PETTY CASH $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 INVESTMENTS GENERAL G 101-10400 $1,500.38 $100,000.00 $2,914,248.28 Total INVESTMENTS $1,500.38 $100,000.00 $2,914,248.28 Grand Total $129,117.20 $225,828.49 $3,064,281.36 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Revenue Guideline@ Page 1 Current eri® APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt YTD Balance Bu et GENERAL Active R 101-31010 CURRENT AD VALORE $495,281.00 $0.00 $0.00 $495,281.00 0.00% Active R 101-31020 DELINQUENT AD VALO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-31030 FORFEITED TAX SALE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-31040 FISCAL DISPARITIES $120,934.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,934.00 0.00% Active R 101-32000 LICENSE AND PERMIT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-32110 3.2 ALCHOLIC LICENSE $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active R 101-32120 CIGARETTE LICENSE $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active R 101-32130 GARBAGE HAULERS 1-1 $1,300.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 -$200.00 115.38% Active R 101-32140 HEATING/AC LICENSE $600.00 $450.00 $0.00 $150.00 75.00% Active R 101-32150 TREE COMPANIES LIC $400.00 $450.00 $50.00 -$50.00 112.50% Active R 101-32160 GAS STATION LICENSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-32170 DRIVEWAY CONTRACT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-32180 RENTAL HOUSING LIC $4,000.00 $482.50 $0.00 $3,517.50 12.06% Active R 101-32210 BUILDING PERMITS $11,000.00 $4,610.00 $3,628.25 $6,390.00 41.91% Active R 101-32211 ZONING PERMIT APPLI $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0.00% Active R 101-32225 PLAN REVIEW FEE $2,000.00 $395.91 $281.12 $1,604.09 19.80% Active R 101-32230 PLUMBING PERMITS $1,000.00 $320.00 $0.00 $680.00 32.00% Active R 101-32240 ANIMAL LICENSES $250.00 $60.00 $0.00 $190.00 24.00% Active R 101-32270 HEATING A/C PERMIT $1,500.00 $342.00 $52.00 $1,158.00 22.80% Active R 101-32280 STREET EXCAVATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-33401 LOCAL GOVERNMENT $535,093.00 $0.00 $0.00 $535,093.00 0.00% Active R 101-33402 HOMESTEAD CREDIT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-33405 PERA RATE INCREASE $1,198.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,198.00 0.00% Active R 101-33406 MARKET VAL HOM CR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-33623 MET COUNCIL - LIV CO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-33624 LIVABLE COMMUNITIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34101 CITY HALLMARK RENT $6,000.00 $3,425.00 $1,170.00 $2,575.00 57.08% Active R 101-34103 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE $0.00 $25.00 $0.00 -$25.00 0.00% Active R 101-34105 SALE OF PUBLICATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34107 ASSESSMENT SEARCH $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34109 COPIES $100.00 $26.65 $0.00 $73.35 26.65% Active R 101 -34110 VARIANCE FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34111 LEGAL FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34112 CONDITIONAL USE PE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34113 ZONING AMENDMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34114 ADVERTISING SALES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34115 GENERAL GOVERNME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34116 ENGINEERING FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34201 FALSE SECURITY ALA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-34202 FALSE FIRE ALARM - F1 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0.00% Active R 101-34203 FIRE INSPECTION FEE $1,000.00 $75.00 $0.00 $925.00 7.50% Active R 101-34205 FIRE CALL REIMBURSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-35101 COURT FINES $45,000.00 $11,890.60 $3,777.09 $33,109.40 26.42% Active R 101-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36101 PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36103 TREE REMOVAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36200 MISCELLANEOUS REV $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $1,800.00 $1,021.38 $165.71 $778.62 56.74% Active R 101-36230 DONATIONS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36231 DOG PARK DONATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% wo."O"ITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Revenue Guideline@ Page 2 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt YTD Balance wmm� Bet Active R 101-36240 SURCHARGES $500.00 $301.50 $224.50 $198.50 60.30% Active R 101-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36252 LMC INSURANCE REFU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-36255 MISC $0.00 $18.56 $18.56 -$18.56 0.00% Active R 101-39101 SALES FIXED ASSETS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 101-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total GENERAL $1,230,506.00 $25,944.10 $9,367.23 $1,204,561.90 2.11% COMMUNITY EVENTS - Active R 201-34785 PARK EVENTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-34786 WINTER EVENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-34787 GARAGE SALE $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $0.00 100.00% Active R 201-34788 DAY IN THE PARK $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $800.00 0.00% Active R 201-34789 MUSIC UNDER THE TR $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 0.00% Active R 201-34790 MUGS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-34791 POP SALES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-34792 T-SHIRT SALES $100.00 $20.00 $8.00 $80.00 20.00% Active R 201-34793 FUN RUN/WALK $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 0.00% Active R 201-34794 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-34795 HALLOWEEN DONATIO $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active R 201-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $35.00 $20.12 $4.59 $14.88 57.49% Active R 201-36230 DONATIONS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-36255 MISC $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 0.00% Active R 201-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 201-39201 TRANFER FROM GENE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total COMMUNITY EVENTS $2,910.00 $115.12 $87.59 $2,794.88 3.96% COMMUNICATIONS Active R 202-33600 GRANTS & AID FROM L $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 202-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $75.00 $5.42 $1.61 $69.58 7.23% Active R 202-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 202-36253 CABLE FRANCHISE RE $20,000.00 $5,135.37 $5,135.37 $14,864.63 25.68% Total COMMUNICATIONS $20,075.00 $5,140.79 $5,136.98 $14,934.21 25.61% RECYCLING Active R 203-33621 METROPOLITAN COUN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 203-33622 COUNTY GRANTS $4,975.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,975.00 0.00% Active R 203-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $35,000.00 -$15.68 $0.00 $35,015.68 -0.04% Active R 203-36101 PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 203-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $16.11 $0.00 -$16.11 0.00% Active R 203-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $400.00 $240.11 $52.60 $159.89 60.03% Active R 203-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 203-36255 MISC $0.00 $7.00 $0.00 -$7.00 0.00% Active R 203-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total RECYCLING $40,375.00 $247.54 $52.60 $40,127.46 0.61% TAX INCREMENT DEBT SERVICE Active R 301-31040 FISCAL DISPARITIES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-31050 TAX INCREMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-31051 DELINQUENT TAX INC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-33402 HOMESTEAD CREDIT. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-33406 MARKET VAL HOM CR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Revenue Guideline@ Page 3 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt YTD Balance A Budaet Active R 301-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-39205 TRANS FROM TIF PRO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 301-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total TAX INCREMENT DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 00 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE Active R 302-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 302-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 302-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 302-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 302-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 302-39310 GENERAL OBLIGATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total 00 T/ TIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 02 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE Active R 303-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 303-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 303-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 303-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 303-39310 GENERAL OBLIGATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total 02 STIUTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 03 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE Active R 304-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $22,000.00 -$44.05 $0.00 $22,044.05 -0.20% Active R 304-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $2,000.00 $44.25 $0.00 $1,955.75 2.21% Active R 304-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $500.00 $166.75 $37.67 $333.25 33.35% Active R 304-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 304-39310 GENERAL OBLIGATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total 03 STIUTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $24,500.00 $166.95 $37.67 $24,333.05 0.68% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STREETS Active R 401-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 401-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 401-36200 MISCELLANEOUS REV $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 401-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $2,000.00 $1,246.21 $282.25 $753.79 62.31% Active R 401-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 401-39201 TRANFER FROM GENE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 401-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STREETS $2,000.00 $1,246.21 $282.25 $753.79 62.31% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Active R 402-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $400.00 $196.79 $12.97 $203.21 49.20% Active R 402-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 402-39101 SALES FIXED ASSETS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 402-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 402-39201 TRANFER FROM GENE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 402-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $400.00 $196.79* $12.97 $203.21 49.20% CAPITAL IMPROVE STORM WATER Active R 403-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $600.00 $391.11 $88.58 $208.89 65.19% Active R 403-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 403'37230 PENALTIES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 403-37300 STORM SEWER FEE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 403-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 403-39201 TRANFER FROM GENE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 403-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVE STORM WATER $600.00 $391.11 $88.58 $208.89 65.19% klo';""ITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Revenue Guideline@ Page 4 Current Period: APR1201L 4 2014 2014 APRIL 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt YTD Balance Beget PARK IMPROVEMENT Active R 404-33130 CDBG/DNR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-33400 STATE GRANTS AND Al $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $1,000.00 $624.59 $141.46 $375.41 62.46% Active R 404-36230 DONATIONS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-36255 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-39201 TRANFER FROM GENE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-39204 TRANS FROM COMMU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 404-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% . Total PARK IMPROVEMENT $1,000.00 $624.59 $141.46 $375.41 62.46% TIF -PROJECTS Active R 405-31050 TAX INCREMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-31051 DELINQUENT TAX INC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-33406 MARKET VAL HOM CR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-33419 LARPENTEUR AVE REI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-36210 INTEREST EARNINGS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $945.65 $212.47 -$945.65 0.00% Active R 405-36255 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-39207 TRANS FROM DEBT SE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 405-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total TIF -PROJECTS $0.00 $945.65 $212.47 -$945.65 0.00% SEWER IMPROVEMENT Active R 407-36200 MISCELLANEOUS REV $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 407-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $1,500.00 $943.59 $213.71 $556.41 62.91% Active R 407-37240 SEWER CONNECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 407-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 0.00% Total SEWER IMPROVEMENT $1,500.00 $943.59 $213.71 $556.41 62.91% WATER UTILITY Active R 409-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 409-36251 ST. PAUL WATER SUR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total WATER UTILITY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 02 ST/UTIL CONSTRUCTION Active R 412-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total 02 STIUTIL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 03 T/ TIL CONSTRUCTION Active R 413-33000 INTERGOVERNMENTA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-33600 GRANTS & AID FROM L $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 413-39310 GENERAL OBLIGATION $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 $0.00. 0.00% Total 03 STIUTIL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% DEVELOPMENT Active R 414-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $0.00 $82.34 $18.65 -$82.34 0.00% Active R 414-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Total DEVELOPMENT $38,000.00 $38,082.34 $18.65 -$82.34 100.22% SEWER UTILITIES Active R 601-33000 INTERGOVERNMENTA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Revenue Guideline@ Page 5 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt YTD Balance Bu e& Active R 601-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-36101 PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%. Active R 601-36102 PENALTIES & INTERES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-36104 SEWER ASSESSMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $1,800.00 $976.68 $224.70 $823.32 54.26% Active R 601-36230 DONATIONS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-36250 REFUNDS & REIMBURS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-36255 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-37210 SEWER SALES AND SE $245,000.00 $74,223.02 $9,816.78 $170,776.98 30.30% Active R 601-37215 DELINQUENT SEWER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-37230 PENALTIES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-37240 SEWER CONNECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-39101 SALES FIXED ASSETS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 601-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total SEWER UTILITIES $246,800.00 $75,199.70 $10,041.48 $171,600.30 30.47% STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND Active R 602-36211 INVESTMENT INTERES $300.00 $190.25 $43.41 $109.75 63.42% Active R 602-37300 STORM SEWER FEE $62,000.00 $22,397.52 $1,875.84 $39,602.48 36.13% Active R 602-39200 INTERFUND OPERATIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 602-39999 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $62,300.00 $22,587.77 $1,919.25 $39,712.23 36.26% GASB34 Active R 999-31010 CURRENT AD VALORE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 999-36100 SPECIAL ASSESMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active R 999-39101 SALES FIXED ASSETS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total GA4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Report Total $1,670,966.00 $171,832.25 $27,612.89 $1,499,133.75 0"'ITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM k.0 *Expenditure O Page 1 Current eri® APR1201L 4 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance Bu et GENERAL Active E 101-41100-103 PART TIME EMPLO $16,500.00 $5,500.00 $1,375.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 33.33% Active E 101-41100-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $1,262.00 $420.84 $105.21 $0.00 $841.16 33.35% Active E 101-41100-151 WORKERS COMP $41.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41.00 0.00% Active E 101-41100-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41100-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41100-308 TRAINING\CONFER $2,000.00 $99.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,901.00 4.95% Active E 101-41100-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.60 0.00% Active E 101-41100-352 PUBLIC INFO NOTI $800.00 $103.00 $0.00 $0.00 $697.00 12.88% Active E 101-41100-361 GENERAL LIABILIT $6,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,200.00 0.00% Active E 101-41100-438 DUES & SUBSCRIP $3,000.00 $525.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,475.00 17.50% Active E 101-41100-439 SPECIAL EVENTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.06% Active E 101-41100-440 MEETING EXPENS $225.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $225.00 0.00% Active E 101-41100-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $106,840.00 $34,225.13 $8,187.70 $0.00 $72,614.87 32.03% Active E 101-41200-102 EMPLOYEE OVERT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-104 TEMP EMPLOYEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $7,746.00 $2,481.37 $593.62 $0.00 $5,264.63 32.03% Active E 101-41200-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $8,173.00 $2,711.74 $649.74 $0.00 $5,461.26 33.18% Active E 101-41200-126 ICMA RETIREMENT . $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-131 HEALTH INSURAN $16,320.00 $5,440.06 $1,360.02 $0.00 $10,879.94 33.33% Active E 101-41200-142 UNEMPLOYMENT B $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-151 WORKERS COMP $855.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $855.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $1,500.00 $532.41 $0.00 $0.00 $967.59 35.49% Active E 101-41200-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $3,000.00 $1,603.68 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,396.32 53.46% Active E 101-41200-208 WATER DELIVERY $400.00 $142.73 $45.15 $0.00 $257.27 35.68% Active E 101-41200-2 ' 27 TOOLS & EQUIPME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-305 LEGAL FEES - CIVI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-306 CONSULTING FEE $8,100.00 $2,542.68 $635.67 $0.00 $5,557.32 31.39% Active E 101-41200-307 COMPUTER SERVI $1,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,700.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-308 TRAINING\CONFER $2,500.00 $254.00 $20.00 $0.00 $2,246.00 10.16% Active E 101-41200-309 DELIVERY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-327 OTHER SERV- SE $400.00 $110.87 $27.78 $0.00 $289.13 27.72% Active E 101-41200-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $1,100.00 $53.71 $47.71 $0.00 $1,046.29 4.88% Active E 101-41200-352 PUBLIC INFO NOTI $1,000.00 $950.00 $820.00 $0.00 $50.00 95.00% Active E 101-41200-353 NEWSLETTER PRI $2,800.00 $676.47 $0.00 $0.00 $2,123.53 24.16% Active E 101-41200-354 PHONEBOOK PRIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-355 MISC PRINTING/PR $300.00 $100.00 $25.00 $0.00 $200.00 33.33% Active E 101-41200-361 GENERAL LIABILIT $5,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,700.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $1,900.00 $526.08 $134.70 $0.00 $1,373.92 27.69% Active E 101-41200-401 COPIER CONTRAC $3,000.00 $840.74 $208.92 $0.00 $2,159.26 28.02% Active E 101-41200-404 COMPUTER REPAI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-409 OTHER EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-420 RENTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-438 DUES & SUBSCRIP $3,400.00 $1,443.72 $45.00 $0.00 $1,956.28 42.46% Active E 101-41200-439 SPECIAL EVENTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-440 MEETING EXPENS $100.00 $21.00 $0.00 $0.00 $79.00 21.00% Active E 101-41200-442 MISC $500.00 $244.28 $0.00 $0.00 $255.72 48.86% Active E 101-41200-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41200-531 OFFICE EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 10-1-41200-534 OFFICE FURNITUR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% t'om;'hITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Expenditure Guideline@ Page 2 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance ucI et Active E 101-41200-538 COMPUTER SOFT $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $8,498.00 $2,736.68 $647.58 $0.00 $5,761.32 32.20% Active E 101-41500-103 PART TIME EMPLO . $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-104 TEMP EMPLOYEES $2,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,600.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $616.00 $198.43 $46.96 $0.00 $417.57 32.21% Active E 101-41500-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $650.00 $209.36 $49.54 $0.00 $440.64 32.21% Active E 101-41500-131 HEALTH INSURAN $1,530.00 $510.00 $127.50 $0.00 $1,020.00 33.33% Active E 101-41500-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-151 WORKERS COMP $83.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $83.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-300 LEGAL FEES - PRO $11,500.00 $2,550.00 $850.00 $0.00 $8,950.00 22.17% Active E 101-41500-301 AUDITING $14,500.00 $11,760.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,740.00 81.10% Active E 101-41500-305 LEGAL FEES - CIVI $10,000.00 $5,054.20 $4,521.70 $0.00 $4,945.80 50.54% Active E 101-41500-327 OTHER SERV- SE $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-352 PUBLIC INFO NOTI $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-355 MISC PRINTING/PR $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-409 OTHER EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-440 MEETING EXPENS $225.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $225.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-41500-539 VOTING MACHINE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active 'E 101-42100-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-318 911 Dispatch $14,200.00 $3,518.64 $1,172.88 $0.00 $10,681.36 24.78% Active E 101-42100-319 POLICE CONTRAC $617,081.00 $205,693.64 $51,423.41 $0.00 $411,387.36 33.33% Active E 101-42100-320 FIRE CONTRACT $18,000.00 $14,903.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,097.00 82.79% Active E 101-42100-321 FIRE CALLS $16,000.00 $5,034.48 $915.36 $0.00 $10,965.52 31.47% Active E 101-42100-322 FIRE FALSE ALAR $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-323 FIRE INSPECTION $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-355 MISC PRINTING/PR $0.00 $18.72 $6.24 $0.00 -$18.72 0.00% Active E 101-42100-360 INSURANCE $0.00 $0;00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-442 MISC $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 0.00% Active E 101-42100-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $29,200.00 $10,173.79 $2,445.97 $0.00 $19,026.21 34.84% Active E 101-43000-102 EMPLOYEE OVERT $3,000.00 $1,547.64 $0.00 $0.00 $1,452.36 51.59% Active E 101-43000-104 TEMP EMPLOYEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $2,335.00 $849.83 $177.34 $0.00 $1,485.17 36.40% Active E 101-43000-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $2,463.00 $1,003.36 $212.35 $0.00 $1,459.64 40.74% Active E 101-43000-131 HEALTH INSURAN $5,100.00 $1,707.88 $404.53 $0.00 $3,392.12 33.49% Active E 101-43000-151 WORKERS COMP $1,481.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,481.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-212 MOTOR FUELS $3,100.00 $863.03 $272.33 $0.00 $2,236.97 27.84% Active E 101-43000-213 LUBRICANTS & OT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-225 LANDSCAPING MA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-226 SIGNS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-227 TOOLS & EQUIPME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAI $2,000.00 $419.68 $66.68 $0.00 $1,580.32 20.98% Active E 101-43000-304 ENGINEERING $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-308 TRAINING\CONFER $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-313 SNOW & ICE REMO $15,000.00 $4,513.00 $4,513.00 $0.00 $10,487.00 30.09% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Expenditure Guideline@ Page 3 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance B Active E 101-43000-314 STREET SWEEPIN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-317 TREE SERVICE $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-324 ALLEY REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-327 OTHER SERV- SE $1,100.00 $410.36 $191.24 $0.00 $689.64 37.31% Active E 101-43000-328 STREET REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTI $7,000.00 $1,760.45 $559.25 $0.00 $5,239.55 25.15% Active E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC $3,200.00 $937.73 $229.26 $0.00 $2,262.27 29.30% Active E 101-43000-382 WATER $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES $2,700.00 $2,290.82 $637.53 $0.00 $409.18 84.85% Active E 101-43000-384 REFUSE DISPOSAL $2,800.00 $976.89 $205.14 $0.00 $1,823.11 34.89% Active E 101-43000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $500.00 $103.15 $31.55 $0.00 $396.85 20.63% Active E 101-43000-402 CITY TRUCK REPAI $3,000.00 $323.94 $273.10 $0.00 $2,676.06 10.80% Active E 101-43000-426 MACHINERY RENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-442 MISC $0.00 $32.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$32.00 0.00% Active E 101-43000-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $35,023.00 $11,216.69 $2,685.02 $0.00 $23,806.31 32.03% Active E 101-43400-104 TEMP EMPLOYEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $2,539.00 $813.20 $194.66 $0.00 $1,725.80 32.03% Active E 101-43400-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $2,679.00 $934.89 $224.99 $0.00 $1,744.11 34.90% Active E 101-43400-126 ICMA RETIREMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-131 HEALTH INSURAN $6,120.00 $1,930.41 $489.61 $0.00 $4,189.59 31.54% Active E 101-43400-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-151 WORKERS COMP $1,381.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,381.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-203 POSTAGE $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-306 CONSULTING FEE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-308 TRAINING\CONFER $500.00 $180.00 $0.00 $0.00 $320.00 36.00% Active E 101-43400-310 PLUMBING INSPEC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-311 HEATING INSPECT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-312 BUILDING INSPECT $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-327 OTHER SERV- SE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-355 MISC PRINTING/PR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-386 GOPHER STATE 0 $500.00 $124.75 $4.35 $0.00 $375.25 24.95% Active E 101-43400-388 SAC UNIT CHARGE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-437 SALES TAX $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-43400-442 MISC $200.00 $119.00 $53.00 $0.00 $81.00 59.50% Active E 101-43400-443 SURCHARGE REP $500.00 $53.76 $53.76 $0.00 $446.24 10.75% Active E 101-45200-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $41,408.00 $13,243.49 $3,179.34 $0.00 $28,164.51 31.98% Active E 101-45200-103 PART TIME EMPLO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-104 TEMP EMPLOYEES $6,000.00 $5,557.50 $0.00 $0.00 $442.50 92.63% Active E 101-45200-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $3,002.00 $960.21 $230.52 $0.00 $2,041.79 31.99% Active E 101-45200-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $3,627.00 $1,571.35 $276.68 $0.00 $2,055.65 43.32% Active E 101-45200-131 HEALTH INSURAN $7,650.00 $2,331.22 $586.27 $0.00 $5,318.78 30.47% Active E 101-45200-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-142 UNEMPLOYMENT B $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-151 WORKERS COMP $1,303.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,303.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $5.32 $0.00 $0.00 -$5.32 0.00% Active E 101-45200-202 PERMENANT SUPP $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-212 MOTOR FUELS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-225 LANDSCAPING MA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Current eri® APR1201L 4 05/15/14 9:56 AM Page 4 • Active E 201-45600-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD 0.00% Active YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance Buget Active E 101-45200-228 MISC REPAIRS MAI $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-317 TREE SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-327 OTHER SERV- SE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-370 PARK & REC EXPE $700.00 $59.94 $0.00 $0.00 $640.06 8.56% Active E 101-45200-371 NON-RESIDENT RE $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC $500.00 $141.45 $44.92 $0.00 $358.55 28.29% Active E 101-45200-382 WATER $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-383 GAS UTILITIES $700.00 $214.67 $0.00 $0.00 $485.33 30.67% Active E 101-45200-384 REFUSE DISPOSAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $50.00 $41.44 $0.00 $0.00 $8.56 82.88% Active E 101-45200-403 TRACTOR/MOWER $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-412 WARMING HOUSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-427 PORTA POTTY RE $1,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,100.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-442 MISC $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-540 MACHINERY & EQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45200-550 OTHER IMPROVEM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45300-444 CONTINGENCY FU $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 0.00% Active E 101-45300-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-710 OPERATING TRAN $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active E 101-45400-721 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-731 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-732 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-733 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-734 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-741 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-742 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-743 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-744 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-745 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-747 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-45400-749 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48100-306 CONSULTING FEE $30,000.00 $1,712.25 $1,712.25 $0.00 $28,287.75 5.71% Active E 101-48100-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48411-550 OTHER IMPROVEM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48412-306 CONSULTING FEE $0.00 $0.00 ($1,527.25) $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48412-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48412-550 OTHER IMPROVEM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 101-48412-555 LARPENTEUR AVE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total GENERAL $1,230,506.00 $420,860.75 $93,969.78 $0.00 $809,645.25 34.20% • Active E 201-45600-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-327 OTHER SERV- SE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-352 PUBLIC INFO NOTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-368 FUN RUN/WALK $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-369 MUSIC UNDER THE $400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-372 MUGS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-373 T-SHIRTS $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-374 POP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-375 WINTER EVENT $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-376 GARAGE SALE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-377 DAY IN THE PARK $1,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,300.00 0.00% tlom;"'ITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Expenditure Guideline@ Page 5 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance - Bu et Active E 201-45600-378 NATIONAL NIGHT $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-379 HALLOWEEN EVEN $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-428 MISC RENTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-430 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-440 MEETING EXPENS $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 .$0.00 $200.00 0.00% Active E 201-45600-744 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total COMMUNITY EVENTS $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 0.00% COMMUNICATIONS Active E 202-49500-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $17,508.00 $5,306.49 $1,033.94 $0.00 $12,201.51 30.31% Active E 202-49500-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $1,269.00 $384.76 $74.97 $0.00 $884.24 30.32% Active E 202-49500-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $1,339.00 $438.13 $84.95 $0.00 $900.87 32.72% Active E 202-49500-126 ICMA RETIREMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-131 HEALTH INSURAN $3,060.00 $956.25 $191.25 $0.00 $2,103.75 31.25% Active E 202-49500-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-151 WORKERS COMP $140.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-305 LEGAL FEES - CIVI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-307 COMPUTER SERVI $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active E 202-49500-327 OTHER SERV- SE $3,000.00 $729.91 $729.91 $0.00 $2,270.09 24.33% Active E 202-49500-329 CABLE FRANCHISE $5,000.00 $4,807.63 $0.00 $0.00 $192.37 96.15% Active E 202-49500-409 OTHER EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-426 MACHINERY RENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-530 FURNITURE & EQU $3,000.00 $56.14 $0.00 $0.00 $2,943.86 1.87% Active E 202-49500-531 OFFICE EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 202-49500-532 COPIER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total COMMUNICATIONS $34,816.00 $13,179.31 $2,115.02 $0.00 $21,636.69 37.85% RECYCLING Active E 203-50000-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $6,007.00 $2,224.43 $768.87 $0.00 $3,782.57 37.03% Active E 203-50000-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $436.00 $161.34 $55.76 $0.00 $274.66 37.00% Active E 203-50000-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $460.00 $196.33 $67.56 $0.00 $263.67 42.68% Active E 203-50000-126 ICMA RETIREMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-131 HEALTH INSURAN $1,020.00 $403.75 $148.75 $0.00 $616.25 39.58% Active E 203-50000-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-151 WORKERS COMP $48.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $48.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-202 PERMENANT SUPP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-327 OTHER SERV- SE $350.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-389 RECYCLING CONT $26,000.00 $4,673.22 $2,248.57 $0.00 $21,326.78 17.97% Active E 203-50000-438 DUES & SUBSCRIP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-440 MEETING EXPENS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 203-50000-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total RECYCLING $34,321.00 $7,659.07 $3,289.51 $0.00 $26,661.93 22.32% TAX INCREMENT DEBT SERVICE Active E 301-47100-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-131 HEALTH INSURAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-601 BOND PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 05/15/14 9:56 AM (0m;'hlTY OF LAUDERDALE *Expenditure Guideline@ Page 6 Current Period: APRIL 2014 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance Buget Active E 301-47100-611 BOND INTEREST $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-621 FILE MAINTENANC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 301-47100-745 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total TAX INCREMENT DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 00 T/ TI IMP DEBT SERVICE Active E 302-47200-303 FINANCIAL CONTR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 302-47200-601 BOND PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 302-47200-611 BOND INTEREST $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 302-47200-621 FILE MAINTENANC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 302-47200-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total 00 T/ IL IMP DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 02 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE Active E 303-47300-303 FINANCIAL CONTR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 303-47300-601 BOND PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 303-47300-611 BOND INTEREST $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 303-47300-621 FILE MAINTENANC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total 02 STIUTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 03 T/ TIL IMP DEBT SERVICE Active E 304-47000-721 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 304-47400-303 FINANCIAL CONTR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 304-47400-601 BOND PRINCIPAL $105,000-00 $105,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active E 304-47400-611 BOND INTEREST $5,618.00 $3,727.50 $0.00 $0.00 $1,890.50 66.35% Active E 304-47400-621 FILE MAINTENANC $800.00 $450.00 $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 56.25% Total 03 STIUTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $111,418.00 $109,177.50 $0.00 $0.00 $2,240.50 97.99% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STREETS Active E 401-48401-303 FINANCIAL CONTR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 401-48401-304 ENGINEERING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 401-48401-317 TREE SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 401-48401-328 STREET REPAIR $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 0.00% Active E 401-48401-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STREETS $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 0.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Active E 402-48000-510 LAND $5,000.00 $155,922.73 $3,246.50 $0.00 -$150,922.73 3118.45% Active E 402-48000-520 BUILDING . S $13,000.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,000.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-521 CITY GARAGE. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-523 WARMING HOUSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-531 OFFICE EQUIPMEN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-532 COPIER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-535 FURNACE/AC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-538 COMPUTER SOFT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-540 MACHINERY & EQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-543 TRACTOR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-550 OTHER IMPROVEM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-560 VEHICLE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-562 TRUCK $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 402-48000-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $18,000.00 $155,922.73 $3,246.50 $0.00 -$137,922.73 866.24% CAPITAL IMPROVE STORM WATER Active E 403-48403-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-102 EMPLOYEE OVERT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Expend'iture Guideline@ Page 7 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Arnt MTD Arnt Current YTD Balance Bu Active E 403-48403-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-131 HEALTH INSURAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-151 WORKERS COMP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-304 ENGINEERING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-327 OTHER SERV- SE $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $80"000.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-328 STREET REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-554 CATCH BASIN REP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 403-48403-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total CAPITAL IMPROVE STORM WATER $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $80,000.00 0.00% PARK IMPROVEMENT Active E 404-48404-304 ENGINEERING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-437 SALES TAX $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-510 LAND $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-524 PICNIC SHELTER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-525 PLAYGROUND (CD $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-526 PARK PATH (CDBG $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-527 GENERAL PARK IM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 404-48404-528 COURT IMPROVEM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total PARK IMPROVEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% TIF -PROJECTS Active E 405-48500-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-131 HEALTH INSURAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-133 LIFE INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-304 ENGINEERING $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-305 LEGAL FEES - CIVI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-325 LARPENTEUR AVE $270,000.00 $9,956.00 $3,138.00 $0.00 $260,044.00 3.69% Active E 405-48500-327 OTHER SERV- SE $0.00 -$6,119.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,119.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-408 LIFT STATION REP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-530 FURNITURE & EQU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-540 MACHINERY & EQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 405-48500-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total TIF -PROJECTS $300,000.00 $3,837.00 $3,138.00 $0.00 $296,163.00 1.28% SEWER IMPROVEMENT Active E 407-48407-304 ENGINEERING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 407-48407-500 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total SEWER IMPROVEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% WATER UTILITY Active E 409-48409-328 STREET REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 409-48409-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total WATER UTILITY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 02 S/ TIL CONSTRUCTION Active E 412-48410-304 ENGINEERING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 412-48410-328 STREET REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM ® Guideline@ Page 8 Current eriod: APRIL 2014 . 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance B d et Active E 412-48410-721 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total 02 STIUTIL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% SEWER UTILITIES Active E 601-49000-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $29,046.00 $3,134.47 $2,232.63 $0.00 $25,911.53 10.79% Active E 601-49000-102 EMPLOYEE OVERT $12,000.00 $3,404.89 $798.25 $0.00 $8,595.11 28.37% Active E 601-49000-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $2,976.00 $919.57 $219.70 $0.00 $2,056.43 30.90% Active E 601-49000-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $3,140.00 $1,074.21 $258.26 $0.00 $2,065.79 34.21% Active E 601-49000-131 HEALTH INSURAN $4,896.00 $1,935.45 $489.85 $0.00 $2,960.55 39.53% Active E 601-49000-151 WORKERS COMP $2,839.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,839.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-212 MOTOR FUELS $700.00 $184.95 $58.36 $0.00 $515.05 26.42% Active E 601-49000-227 TOOLS & EQUIPME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAI $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-301 AUDITING $1,750.00 $1,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $280.00 84.00% Active E 601-49000-304 ENGINEERING $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-308 TRAINING\CONFER $600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1600.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-315 SEWER JETTING $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-316 SEWER TELEVISIN $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-327 OTHER SERV- SE $7,000.00 $1,799.60 $88.36 $0.00 $5,200.40 25.71% Active E 601-49000-331 TRAVEL EXPENSE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-361 GENERAL LIABILIT $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-362 PROPERTY INSUR $1,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $.1,100.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-363 AUTOMOTIVE INSU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-382 WATER $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-387 WATER TREATME $125,000.00 $51,406.05 $10,281.21 $0.00 $73,593.95 41.12% Active E 601-49000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $300.00 $97.23 $61.43 $0.00 $202.77 32.41% Active E 601-49000-402 CITY TRUCK REPAI $400.00 $40.50 $34.14 $0.00 $359.50 10.13% Active E 601-49000-425 CLOTHING $700.00 $155.09 $47.46 $0.00 $544.91 22.16% Active E 601-49000-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-501 DEPRECIATION EX $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-540 MACHINERY & EQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-554 CATCH BASIN REP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 601-49000-710 OPERATING TRAN $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 0.00% Total SEWER UTILITIES $270,247.00 $65,622.01 $14,569.65 $0.00 $204,624.99 24.28% STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND Active E 602-49100-101 FULL TIME EMPLO $33,124.00 $4,078.21 $2,546.92 $0.00 $29,045.79 12.31% Active E 602-49100-102 EMPLOYEE OVERT $5,000.00 $1,418.76 $332.62 $0.00 $3,581.24 28.38% Active E 602-49100-121 PERA CONTRIBUTI $2,764.00 $869.83 $208.76 $0.00 $1,894.17 31.47% Active E 602-49100-122 FICA CONTRIBUTI $2,916.00 $1,003.88 $242.18 $0.00 $1,912.12 34.43% Active E 602-49100-131 HEALTH INSURAN $5,304.00 $1,785.01 $452.23 $0.00 .$3,518.99 33.65% Active E 602-49100-151 WORKERS COMP $2,319.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,319.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-201 GENERAL SUPPLIE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-212 MOTOR FUELS $700.00 $184.92 $58.35 $0.00 $515.08 26.42% Active E 602-49100-227 TOOLS & EQUIPME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-228 MISC REPAIRS MAI $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-301 AUDITING $1,800.00 $1,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $330.00 81.67% Active E 602-49100-304 ENGINEERING $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-308 TRAINING\CONFER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-314 STREET SWEEPIN $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-327 OTHER SERV- SE $3,500.00 $317.57 $15.59 $0.00 $3,182.43 9.07% Active E 602-49100-352 PUBLIC INFO NOTI $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 0.00% CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/15/14 9:56 AM *Expenditure Guideline@ Page 9 Current Period: APR1201L 4 . 2014 2014 APRIL Enc 2014 % of YTD YTD Budget YTD Amt MTD Amt Current YTD Balance Bu Active E 602-49100-361 GENERAL LIABILIT $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGE $300.00 $97.21 $61.41 $0.00 $202.79 32.40% Active E 602-49100-402 CITY TRUCK REPAI $400.00 $40.48 $34.13 $0.00 $359.52 10.12% Active E 602-49100-425 CLOTHING $700.00 $155.09 $47.46 $0.00 $544.91 22.16% Active E 602-49100-438 DUES & SUBSCRIP $500-00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100.00% Active E 602-49100-442 MISC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-444 CONTINGENCY FU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-501 DEPRECIATION EX $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-540 MACHINERY & EQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-554 CATCH BASIN REP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 602-49100-710 OPERATING TRAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $69,427.00 $11,920.96 $3,999.65 $0.00 $57,506.04 17.17% GASB34 Active E 999-41000-100 WAGES AND SALA $0.00 -$20,135.48 $0.00 $0.00 $20,135.48 0.00% Active E 999-41000-420 RENTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-41000-500 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-43000-100 WAGES AND SALA $0.00 -$7,165.23 $0.00 $0.00 $7,165.23 0.00% Active E 999-43000-420 RENTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-43000-499 LOSS ON DISPOSA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-43000-500 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0'.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-45000-100 WAGES AND SALA $0.00 -$8,761.84 $0.00 $0.00 $8,761.84 0.00% Active E 999-45000-420 RENTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00. $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-45000-500 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-47000-601 BOND PRINCIPAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-47000-611 BOND INTEREST $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-49000-420 RENTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-49000-500 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Active E 999-49500-100 WAGES AND SALA $0.00 -$2,857.62 $0.00 $0.00 $2,857.62 0.00% Active E 999-50000-100 WAGES AND SALA $0.00 -$1,561.83 $0.00 $0.00 $1,561.83 0.00% Total GASB34 $0.00 -$40,482.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40,482.00 0.00% Report Total $2,172,735.00 $747,697.33 $124,328.11 $0.00 $1,425,037.67 34.41% LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session Meeting Date May 27, 2014 ITEM NUMBER Copier Lease Purchase STAFF INITIAL KK 1011 1 1 1 11 � � 11 1, MV "ll0k The current 48 -month copier lease expires on June 25. Staff has conducted research on cop- iers which will meet the needs of the City. This research consisted of demonstrations of six different brands of copiers, sales representatives response to a city checklist of copying needs, ease of use, compatibility with Laserfiche, and an assessment of formal copier lease proposals. Staff determined the best copier fit for the City from three proposals. Those sales teams were Metro Sales (Ricoh copier) and DTS and Crabtree representing Sharp Copier products. Staff found the Metro Sales product, Ricoh Aficio MP C3503 the preferred copier due to cost, usability, and compatibility with Laserfiche. The cost of the 60 -month lease will be $149.00/month base fee and .0105 per black and white copy and .06 per color copy. These lease figures will be a slight reduction from the monthly fees the City is paying for the current Konica Minolta copier lease. 1. To enter into a lease agreement with Metro Sales for the Ricoh Copier. 2. To continue researching options for a different copier. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the Consent Agenda, the Council directs staff to enter into a 60 -month lease agreement with Metro Sales for the Ricoh Aficio MP C3503 Copier. 0 COUNCIL ACTION. O O SALESINC, W wwxoetrosa I es,com Established 1969 An Equal Opportunity Employer MAY 211 2014 RicoH AFIC10 MP C-3503 0 NEW; BW'& COLOR-- QOP'Y/PR1NT/SCAN/FAx -OPTIONAL 0 35 -copiEs/'PRINTS PER MINUTE 0 100 -AUTOMATIC REVERSING DOCUMENT FEEDER 0 2,300 -SHEET PAPER CAPACITY FROM 5 DIFFERENT SOURCES ((4) x 550 -SHEET TRAYS + 100 -SHEET BYPASS TRAY) 0 250 GB HDD DOCUMENTSERVER 0 SCAN -TO -EMAIL, SCAN -TO -FOLDER & SCAN'TO-LOCH MENT SERVER' SCAN51N, COLOR • FULL COLORY' CONTROL PANEL WITH SD/USB SLOTS TO PRINT FROM MEDIA • HANDLESIPAPER. &CARD STOCK UP TO 12 x 18 IN ALL APPLICATIONS • BANNER PRINTING CAPABLE LON SHEET EXTERNAL STAPLE FINISHER INCLUDED ------------ mz ftea 4C-02 AIRPARK 2911 C-LE,AR'v'%1!'ATER RD 195 1,"), LIND COURT 902 & SECOND ST,, STE 140 .37-5 ST. JOHN DR1',.,E 1611,0, 14TH..5TR EET NX,,1, 2301 N, UNI,"ERSITY DR. DULUTH, MN, 55811 ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 K,4WATO, MN 56001 WINONA, MN 551,)8,7 0 �VATONNAJ HN -S5GW ROCHESTER, M,N.55901 FARGO, NO 58102 TEL. (218) 722-80,)0 TFL., (320) 6S4-1 I III 1 TEL: (507 )345-$044 .388.7144' TEL, (507) 454-8822 TEL: 0507)'451-4160 +(547)TEL: �07) 285-31 00 TEL' ' (7011) �32,4000 FAX: (218) 72'2.987,)F,4X, (32 0)654-8865 rAX (567) FAK (507) 4S4-8828 F!',X; (507)-451-8259 F, -`1X: (507),285- 853 FAX: U01) 232-7966 CO AT 05FIC115- 1620 EAST 78th STREET 4, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423 o (612) 861-4000 - IFAX,(612),866-8069 www.metrosa:les.com EU SALESINC, Established 1969 An Equal Opportunity Emplo"'rer J a 0 a loll IF 0 HOUR SERVIcE RESPONSE' TIME ("WARANTEE 0 U 3 0 METRO SALES TO LOCK COST PER COPY RATES FCR LENGTH OF LEASE AND WILL REWRITE CONTRACT AT ANY TIME TO BEST REFLECT ACTUAL USAGE. 0 M ETRO'SING LE- CLI,CKS.FOR ALL OUTPUT,I)ESPITE CARDSTOCK SIZE o No ADDED SUPPLY CHARGES'OR SHIPPING CRARGES, NO HANDLING FEES; NO FUEL SURCHAR:GIES, NO HIDD - E K CHARGES 0 F AINY'KI N D f* 4002 AIRPARK 8I_'%D, 2911,CLEAR�4t)'ATER RD, DULUTH, MN 55811 ST, CLOUD,, MN 56301 TEL. (218) 722-8000 TEL., (320) 654-11 1 11 F`, -X,, (M) 722-9879 FAX, (320) 65.4-885S 195 "yY, LIND COURT MANKATOP, MN $6001 TEL, (507) 345-8043 FAX, (53-7) 388-7144 902 E. fECOND 57,, STE 140 WINONAMN 55987 TEL: (507) 454,8822 FAX (507) 454-6328 375 ST JOHN DRI , 6 1610 14TH STREET N-, % J, 2301,N, UNP14,"ER51TY DR, OV.AT,GNP4A,, MN,55060 R� STER, MN V7 )CHESTER, 901 8 FARGO, 102 ND -5 1 EL,,, (507) 451,4160 TEL, (507) 265-0e,)39 TEL, (701) 232-400.0 FAX, (507.) 451-8259 FAX,, (507) 285-9853 FAXI' (7,0 M-79�G COR .TE O.FFICrz fk 162G EAST 78th STREET - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423—p (612) 861-4000 • FAX (612) 866-8069, LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested • Public Hearing Discussion x • _x Resolution • Session Meeting Date . May 27, 2014 STAFF INITIAL As I am sure you have noticed, some business have not been removing graffiti from their properties. Conversations with them have been fairly fruitless. City ordinance does not re- quire that graffiti be removed, however. Staff recommends changing that and has prepared language to require the prompt removal of graffiti. In preparing the revisions, staff also cleaned up language that the police officers and city attorney felt didn't clearly prohibit one party from placing snow on their neighbor's proper- ty. Additionally, staff recommend going back to the standard of giving property owners 24 hours to remove snow from in front of their properties. After big snow events, it can be dif- ficult to accomplish in 12 hours. No one was ever issued a citation after 12 hours but 24 hours seems fair. The ordinance can always be amended prior to adoption. Prior to adoption, a public hearing also must be held. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve Ordinance 14-03, amending Lauderdale City Code regarding Health and Safety; Nuisances. An Ordinance Amending Title 4, Chapter 6 of the Lauderdale City Code Regardinw! Health and Safety; Nuisances. The City Council of the City of Lauderdale ordains as follows: SECTION 1. The Lauderdale City Code, Title 4, Chapter 6, Section 4-6-01, is amended as follows: B. Snow, ice, dirt and rubbish. 1. Duty of owners and occupants. The owner and the occupant of any property ad . acent to a public sidewalk shall use diligence to keep the walk safe for pedestrians. J - No owner or occupant shall allow snow, ice, dirt or rubbish to remain on the walk longer than 4-224 hours after its deposit thereon. Failure to comply with this section shall constitute a violation. SECTION 2. The Lauderdale City Code, Title 4, Chapter 6, Section 4-6-14, is further amended as follows: B. All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 4-224 hours after the snow o other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; i SECTION 3. The Lauderdale City Code, Title 4, Chapter 6, Section 4-6-14, is further ,gi.-ite,xi.ded a&_Bo�]Lws: L. The allowing of rain water, ice_, or snow to fall from any building or structure upon nn " 'T T Q I A QNXT n of•ntdjae cnt any streeidewalkq�ql�le or to flow or fall ..e..FOSS ox%A%T oo a ' VV "Im private property. Dumping, -plowing, blowing, or otherwise doositing snow from one rivate property onto any other private property; SECTION 4. The Lauderdale City Code, Title 4, Chapter 6, Section 4-6-14, is further amended as follows: - AB. Graffiti not removed within 72 hours. Graffiti shall mean an unautholized wnting, printing, marks, SiRns, sM-ibols, figures, designs, inscriptions, or other dra which are scratched, scrawled, -painted., drawn or otherwise placed on any exterior surface of a building, wall, fence, sidewalk., curb,, dumpsters or other -pen-nanent structures on -public or pfivate property and which has the effect of defacing the property. U SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publicatioll Adopted by the city council of the City of Lauderdale this 27th day of May, 2014 Heather Butkowski, City Administrator Published in the Roseville Review this I Oth day of June, 2014. W LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion _X Action _X Resolution ork Session Meeting Date May 27, 2014 ITEM NUMBER Cable Franchise Renewal STAFF INITIAL The North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC), which the City is a member, has been ne- gotiating with Comeast regarding the cable franchise for the past several years. At this meeting, the City Council will need to decide whether to adopt one of two resolutions pro- vided in your packet. The first one . would renew the franchise with Comeast pursuant to Comcast's Proposal. The second would preliminarily deny the franchise renewal with Com cast. I The NSCC is recommending that the City Council preliminarily deny Comcast's franchise proposal. The reasons are many and provided in summary in the packet. Please refer to the denial resolution and the report titled Supplemental Staff ort on the Comcast Formal Iff - Rep Proposalfor Renewed Franchises with the NSCC Member Cities. Cor Wilson, Executive Director of the NSCC, will be at the meeting to provide greater clari- ty regarding the negotiations to date and the reasons behind the Commission's recommenda- tion to preliminarily deny the franchise renewal with Comcast. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 052714A—Renewal of Comcast of Minnesota, LLC., Cable Franchise. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution 052714 Preliminary Assessment that the Comcast of Minnesota, Inc., Cable Franchise should not be Renewed. I Icy wn_ I -s- 17 nIq RENEWAL OF COMICAST OF MINNESOTA, INC., CABLE FRANCHISE WHEREAS, the City of Lauderdale (the "City"), is a Member City of The North Suburban Cable Commission, d/b/a The North Suburban Communications Commission (the "Commission"), a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, as amended, and includes the municipalities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony, and Shoreview, Minnesota (hereinafter,, collectively the "Member Cities"); and WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59 has the statutory authority • 'Jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common • the contracting parties i.e.,the Member Cities;" and WHEREAS, the Commission was established by the Amended North Suburban Cable Commission Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of a Cable Communications System, dated June 1990 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), to monitor Comcast's- performance, activities and operations under the Franchises and to coordinate, administer and enforce the Member Cities' Franchises, among other things; and WHEREAS, The North Suburban Communications Commission acts on behalf of its Member Cities, including the City, to monitor the operation and activities of cable communications and to provide coordination of administration and enforcement of the franchises • the Member Cities; and I WHEREAS, the City enacted an ordinance and entered into an agreement authorizing MediaOne North Central Communications Corp. to provide cable service (the "Franchise"); and WHEREAS, as a result of several transfers of the Franchise, Comcast of Minnesota, Inc., ("Comcast") currently holds the Franchise in the city; and WHEREAS, Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended (the "Cable Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1), provides that if a written renewal request is submitted by a cable operator during the 6 -month period which begins with the 36th month before franchise expiration and ends with the 30th month prior to franchise expiration, a franchising authority shall, within six months of the request, commence formal proceedings to identify the future cable -related community needs and interests and to review the performance of the cable operator under its franchise during the then current franchise term; and WHEREAS, by letters dated October 11, 2010, and November 23, 2010, from Comcast to each of the Member Cities, including this City, Comcast invoked the formal renewal procedures set forth in Section 626 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546; and WHEREAS, the City and the other Member Cities informed the Commission, by resolution, that they want the Commission and/or its designee(s) to commence, manage and conduct the formal renewal process specified in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) -(g), on their behalf; and WHEREAS, the City has affirmed, by resolution, the Commission's preexisting authority under the Joint Powers Agreement to take any and all steps required or desired to comply with the Franchise renewal and related requirements of the Cable Act, Minnesota law and the Franchises; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement empowers the Commission and/or its designee(s) to conduct the Section 626 formal franchise renewal process on behalf of the city and to take such other steps and actions as are needed or required to carry out the formal franchise renewal process; and WHEREAS, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-02 commencing formal franchise renewal proceedings under Section 626(a) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), and authorizing the Commission or its designee(s) to take certain actions to conduct those Section 626(a) proceedings; and WHEREAS, the Commission performed a detailed needs assessment of the Member Cities' and their communities' present and future cable -related needs and interests and has evaluated and continues to evaluate Comcast's past performance under the Franchises and applicable laws and regulations, all as required by Section 626(a) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a); and WHEREAS, the Commission's needs ascertainment and past performance review produced the following reports: The Buske Group's "Community Needs Ascertainment — North Suburban Communications Commission (Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota)" (July 15, 2013) (the "Needs Assessment Report'); Group W Communications, LLC's, telephone survey and report titled "North Suburban Communications Commission Cable Subscriber Survey (September 2011)" (the "Telephone Survey Report'); CBG Communications, Inc.'s, "Final Report - Evaluation of Comcast's Subscriber System, Evaluation of the Existing Institutional Network -and Evaluation of PEG Access Signal Transport and Distribution for the North Suburban Communications Commission" (July 2013) (the "Technical Review Report'); Front Range Consulting, Inc.'s, "Financial Analysis of Comcast Corporation 2012 SEC Form I OK" (May 2013) (the "Comcast Financial Report'); and Commission staff s "Report on Cable - Related Needs and Interests and the Past Performance of Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.," (July 22, 2013) (the "Staff Report' ); and WHEREAS, based on its needs ascertainment, past performance review, best industry practices, national trends in franchising and technology, and its own experience, Commission staff prepared a "Request for Renewal Proposal for Cable Television Franchise" ("RFRP") that 2 summarizes the Member Cities' and their communities' present and future cable -related needs and interests, establishes requirements for facilities, equipment and channel capacity on Comcast's cable system and includes model provisions for satisfying those requirements and cable -related needs and interests; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-04, the Commission authorized its Executive Committee, Franchise Renewal Committee, Commission staff and/or Commission designee(s) to take all steps and actions necessary to implement,, conduct and engage in the entire formal franchise renewal process set forth in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) - (g), and to comply with any and all related federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, decisions and agreements; and WHEREAS, the Commission's delegation of authority to the Franchise Renewal Committee includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of a staff report and RFRP and the establishment of appropriate deadlines for questions and Comcast's RFRP response; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Commission, the Franchise Renewal Committee, by resolution, terminated the Section 626(a) proceedings required by the Cable Act on July 26, 2013, issued the Staff Report and RFRP to Comcast, effective July 29, 2013, and instructed Commission staff to deliver the StaffReport and RFRP to Comcast no later than July 30, • and WHEREAS, the StaffReport and RFRP was delivered to Comcast on July 29, 2013; anifl WHEREAS, the Commission ratified the issuance of the Staff Report and RFRP by the Franchise Renewal Committee at its August 2013 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission and Comcast engaged in informal renewal negotiations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h) but are currently unable to arrive at mutually acceptable terms, although informal discussions are ongoing; and WHEREAS, the Commission established November 22, 2013, as a deadline for Co cast's response to the Staff Report and RFRP; and WHEREAS, the Commission and Comcast agreed to extend certain deadlines including the deadline for Comcast to respond to the Staff Report and RFRP and the deadline set forth in 47 U.S.C. 546(c) for the Commission and the Member Cities to accept or preliminarily deny the Comcast Proposal; and WHEREAS, on or about Decem*ber 20, 2013, Comcast submitted to the Commission its Formal Proposal in response to the Staff Report and RFRP .("Proposal"); and WHEREAS, the Commission published a notice notifying the public that Comcast's Proposal has been received and was placed on file for public inspection in the Commission's office, and that written public comments may be submitted to the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2014, and May 1, 2014, on the Comcast Proposal; and 3 W HEREAS, Comcast's proposal was analyzed by the Commission's staff, The Buske Group, CBG Communications, Inc., and Front Range Consulting, Inc., each of whom prepared a separate Executive Summary of Comcast's Proposal (collectively the "Executive Summary Reports"); and WHEREAS, the Executive Summary Reports identify with particularity whether Comcast's Proposal is acceptable or unacceptable as it relates to the Commission's Staff Report and RFRP; and WHEREAS, the Commission carefully considered all public comment including thal contained within the Staff Report and RFRP, the Propo . sal and the Executive Summary Reports; and WHEREAS. the Commission, on May 15, 2014, adopted a resolution recommending to the Member Cities that the Member Cities issue a preliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be renewed; and 111"KEREAS, despite the Commission's recommendation, the City, after carefully reviewing Comcast's Proposal determines the Proposal meets the future cable -related comm -unity needs and interests taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale thIit: 1. Each of the above recitals is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact •'' the City. 2. The City hereby rejects the Commission's recommendation and renews the Comcast Franchise pursuant to the terms of the Comcast Proposal. 3. The City finds that its actions and the actions of the North Suburban Communications Commission are appropriate and reasonable in light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27thday of May, 2014: Heather Butkowski, City Clerk - Administrator N"FAV "I AINN 'a Jeffrey Dains, Mayor M CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMICAST OF MINNESOTA, INC., CABLE FRANCHISE SHOULD NOT BE RENEWE11 WHEREAS, Lauderdale (theis a Member City of The North Suburban Cable Commission, d/b/a The North Suburban Communications Commission (the "Commission"), a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, as amended, and includes the municipalities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony, and Shoreview, Minnesota (hereinafter, collectively the "Member Cities"); and WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59 has the statutory authority to "jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties i.e., the Member Cit" and WHEREAS, the Commission was established by the Amended North Suburban Cable Commission Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of a Cable Communications System, dated June 1990 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), to monitor Comcast's performance, activities and operations under the Franchises and to coordinate, administer and enforce the Member Cities' Franchises, among other things; and WHEREAS, The North Suburban Communications Commission acts on behalf of its Member Cities, including the City, to monitor the operation and activities of cable communications and to provide coordination of administration and enforcement of the franchises of the Member Cities; and WHEREAS, the City enacted an ordinance and entered into an agreement authorizing MediaOne North Central Communications Corp. to provide cable service (the "Franchise"); and WHEREAS, as a result of several transfers of the Franchise, Comcast of Minnesota, Inc., ("Comcast") currently holds the Franchise in the City; and WHEREAS, Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended (the "Cable Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1), provides that if a written renewal request is submitted by a cable operator during the 6 -month period which begins with the 36th month before franchise expiration and ends with the 30th month prior to franchise expiration, a franchising authority shall, within six months of the request, commence formal proceedings to identify the future cable -related community needs and interests and to review the performance of the cable operator under its franchise during the then current franchise term; and WHERFAS, by letters dated October 11, 2010, and November 23, 2010, from Comcast to each of the Member Cities, including the City, Comcast invoked the formal renewal procedures set forth in Section 626 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546; and WHERFAS, the City and the other Member Cities informed the Commission, by resolution, that they want the Commission and/or its designee(s) to commence, manage and conduct the formal renewal process specified in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) -(g), on their behalf; and WHER-EAS, the City has affirmed, by resolution, the Commission's preexisting authority under the Joint Powers Agreement to take any and all steps required or desired to comply with the Franchise renewal and related requirements of the Cable. Act, Minnesota law and the Franchises; and WHER-EAS, the Joint Powers Agreement empowers the Commission and/or its designee(s) to conduct the -Section 626 formal franchise renewal process on behalf of the City and to takv-, such other steps and actions as are needed or required to carry out the formal franchise renewal process; and WHERFAS, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-02 commencing formal franchise renewal proceedings under Section 626(a) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), and authorizing the Commission or its designee(s) to take certain actions to conduct those Section 626(a) proceedings; and WHERFAS, the Commission performed a detailed needs assessment of the Member Cities' and their communities' present and future cable -related needs and interests and has evaluated and continues to evaluate Comcast"s past performance under the Franchises and applicable laws and regulations, all as required by Section. 626(a) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a); and WHERFAS, the Commission's needs ascertainment and past performance review produced the following reports: The Buske Group's "Community Needs Ascertainment — North Suburban Communications Commission (Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota)" (July 15, 2013) (the "Needs Assessment Report'); Group W Communications, LLC's, telephone survey and report titled "North Suburban Communications Commission Cable Subscriber Survey (September 2011)" (the "Telephone Survey Report'); CBG Communications, Inc.'s, "Final Report - Evaluation of Comcast's Subscriber System, Evaluation of the Existing Institutional Network and Evaluation of PEG Access Signal Transport and Distribution for the North Suburban Communications Commission" (July 2013) (the "Technical Review Report'); Front Range Consulting, Inc.'s, "Financial Analysis of Comcast Corporation 2012 SEC Form I OK" (May 2013) (the "Comcast Financial Report'); and Commission staff s "Report on Cable - Related Needs and Interests and the Past Performance of Comcast of Minnesota, Inc.," (July 22, 2013) (the "Staff Report' ); and WHEP%EAS, based on its needs ascertainment, past performance review, best industry practices, national trends in franchising and technology, and its own experience, Commission staff prepared a "Request for Renewal Proposal for Cable Television Franchise" ("RFRP") that summarizes the Member Cities' and their communities' present and future cable -related needs and interests, establishes requirements for facilities, equipment and channel capacity on Comcast's cable system and includes model provisions for satisfying those requirements and cable -related needs and interests; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-04, the Commission authorized its Executive Committee, Franchise Renewal Committee, Commission staff and/or Commission designee(s) to take all steps and actions necessary to implement, conduct and engage in the entire formal franchise renewal process set forth in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) - (g), and to comply with any and all related federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, decisions and agreements; and WHEREAS, the Commission's delegation of authority to the Franchise Renewal Committee includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of a staff report and RFRP and the establishment of appropriate deadlines for questions and Comcast's RFRP response; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Commission, the Franchise Renewal Committee, by resolution, terminated the Section 626(a) proceedings required by the Cable Act on July 26, 2013, issued the Staff Report and RFRP to Comcast, effective July 29, 2013, and instructed Commission staff to deliver the Staff Report and RFRP to Comeast no later than July 30, 2013; and U111 IN 101 kol SSIBOW � � i � � � wilf"� UMN y 2 9, 2 013; an4_ WHEREAS, the Commission ratified the issuance of the Staff Report and RFRP by the Franchise Renewal Committee at its August 2013 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission and Comcast engaged in informal renewal negotiations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h) but are currently unable to arrive at mutually acceptable terms, although informal discussions are ongoing; and WHEREAS, the Commission established November 22, 2013, as a deadline for Comcast's response to the Staff Report and RFRP; and WHEREAS, the Commission and Comcast agreed to extend certain deadlines including the deadline for Comcast to respond to the Staff Report and RFR_P and the deadline set forth in 47 U.S.C. 546(c) for the Commission and the Member Cities to accept or preliminarily deny the Comcast Proposal; and WHEREAS, on or about December 20, 2013, Comcast submitted to the Commission its Formal Proposal in response to the Staff Report and RFRP ("Proposal"); and WHEREAS, the Commission published a notice notifying the public that Comcast's Proposal has been received and was placed on file for public inspection in the Commission's office, and that written public comments may be submitted to the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2014, and May 1, 2014, on the Comcast Proposal; and 3 WHEREAS, Comcast's proposal was analyzed by the Commission's staff, The Buske Group, CBG Communications, Inc., and Front Range Consulting, Inc., each of whom prepared a separate Executive Summary of Comcast's Proposal, which are all attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit A to Attachment I (collectively the "Executive Summary Reports"); and WHEREAS, the Executive Summary Reports identify with particularity whether Comcast's Proposal is acceptable or unacceptable as it relates to the Commission's Staff Report and RFRP; and WHEREAS, the Commission carefully reviewed Comcast's Proposal and determined z number of areas where the Proposal fails to meet the future cable -related community needs and interests taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests; and WHEREAS, should Comcast request the commencement of an administrative hearing pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Commission has prescribed Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit B to Attachment 1, which rules comply with all procedural obligations set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 546(c); and WHEREAS, the Commission carefully considered all public comment including that contained within the StaffReport and RFRP, the Proposal and the attached analysis; and WHEREAS, the Commission, on May 15, 2014, adopted a resolution, attached hereto as Attachment 1, recommending to the Member Cities that the Member Cities issue a preliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be renewed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale that: 1. Each of the above recitals is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact by the City. 2. Attachment 1 and its Exhibits A and B are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in the body of this. Resolution. 3. The City makes a preliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be renewed. 4. The City preliminarily finds that Comcast's Proposal fails to meet the Commission and the City's future cable -related community needs and interests taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests. 5. The basis for the City's preliminary assessment is set forth in Attachment Exhibit A. 6. At any administrative hearing requested by Comcast, the Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing attached hereto as Attachment I., Exhibit B will ensure that Comcast is afforded a fair opportunity for fall participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence and to. question witnesses. El. 7. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable- in light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27 th day of May, 2014: 0 I': Butkowski, City Clerk - Administrator 61 Jeffrey Dains, Mayor ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS OF COMCAST'S CABLE PROPOSAL TO THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Commission's staff, Supplemental Staff Report on The Comcast Formal Proposalfor Renewed Franchises with the NSCC Member Cities CBG Communications, Inc. Executive Summary of CBG Communications, Inc.'s Report on the Technical Aspects of Comcast's Formal.Renewal Proposal The Buske Group Executive Summary, Review ofPublic, Educational, and Government (PEG) Access Aspects of Franchise Renewal Proposal Submitted By Comcast ofMinnesota Front Range Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary, FRCs Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal L 3 9A to OIL HLAA I ON Section 1. The Commission hereby establishes procedural guidelines for purpose of the administrative hearing under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as follows: A. The Commission shall appoint an administrative law judge ("hearing officer") to conduct the administrative hearing and issue recommended findings of fact for consideration by the Commission. Comcast and the Commission will jointly determine the process for selecting an administrative law judge, if necessary. The administrative hearing will be conducted, to the extent practicable and consistent with the requirements of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, pursuant to the [�rovisions for administrative hearings in the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. The specific requirements for the administrative hearing shall be as follows: Pre-hearina Dsco ivery: C-01 m (1) Each side is permitted limited requests for production of documents and twenty (20) interrogatories. With respect to interrogatories, the following rules apply: (a) Interrogatories are to be answered by any officer or agent of either party, who shall famish such information as is available to the party; and (b) Each interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the reasonsfor the objection and answer to the extent that the interrogatory is not objectionable. All objections shall be stated with specificity and any ground for objection which is not stated in a timely manner is waived unless the party's failure is excused by the Commission for good cause shown; and (c) Interrogatories will be answered within the timeframe established by the hearing officer; [2) No depositions shall be permitted. (3) The hearing officer will rule on all discovery disputes which may arise. (4) Discovery shall close fifteen (15) days before the administrative hearing. C. Pre -hearing Disclosures: Each side shall disclose • the other the identity of any person •' may be used at the hearing to present expert testimony prior to the hearing date. The disclosure must be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert which shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the expert informing his or her opinions; and any exhibits to be used as a summary or in support of the opinions so rendered; the qualifications of the witness; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony of the expert; and a listing of other cases in which the expert has testified at trial within the preceding • (4) years. (2) Exhibits and witness lists will be mutually exchanged one (1) week prior to hearing date. Witness lists will briefly state the subject of the expected testimony of each witness. D. Administrative Hearing: (1) The hearing will be conducted on a date established by the hearing officer; (2) Each side maybe represented by an attorney and shall be afforded the opportunity to present relevant evidence and to call and examine witnesses and cross-examine witnesses of the other party; (3) Commission members may not be called as witnesses nor may the Commission's or Comcast's legal counsel be called as witnesses. (4) Witnesses will be sworn; (5) The hearing shall be transcribed by a court reporter; (6) The hearing officer will determine evidentiary objections. Strict compliance with the federal rules of evidence will not be necessary. (7) Post -hearing briefs will be permitted in lieu of closing argument. Briefs will be mutually exchanged at a date established by the hearing officer; (8) The hearing officer will issue recommended findings of fact based upon the record of the proceeding and stating the reasons therefore, pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. E. The Commission will review the recommended findings of fact from the hearing officer and will, upon request of the parties, permit oral argument before the Commission not to exceed thirty (30) minutes per party. Thereafter the Commission will issue a written decision recommending to the Member Cities to grant or deny the proposal for renewal pursuant. to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. Section 2. Neither the Commission's July 29, 2013, Staff Report and RFRP or Comcast's December 20, 2013, Proposal have been amended nor modified in any way since the daU4:-mw--Jw �*W- Section 3. The Commission finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546. To: North Suburban Cable Commission From: Michael R. Bradley Re: Response to Certain Arguments Asserted by Comcast Date: April 3 0, 2014 Comcast made several arguments at the Public Hearing on April 17, 2014, and in subsequent e-mails concerning Comcast's renewal proposal and the related public hearing. Yol have asked that I review and respond to those arguments. Argument: "[flhis formal process is the one that [the NSCC] triggered..." Response: Comcast actually "triggered" the formal process when it sent a letter to the NSCC asking for its franchise to be renewed through the formal renewal process set forth in the federal Cable Act. Of course, both the NSCC and Comcast know that the NSCC has made multiple attempts to renew the franchise informally, while proceeding with the formal process. The NSCC remains open to continue those informal discussions to the extent progress is actually being made during those discussions. Argument: Requiring Comcast to fund operational expenses is an unlawful demand. Response: Comcast has been funding the operations of the NSAC since at least 1991 — over twenty years. The Cable Act allows the cable operator to voluntarily make operational payments that can be passed through to subscribers at no cost to Comcast. Argument: The PEG channels are underused and "[C]omcast offered to help [the NSCC] make PEG programming more effective including by simply reducing the sheer number of channels." Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC 1976 Wooddale Drive I Suite 3A I Woodbury, MN 55125 1(651) 379-0900 1 bradleylawran.com Response: This appears to be some sort of "value" judgment by Comcast. The NSCC/NC believes that these channels are used at least as much, if not substantially more than most, PEG operations and have less repetitive programming and infomercial programming than • channels • the Comcast system. Comcast is attempting to /• • standard • original, non -repetitive programming which it does not appear to apply to the commercial programming services. Comcast's proposal does eliminate a significant number of PEG channels from 8 SD channels to 3 SD channels. Whether providing fewer channels meets the needs and interests of the NSCC (and its member cities) will ultimately be determined by the NSCC (and its member cities). Argument: Comcast's investment in the local community is relevant to renewal. Response: While Comcast spoke at length about its involvement in the local community, it has no relevance to whether its franchises should be renewed in the NSCC area. Argument: The case of Cablevision Systems v. Town of East Hampton addresses substantial franchise noncompliance for franchise renewals. Response: The East Hampton case has nothing to do with a franchise renewal. It addressed how a town could revoke a cable franchise. Of course, federal law prescribes an entirely different process and standard that we must follow for renewing a cable franchise. Argument: Comcast at least implied that the NSCC must address 4 questions prior to accepting or preliminarily denying the Comcast proposal. Response: The 4 questions outlined by Comcast in its presentation are questions that must be addressed following a preliminary assessment of the Comcast proposal. A review of the 0 renewal law may provide insight. Here is the renewal process as outlined by the federal Cable Receive a proposal from the cable operator in response to a RFRP (Reque for Renewal Proposal). (Completed) I (2) The franchising authority (the NSCQ must provide prompt public notice of the proposal. (Completed) (3) The franchising authority must renew the franchise based on the cable operator's proposal or, issue a preliminary assessment *that the franchise should not be renewed. (Preliminary recommendation to be made by NSCC on May 8 or May 15, 2014, followed by preliminary recommendations by member cities). (4) If a preliminary assessment that a franchise should not be renewed is made, then the operator may request or the franchising authority may on its own initiative, commence an administrative proceeding. (If necessary) (5) (If necessary) After providing prompt public notice of such proceeding, the franchising authority must consider whether a. the cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law [emphasis added]; b. the quality of the operator's service, including signal quality, response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard to the mix or quality of cable services or other services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community needs [emphasis added]; c. the operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services, facilities, and equipment as set forth in the operator's proposal; and d. the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable -related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such ,needs and interests. Argument: Comcast received "glowing reviews" from the NSCC's consultant for service quality. Response: The Buske Group reviewed Comcast's service quality. Service quality was also addressed in the Supplemental Staff Report. The NSCC also had to engage Comcast* during the digital transition last year because of serious signal quality issues on the PEG channels. The members of the NSCC are encouraged to read these reports to ascertain the accuracy of Comcast's claim of "glowing reviews." Argument: "The Cable Act and FCC have limited capital funding to what is needed to pay for adequate PEG facilities." Response: A brief synopsis of the Cable Act and FCC decisions may provide some guidance. In 2007, the FCC ruled, Sections 611 and 626 [of the Cable Act] provide a process for requiring PEG carriage and determining a community's future cable -related needs and interests. Section 626 requires that an LFA identify "future cable -related *community nee ss and interests" prior to the consideration of a franchise renewal proposal. Therefore, LFAs are to evaluate their current and future PEG needs at the time of an incumbent provider's renewal, and are allowed to request such PEG support from their providers, within the limits of the Act and the Commission's statutory interpretation. 01� I � 1H � A franchising authority may in its request for proposals require as part of a franchise, and may require as part of a cable operator's proposal for a franchise renewal, subject to section [626 (Renewal)] of this title, that channel capacity be designated for public, educational, or governm ental use, and channel capacity on institutional networks be designated for educational or governmental use, and may require rules and procedures for the use of the channel capacity designated pursuant to this section. Section 621 of the Cable Act allows: "In awarding a franchise, the franchising authority ... may require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support." According to the FCC, the term "adequate" should be given its plain meaning. The FCC has previously used the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1991) to define adequate as meaning "satisfactory or sufficient." In other words, based on the interpretation of the FCC, the LSCC may require satisfactory or sufficient assurance that Comcast will provide satisfactory or sufficient PEG 2 channel capacity, facilities, or financial support to meet identified community communications needs as part of a renewal proposal. It is the NSCC and its member cities — not Comcast - who determine what satisfactory or sufficient PEG support is. Argument: Current PEG capital funding for the past 15 years is less than $100,000 per year or about $0.27 per subscriber per month. Response: The current Franchise Agreement and MOUs set forth the capital funding to be approximately $100,000 per year (approximately $0.27 per subscriber per month), recently dropping to $50,000 in 2014 (approximately $0.13 per subscriber per month). As these PEG funds (the MOU identified "equipment," "operating" and "scholarship" grants) are all allowed to be used for whatever PEG purposes the NSCC so chooses, the funding is not linked to the so called "uses" Comcast's seems to be implying. The NSCC/NAC have consistently used any and all funds including reserves to pay for capital needs like the leasehold improvements it made to the current facility a few years ago. Those leasehold improvements came to $528,281, and the NCC/NAC would not have been able to make them without having sufficient reserve funding. Argument: The NSCC is demanding a 10 -fold increase in PEG capital funding. Response: Past spending is not relevant to the determination of whether the Comcast proposal meets the NSCC's future needs. However, over the past 15 years, the NCC/NA C has spent over $4 million on capital needs. Additionally, the member cities used franchise fees on additional PEG related capital needs. The identified needs do not represent a 10 -fold increase. The member cities' identified future capital needs total approximately $4.5 million as identified in the Needs Ascertainment Report. Argument: The NSCC has $2.1 million in reserves. 0 Response: This is incorrect. According to NSCC staff, currently, the NSCC is almost completely funded by franchise fees and only has approximately $140,000 in reserves. Comcast has comingled the NSCC and NSAC reserves and has included ongoing checking account balances used to pay monthly expenses, a deferred revenue account and a letter of credit required by the leaseholder. Argument: NCC/NAC should use half of its reserves on future capital needs. Response: The NSCC controls how it will use its reserves — not Comcast. Having sufficient reserves enabled the NSCC/NSAC to make the leasehold improvements required with they moved to their new location in 2010. The reserves also have no funding limitations as suggested by Comcast and was confirmed in the 2009 Settlement Agreement with Comcast. The NC/NAC received funding from Comcast that can be used for operational or capital support and the res . erves have been regularly audited and no such suggestion has been made to the NSCC by the auditors that the funding must be used as argued by Comcast. Argument: The Joint Powers Agreement requires all of the member cities to spend franchise fees on cable related needs. Response: The Joint Powers Agreement was originally entered into in the early 1980s before the Cable Act of 1984. Prior to 1984, franchise fees were required to be used for cable - related purposes. That requirement was eliminated in 1984 and now franchise fees can be used for any.purpose at the discretion of the local franchising authority. It would appear that by raising this issue, Comcast is simply trying to deflect attention away from its proposal, which would eliminate operational funding for PEG access. How the member cities expend their franchise . fees is not relevant to whether the Comcast proposal should be accepted or preliminarily denied. Cities. Argument: The PEG funding in this area is much higher than other areas of the Twin Response: The important point is not what others have but what the needs of the NSCC franchise area are. Notably absent from Comcast's list were the neighboring member cities of the Ramsey/Washington Cable Commission. The PEG funding in those 13 communities are actually higher than the current funding levels here. Argument: There is no "information* showing current usage, expected needs, or any community interest in the I -Net." Response: The need for the I -Net is outlined in detail in both the Staff Report and th i Ikeport prepared by CBG Communications, Inc. Argument: The NSCC used "advocacy efforts" prior to the April 17, 2014, Public Hearing. Response: The NSCC provided notice to the public of Comcast's proposal. Other than making the public aware of the proposal and public hearing on the proposal, I am not aware of any so-called advocacy efforts employed by the NSCC. The NA, which is a separate organization from the NSCC, also notified the public of the public hearing. Apparently, the source of Comcast's complaint related to the use of clip art on a web page. That is hardly evidence of advocacy or bias. Further, no objection was made at the public hearing by Comcast. Such an allegation by Comcast suggesting bias by the NSCC after the hearing appears to be Argument: The public comments made at the April 17, 2014, hearing cannot be used as a basis for denial because the needs ascertainment was complete before the NSCC released its RFRP. h Response: The public hearing was on Comcast's proposal, which was held consistent with the federal Cable Act. The public testimony speaks for itself. NSCC May 15,2014 Resolution PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMCAST OF MINNESOTA9 INC.CABLE FRANCHISE SHOULD NOT BE RENEWEJV WHEREAS, the North Suburban Cable Commission, d/b/a the North Suburban Communications Commission (hereinafter the "Commission"), is a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, as amended, and includes the municipalities of Arden Hills,, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville.., St. Anthony, and Shoreview, Minnesota (hereinafter, collectively the "Member Cities"); and WHEREAS, the Member Cities enacted separate ordinances and entered into individual agreements authorizing MediaOne North Central Communications Corp. to provide cable service (collectively, the "Franchises"); and WHEREAS, as a result of several transfers of the Franchises, Comcast of Minnesota, Inc., ("Comcast") currently holds the Franchises in the Member Cities.; and WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Commission organized pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59 has the statutory authority to "jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common -to the contracting parties [i.e., the Member Cities];" and WHEREAS, the definition of a "City" is defined under the Franchises to include,, among other entities, the lawful designee of the Member Cities; and WHEREAS, the Commission was established by the Amended North Suburban Cable Commission Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of a Cable Communications System, dated June 1990 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), to monitor Comcast's performance, activities and operations under the Franchises and to coordinate, administer and enforce the Member Cities' Franchises, among other things; and WHEREAS, Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended (the "Cable Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1), provides that if a written renewal request is submitted by a cable operator during the 6 -month period which begins with the 36th month before franchise expiration and ends with the 30th month prior to franchise expiration, a franchising authority shall, within six months of the request, commence formal proceedings to identify the future cable -related community needs and interests and to review the performance of the cable operator under its franchise during the then current franchise term; and WHEREAS, by letters dated October 11, 2010, and November 23, 2010, from Comcast to the Member Cities., Comcast invoked the formal renewal procedures set forth in Section 626 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S. C. § 546; and WHEREAS, the Member Cities informed the Commission, by resolution, that they want it and/or its designee(s) to commence, manage and conduct the formal renewal process specified in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) -(g), on their behalf-, and WBEREAS, the Member Cities have affirmed, by resolution, the Commission's preexisting authority under the Joint Powers Agreement to take any and all steps required or desired to comply with the Franchise renewal and related requirements of the Cable Act, Minnesota law and the Franchises; and WHEREAS9 the Joint Powers Agreement empowers the Commission and/or its designee(s) to conduct the Section 626 formal franchise renewal process on the Member Cities' behalf and to take such other steps and actions as are needed or required to carry out the fon-nal franchise renewal process; and WBIEREAS9 the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-02 commencing formal franchise renewal proceedings under Section 626(a) of the Cable Act,, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), and authorizing the Commission or its designee(s) to take certain actions to conduct those Section 626(a) proceedings; and WBER]EAS, the Commission performed a detailed needs assessment of the Member Cities' and their communities' present and future cable -related needs and interests and has evaluated and continues to evaluate Comcast's past performance under the Franchises and applicable laws and regulations, all as required by Section 626(a) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a); and WBEREAS9 the Commission's needs ascertainment and past performance review lowing reports: The Buske Group's "Community Needs Ascertainment — North produced the fol Suburban Communications Commission (Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota)" (July 15, 2013) (the "Needs Assessment Report'); Group W Communications, LLC's. telephone survey and report titled "North Suburban Communications Commission Cable Subscriber Survey (September 2011)" (the "Telephone Survey Report'); CBG Communications, Inc. s, "Final Report - Evaluation of Comcast's Subscriber System, Evaluation of the Existing Institutional Network and Evaluation of PEG Access Signal Transport and Distribution for the North Suburban Communications Commission" (July 2013) (the "Technical Review Report'); Front Range Consulting, Inc.'s, "Financial Analysis of Comcast Corporation 2012 SEC Form I OK7 (May 20 13) the "Comcast Financial Report'); and Commission staff s "Report on Cable - Related Needs and Interests and the Past Performance of Comcast of Minnesota, Inc." (July 22, 2013) (the "Staff Report'); and WHER]EAS, based on its needs ascertainment, past performance review, best industry practicesnational trends in franchising and technology, and its own experience, Commission , staff prepared a "'Request for Renewal Proposal for Cable Television Franchise" ("RFRP") that summarizes the Member Cities' and their communitiespresent and future cable -related needs and interests., establishes requirements for facilities, equipment and channel capacity on Comcast"s cable system and includes model provisions for satisfying those requirements and cable -related needs and interests; and WHER]EAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-04, the Commission authorized its Executive Committee, Franchise Renewal Committee, Commission staff and/or Commission designee(s) to take all steps and actions necessary to implement, conduct and engage in the entire formal franchise renewal process set forth in Section 626(a) -(g) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 546(a) -(g), and to comply with any and all related federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, decisions and agreements; and WBEREAS, the Commission's delegation of authority to the Franchise Renewal Committee includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of a staff report and RFRP and the establishment of appropriate deadlines for questions and Comcast's RFRP response; and WBEREAS, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Commission, the Franchise Renewal Committee, by resolution, terminated the Section 626(a) proceedings required by the Cable Act on July 26, 2013, issued the Staff Report and RFRP to Comcast, effective July 29, 2013, and instructed Commission staff to deliver the Staff Report and RFRP to Comcast no later than July 30, 2013; and WBEREAS, the Staff Report and RFRP was delivered to Comcast on July 29, 2013; and WBEREASI, the Commission ratified the issuance of the Staff Report and RFRP by the I Franchise Renewal Committee at its August, 2013 meeting; and WBEREAS, the Commission and Comcast engaged in informal renewal negotiations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h) but are currently unable to arrive at mutually acceptable terms, although informal discussions are ongoing; and WBEREAS5 the Commission established November 22, 2013, as a deadline for Comcast's response to the Staff Report and RFRP; and WBEREAS5 the Commission and Comcast agreed to extend certain deadlines including the deadline for Comcast to respond to the Staff Report and RFRP and the deadline set forth in 47 U.S. C. 546(c) for the Commission and the Member Cities to accept or preliminarily deny the Comcast Proposal; and WIFIEREAS,, on or about December 20, 2013, Comcast submitted to the Commission its Formal Proposal in response to the Staff Report and RFRP ("Proposal"); and WBEREAS5 the Commission published a notice notifying the public that Comcast's Proposal has been received and was placed on file for public inspection in the Commission's office, and that written public comments may be submitted to the Commission; and WBEREAS,, the Commission held a public hearing on April 17, 2014, and May 1, 2014, on the Comcast Proposal; and WHEREAS, Comcast's proposal was analyzed by the Commission's staff, The Buske Group, CBG Communications, Inc., and Front Range Consulting, Inc., each of whom prepared a separate Executive Summary of Comcast's Proposal, which are all attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit A (collectively the "Executive Summary Reports"); and WHEREAS, the Executive Summary Reports identify with particularity whether Comcast's Proposal is acceptable or unacceptable as it relates to the Commission's Staff Report and RFRP; and WHEREAS, the Commission has carefully reviewed Comcast's Proposal and has determined a number of areas where the Proposal fails to meet the future cable -related community needs and interests taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests; and WHEREAS, should Comcast request the commencement of an administrative hearing pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Commission has prescribed Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which rules comply with all procedural obligations set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 546(c); and WHEREAS, the Commission has carefully considered all public comment including that contained within the Staff Report and RFRP, the Proposal and the attached analysis. NOW, THEREFORE9 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION9 THAT: 1. Each of the above recitals is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact by the Commission. 2. Exhibits A and B are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in the body of this Resolution. 3. The Commission recommends to the Member Cities that the Member Cities issue a preliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be renewed. 4. The Commission preliminarily finds that Comcast's Proposal fails to meet the Commission and Member Cities' future cable -related community needs and interests taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests. 5. The basis for the Commission's preliminary assessment is set forth in Exhibit A. 6. At any administrative hearing requested by Comcast, the Rules for the Conduct of an Administrative Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit B will ensure that Comcast is afforded a fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence and to question witnesses. 7. The Commission finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546. !�ASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Ll 2014: THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION By: Chair ANALYSIS OF COMCAST'S CABLE PROPOSAL NORTH TO THE SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIO] Commission's staff, Supplemental Staff Deport on The Comcast Formal Proposalfor Renewed Franchises with the NSCC Member Cities CBG Communications, Executive Summary of CBG Communications, GroupReport on the Technical Aspects of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal The Buske Executive Summary, Review ofPublic, Educational, and Government (PEG) Access ASPects of Franchise Renewal Proposal Submitted By Comcast of Minnesota Front Lange Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary, FRC -s Review of Comcast's Formal RenewalProposal SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON THE COMCAST FORMAL PROPOSAL FOR RENEWED FRANCHISES WITH THE NSCC MEMBER CITIES Introduction and Overview: Thepurpose of this supplemental staff report is to provide the staff's analysis of the formal franchise renewal proposal and exhibits submitted by Comcast on December 20, 2013, and the extent to which the proposal meets the needs identified in the Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposal (RFRP), which was issued by the North Suburban Communications Commission (NSCC) on July 29, 2013. Specifically, the supplemental staff report will address the top four issues for renewed franchises with the ten member cities: 1.) the continued offering of the fiber -based Institutional Network (I -Net) which connects local government institutions within the ten member cities, including municipal facilities, Ramsey County facilities, and several schools (both K-12 and post -secondary) at no charge to the users; 2) funding for Public, Educational and Government (PEG) communications in the ten member cities, and channel capacity for transmission of the eight PEG channels in both SD and H®; 3) Comcast'spast customer service performance and 4) two of the issues from the report prepared by Mr. Andrew Elson of E -Consulting Group (Exhibit 2 of the Comcast proposal). This Supplemental Staff Report should be considered with the other consultant's reports (CG13 Communications, Front Range Consulting and The Buske Group). Attached as Exhibit I to this report is an initial comparison of the franchise agreement terms included in the RFRP to Comcast's Proposal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I -Net Issues Since Comcast notified the NSCC member cities in October and November 2010 of its desire to renew the cable television franchises, the NSCC and its staff have been engaging in the renewal processes set out in federal law. The NSCC undertook an extensive assessment of our community's cable -related communications needs and interests (both from a subscriber and community user standpoint) and evaluated the company's performance under the current franchise. The Staff Report summarized these needs and identified key issues to be addressed in the renewed franchises. Those key issues ® retention of the fiber and HFC based Institutional Network (I -Net) linking local government facilities and the community media center, CTV North Suburbs; retention of both operational and capital funding for community media; and retention 0 of the eight PEG access channels currently programmed and simulcast of several of those channels in HD —were identified as community needs and are included in the RFRP. The NSCC RFRPonthe I-0et recognized that Comcast has already been compensated for the six strands offiber provided inthe 1990franchise for local government and community media use. Comcast passed through tosubscribers inthe PEG fee itemized mntheir bills the cost attributed by the company (approximately $567,000) primar.ily for those six fibers which are embedded inthe company's network. The users ofthe |Net(the cities, schools, libraries and NSCC/NSAC) have provided their own equipment to connect to and manage the network, and city and NS[C/CTVstaff oversees and maintains the network. Asaresult, the cost to Comcast tomaintain the |-0etisvery small. However, the benefits 10the NSCC/CTVand the member cities, such assubstantial cost savings, are significant. Corncast'sproposal toimpose new charges for these already paid for networks do not meet the NSCC's needs or the RFRP. Staff also believes that Comcast is incorrect that the Cable Act only e\|ovvs the |-Netto be used for PEG transport services. The current |-Netisused for both the PEG transport services and dedicated private communications network for the governmental facilities, and the RFRP requested acontinuation ofthat practice at essentially nocost tothe NSCCorits member These I -Net benefits include, of course, the upstream and downstream transmission of video programming for the seven public and educational channels and the 10discrete city channels. |naddition toprogramming the four public channels, the I -Net enables [TVNorth Suburbs 10provide programming and channel management, eswell asvvebstrearning, services for nine Vfthe ten cities and two ofthe three school districts, saving the cities and the school districts money that would otherwise need to be spent on staff time and the purchase of playback and vvebstneanmingequipment and software. |naddition, the cities, schools and Ramsey County use the I-Netnon-video data applications and services, including atelephone system and Internet access shared among eight of the ten cities and CTV North Suburbs and administrative services, such as financial systems and GIS applications. The Ramsey County Library uses the |-Nettoconnect its four branch libraries in Shoreview, Roseville, Mounds View and New Brighton, allowing for the technology consolidation to support their daily operations, as well as high speed and reliable access to collections, applications, programming and the Internet. The collaboration among all ofthese public institutions not only saves taxpayer dollars, but provides for more efficient and effective local government and community institution operations. The Cable Act hes recognized the value to the local community of these private communications networks and has allowed these |-Nets to be part of the franchise agreement for a cable operator to use the public rights-of- way. It should be pointed out again that the local government users of the I -Net, includi ' ng NSCC/NSAC, have paid for nearly all of the equipment and software to "'light up" the fibers that they use and for the staff that manage and maintain that equipment and software. Conncast's proposal would significantly increase the non -PEG I -Net costs which will significantly burden the non -PEG users unfairly and would serve to enrich Comcast's profits on a fully paid for network. However, despite the fact that Comcast has already been compensated for the I -Net and the fact that its maintenance costs are minimal,. Comcast now wants to charge for its use. For the use of the I -Net to transmit video programming,. Com ' cast proposes to charge subscribers another $645,000 over the 10 -year franchise by passing through $0.18 per month per subscriber. For the non -video uses, Comcast would charge $1,675.80 per month per location for network interconnectivity and $750 per month per rack/cabinet for collocation. For this charge, "...Comcast will agree to continue to provide institutional -network services comparable to that provided today," to recover what the company believes is the "fair -market value" of that portion of the I -Net. Based on the language in the proposal, it is frankly unclear whether Comcast is proposing to provide managed services for the I- et or whether the company is intending for the local governmental users and NSCC/NSAC to pay more while they continue to buy and maintain their own equipment as they do now. Comcast's proposal on the I- et does not meet the needs and interests identified in the Staff Report and RFRP. WIMUM =9.0 The current level of operational and capital funding for the community media facility operated by the North Suburban Access Corporation, dba CTV North Suburbs, in 2014 amounts to a little over $1.5 million. In addition, the NSCC receives a Scholarship Grant that provides educational scholarships to post -secondary students pursuing degrees in communications and paid internships at CTV North Suburbs. These student interns work with the cities, as well as with public and educational access producers and volunteers. In order to assess our future needs and interests, the NSCC commissioned The Buske Group to determine the future needs and interests. As summarized in the Staff Report 'and RFRP, the capital needs were approximately $14,000,000 over the ten-year proposed franchise term. Additionally, the NSCC proposed that Comcast essentially continue to voluntarily support the operational needs of the NSCC/NSAC. Incorrectly asserting that federal law prohibits the payment of operational funding, Comcast's formal proposal would provide only $0.44 per subscriber per month for PEG capital needs only. Depending on the number of subscribers, that would range from approximately $153,000 per year to approximately $158,000 per year, compared to the nearly $100.,000 in annual capital grants in years 1 through 15 of the current franchise. This proposed level of capital funding is drastically below the identified needs and interest from the Buske Report and should serve as a basis for a preliminary denial of the Comcast proposal. Comcast has provided limited explanation in its proposal as to how the dramatically reduced capital funding could meet the capital needs of the NSCC/NSAC over the next ten years. Although this is an increase in capital funding for CTV North Suburbs, Comcast has agreed historically that the NSCC/SAC could use the currently operational and capital funding at its own discretion and the proposed lack of voluntary operational funding threatens the organization's continued existence. In fact, failure to provide sufficient voluntary operational funding throughout the duration of the 10 -year franchise would likely mean that CTV North Suburbs would have to shut its doors unless funding is provided by the member cities whereby essentially all of the franchise fees are used for PEG operational funding. That would mean that Comcast essentially pays no rent to the member cities for using the public rights-of-way, which seems unfair at best. Not only would that affect public and community access video production and programming, both for individual producers as well as community organizations, but it would affect local government and educational access video production and programming services as well. Those include covering city parades and festivals; school sports, concerts and graduations; local election coverage; programs about city services and activities; and coverage of special events, such as multiple hearings over the years on the TCAAP property and a series of hearings held by the Mounds View School District to discuss school closings. Further, it is because of the program playback infrastructure available at CTV North Suburbs community media center that the organization can offer low cost channel programming and webstreaming services to the cities and schools. That is all at risk with Comcast's proposal and would suggest that the local community needs and interest will not be met. Comcast asserts in part that its refusal to continue voluntarily paying operational support, which the franchisee has been paying since 1991, is because the amount of the PEG fee collected in the NSCC cities makes it uncompetitive with other multi -channel video programming providers, such as DirecTV and Dish Network. However, the amount of the PEG fee has increased much more slowly than that of Comcast's own fees for its cable services. In addition, despite the company's claim that subscribers are unwilling to pay the PEG fee, no subscribers came forward at the April 17 public hearing on Comcast's formal proposal to complain about the PEG fee, nor has the NSCC received any written comments in conjunction with thepublic hearing complaining about the PEG fee or its amount. The bottom line is that the PEGgrants — capital, operational and scholarship — cost Comcast nothing. They are a pass- through on subscriber's bills, and since 1991 staff�has received no complaints about the PEG fee, nor did staff receive any comments in conjunction with the public hearing. Channel Capacity The member cities' current franchise agreements specify that 12 channels of 6 MHz each will be reserved for public, educational and government access use. Four of those channels were "loaned" back to the company, although without any expectation that they would be returned to community programming. Of the remaining eight channels, three are used for public/community; three are used for educational programming by the three public N school districts serving the member cities; one isused for government access, with each ofthe cities" programming distributed discretely within the their own municipal boundaries; and one isused for programming distributed b»NASA via satellite. Because anumber ofcable subscribers were interested inthe service, W North Suburbs agreed toput the NASA programming on one of the community channels when a previous franchisee no longer wanted tocarry it. Comcast's formal proposal would cut the number of Standard Definition (SD) channels from eight to three and add one High Definition channel, with the possibility of adding one additional SDchannel inthe future. (Comcast proposal p.74) The criteria for getting the HD channel is"not less than 5hours per day, 5days per week oflocally produced, non -character generated, (emphasis added), /I a3tBDdard that does not appear tOapply toany commercial ---channel onComoast'ssystem. |nfact, some cable programming services do not cab|ecastANY first -run programming. Further, Conncast'semphasis onfirst-run programming devalues the PEG channels role asavideo archive ofthe community. There isno requirement infederal law the puts a"first-run"restriction onPEG programming and would infringe onthe WSAC'sfreedom of speech protections. Whether itisalive broadcast, i.e,first- run,orareplay of aprevious broadcast does not increase ordecrease its value to the community. As such, the NSCC cannot recommend adoption of the Comcast proposal on either the number of SD and HD channels offered by Comcast nor the hurdles imposed in gaining new |naddition, failure totransition PEG programming toHDwill marginalize this programming and ensure that itwill NOT bewatched. The reality isthat cable subscribers with HD television sets tend to watch only HD channels/programming services, and the trend isthat most, ifnot all, programming services will beprovided inHDorits successor technology (likely 4K1. CTV North Suburbs has already invested inHDand HD -capable equipment, and substantial amount of the programming produced at CTV North Suburbs, as well as that turned in forcab|eoast, is already in the HD format. At some point in the future, it will difficult to purchase SDproduction equipment. But itisthe content mfthese channels and what they represent that ismost important. The community channels provide a variety of programming for local audiences that are not available elsewhere onthe cable system, and they give avoice topeople and groups who are often not heard or seen. |nZO13,community producers and volunteers contributed almost Z7,OOOhours toproduce 558programs for the PEG channels, and ClVstaff produced another 206 programs. These include city panade andfestiva|s,schoo\sportsandconcerts(bothfrorn K-12 and post -secondary schools); election coverage; high school robotics competitions; talk shows about community people, organizations and activities, such as "Tale of Ten Cities;" community band and orchestra concerts (The Shoreview Northern Lights Variety Band, the Roseville Community Band, the Roseville Strings); and aprogram byand about people with 0 disabilities, "Disability Viewpoints,"' that has been produced at CTV North Suburbs for 15 years. Losing five SD channels will severely impact how many of these locally produced programs will be cablecast in prime time. Difficult choices will have to be made as to whether, for example, "Disability Viewpoints// will be shown over the "Tale of Ten Cities." it will also impact the availability of discrete educational channels for the three school districts as they are forced to all share one channel. With all of the PEG channels being moved into a digitally compressed technology, there is no question that Comcast cannot claim bandwidth scarcity. Rather, it is the company's desire to reduce the availability of PEG programming in order to allow it to add more commercial programming services for which it can charge subscribers. 6ut community media and CTV North Suburbs is more than programming. The Youth Media Program at CTV North Suburbs had 161 participants in 2013. These high school students produced 64 programs and contributed 350 volunteer hours to cover the "Night to Light MN" at the Guidant John Rose Oval tree lighting ceremony in Roseville, the Mounds View Community Theatre production of "Les Miserables," the North Oaks Vintage Baseball Association baseball game, and the Roseville Area High School dance recital. The goal of the Youth Media Program is not to create professional videographers, although some may pursue that career, but to give them opportunities to use their academic studies in real life situations and to develop life skills such as team work. In a similar effort, two years ago CTV North Suburbs partnered with the Roseville Adult Learners Program at the Fairview Community Center to provide video production training for their students, all of whom are immigrants learning English as a second language. There were 12 students the first year, and this past year we had 34. As with the Youth Media Program, the goal is not to train professional videographers, but to support their English language training and to give them the tools to tell'their own stories. The Youth Media Program and the classes for the Roseville Adult Learners Program are also important for helping those who sometimes perceive themselves as outsiders, whether in the high school culture or in the American culture at large, to find a way to fit in and learn to express themselves. The Staff Report and RFRP laid out a well -reasoned needs assessment for the number and type of PEG channels. The only additional requirement in the RFRP regarding PEG was a move to simulcasting the current SD channels in HD. Considering digital compression technology, the NSCC believed that the Staff Report and RFRP would have essentially not required additional bandwidth but rather used less than the analog bandwidth used by the NSCC/NSAC a year or so ago. Comcast's proposal would use less than 6 MHz of capacity, far less than the 48 MHz of capacity in the current franchise agreement, according to CBG Communications, Inc. C Past Peformance - Customer Service Issues The performance review conducted by The Buske Group was done in the Fall of 2011. Had it been done in 2013, it would have told a very different story about Comcast's customer service. Historically, the NSCC office would receive two or three customer complaints per month, but in January 2013 the complaint calls spiked. The staff quickly discerned two primary causes. First, beginning with the January bills and with ineffective notice to subscribers, Comcast began charging $1.99 for the digital transport adaptors (DTA's) that the company had been providing at no charge since it began its transition to a digital cable system in 2010. Second, Comcast's Western Division had implemented a restructuring of its call centers, going from regional call centers that handled the full range of customer issues to call centers that specialized in specific issues, such as billing, installation,. retention, Internet service, etc., and the transition did not go well. The result was long wait times to talk to a customer representative, with many calls routed to off -shore contract call centers unprepared for the influx of customer referrals and many of whose staff did not have adequate English language skills. Although the call center transition should have been resolved by now, the NSCC office still hears from customers, in addition to their primary complaint, about long wait times and the English language skills of the customer service representatives. Generally, by the time customers call the NSCC office, they are extremely angry and frustrated with a customer service system that provides different information everytime they call, that seems more intent on blaming the problem on the customer than accepting responsibility and fixing it, and whose pricing is less than transparent, from DTA fees that include both equipment and "service" to annual service rates that seem to go in $3 to $5 increments. In contrast, the PEG fee about which Comcast complains has gone from $3.75 in the early 2000's to $4.15 in 2014, an increase of only $0.40. In determining the needs and interests outlined in the Staff Report and the RFRP, the NSCC strongly considered the lack of any subscriber complaints about the PEG fee and the constant rate increases for cable services to substantiate the inclusion of a request for Comcast to voluntarily continue operational support payments that would allow the NSCC to continue to meet the historical and future needs and interests of the communities. The NSCC cannot recommend the adoption of Comcast's proposal regarding its PEG commitments. NSCCINSAC Financial Operations Comcast consultant Andrew Elson of E -Consulting Group has questioned the allocation of the Executive Director's time as reported on the NSACs IRS Form 990 in 2011 and 2012. The report is prepared by the NSCC/NSAC contract accountants and auditors, Harrington Langer & Associates, and reviewed by staff, who simply missed this error. While an error, it has no place aspart ofthe formal renewal process. The financial statements sent tothe IRS reflecting the NSAC as a non-profit organization is not relevant to the financial qualifications of Comcast to hold a franchise in the member cities. Comcast's proposal also relies on an assertion by Mr. Elson on page 22 of his report that the NS[Cand NSACheld $2.1 million in cash and cash equivalents in reserves and demands that half ofthis "reservefund" bedistributed tothe member cities and counted toward the capital grants to the cities proposed by Comcast. Mr. Elson and Comcast apparently fail to recognize that the various NSCCand NS4C checking and money market accounts are not static. While there may have been $21million collectively at one point in time in these accounts, that isnot the case at this point in time. Two ofthe accounts, one for WSCCand one for NSAC,were checking accounts used for daily operations. They will ebb and flow asfunds goinand funds are expended. One ofthe money market accounts isa $250,000 letter of credit required by our lease because of the uncertainties of the franchise renewal process. Another account included inthe "reserve"isadeferred revenue account that holds the PEG funds tobeused inthe next calendar quarter. |naddition, Comcast and Mr. Elson fail toconsider the value ofhaving reserves available tocover large capital expenses that are not annual, such esthe over $ in capital improvements required when CTV North Suburbs had to move out of its former location and lease space in a new office building, or when it has to replace IO cameras in two mobile production trucks and five cameras in the studio, or purchase new servers for video and office storage. |nshort, having financial reserves tocover extraordinary orunexpected expenses is,.in fact, a good thing, and it is inappropriate for Comcast to suggest how much those reserves should beand how the funds should bedistributed. Those are NSCC and NSAC board decisions. The proposal isfor future cable related needs and interests. The use of the current PEG obligations isunder the current franchise agreement, and they are not required tobeused to offset any future cable related needs and interests. This isapractice that isentirely reasonable and under the control ofthe Board ofDirectors. Recommendation The WSCC/NSACrecommends that the NSCC Renewal Committee and the NSCC Board recommend to the Member Citiethat the Member Cities make apreliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be renewed based on this supplemental staff report including the additional consultant's reports, because the Comcast proposal does not meet the future cable -related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost ofmeeting such needs and interests. Further, staff isvery concerned that, b»adopting the Comcast Proposal,, the NSCC and the member cities will be under franchise terms that will unfairly benefit Comcast. Many ofthe Comcast proposed franchise terms will limit enforcement b«the NSCC and the member cities or will reduce the financial penalties for Comcast's failure to comply with the franchise agreements. It is clear to the staff that the proposed I -Net and PEG funding and channels will cause the current operations and the anticipated future cable related needs and interests to be severely hampered by the Comcast proposal. Furthermore, the NSCC currently has issued two Notices of Violation to Comcast on: 1) Rate Order Compliance and the 2) 6 MHz PEG channel capacity. The NSCC will potentially consider additional notices of violation regarding Comcast's compliance with the March 2012 Memorandum of Understanding with regards to the bundled package allocations and adherence to the current franchise provision regarding the cost basis for Comcast's late fees. These compliance issues also serve as a basis for a preliminary assessment that the Comcast Franchises should not be Cd O O O O O O O "ZI I lZ Cd OL4rl O cn O Cd 0 O cqj .".4 -tiV) 7:1 V 0 4 0 4-j r-4 cd cn 4-4 0 r 4-j Cd dN C) cd va S r-4 os r-4 Cd 4-4 v-4 cdcn +-5 ;-4 $:).4 cis En 0 Ed 0 ON uP -t cn 0 C> C) r r--4 ;-4 if -4 (1) C's r-4 C)U -4-j cn 0 4 Cld MEW 0 ;-4 cd , +j 0 sa� r--4 a polo •pwo *".4 \%ampol 4-4 0 +.A (1) >,b (:) W� Cd ;-4 4.04 4 c; C) 0 4L sa� d r-4 GPM* r -q > 03 0 (1) E (1) +j r-4 0 ;--4 cd US cn 0 r-4 0 0 � O O � bl) - cd D s:� b�A "b-4 cd /* 4 4r-4 "..4 -0 U) u +_) ;--4 N O �� C, P-4 Cd +.S . Ct cn P-4 Cd O O O O O O O "ZI I lZ Cd OL4rl O cn O Cd 0 O cqj .".4 4-4 O C$0 0 0 C*n -45) Cd V-0 4-4 cn C) bb 4-4 cs 42 Vi u d 0 pts ct Cl) 4--4 4-j C) 4-j 73 0 ct cn C4Z; 0 T-4 U 03 > Cd cn Cd r-.4 �0 ro 1c:i M 4-j u Cd m Cn cn m bJO - 0 cd C'n U ct cd w cn Cd Gd c) ®� Cd -cot cd U to 0 C) 0 -r-.q +-a Lr) 42� 0 a) • In cn • Ul UPI 0 Cid ct VI 0 OPM4 bD w bi) S 0 W\ Pm* a Poo 0 Poo 7.3 4-4 o -4-j U Ct3 PMO : a) -4-j 4-J PMA 4-j VJ cd 4--q 0 cot 4-1 0 0 Cd C'd � Cd cn O Cd -42a u O C4� N N O 4-j +J cd Cld +j Cd 071 00 I 0 ZH C) Cl E m 4-� CTS C:) ;-4 cd 4c-:4) U 0 P=4 Cid o M m 0 POO cn 4-4 cd (1) NI.J bD r -C! cn cd Q va cd 0 cn .v 0 os 4 V---4 0 pms( 4-4 C) 0 4-j Cd . °"..4 bJO 0 o rmj ct W AN U ® R ���� 2 C4� C) 4� ® •� Cd 4-4 ct l 0 ol-q r. -I 4-4 bO ;..4 o r-4 4--� 0 42 0 42' 40, 4-j 0 cd cd Unin U U) 00 I O cd cn t� ;-.4 0 5-4 t4l Cd 0 PM4 u cd 0 PMM4 cd cd W U 0 u � '� 0 U Cd Cd 0 bio 0 PMM4 -4-a 0 - I::I �--4 Cd ,--4 ® pmog a) 0 0 0 V-.4 +.l 0 42 4-4 imm) 0 -0 .,F-4 r..4P4 _lj bl) cd CI-i C4� 4-j 4 sa� cn +-, r -q ct C'n U) C44 Cd r4 Cd C cd ;3 ct V-4 -+-j CA u p 4� O rA n u O u u � � � '� -V � � � O Cld M bi) o o cn 10 Cd m ;-4 O VI Cd Cd cn ;-4 Cd and C�3 0 Cld CZJ 4-4 0 o Ul ;.14 Cd (1) 0 a PEA -4" o3 POO C) Cd U 4ct C) U cd Cd C) .J4 rA cd (D cd0 42 Cd ;-4 P- > C) 0 co P -0P-0 U (D M U +-) E V-4 r---4 Ull >-� C40 404 ;3 0 74 cd cd 00 cd N � Cd u 1-4 0 r--4 Cn r-4 +-a r..4 o 4-1 o C) , "-.4 C) P --q Q� Cd m a) Q Cid ;-4 P-1 tl- 00 I Ln (1) C) 0 Cd rg cd ;-4 Cd cd C) P-4 . V\ b-0 . Cd r-.4 `4 4-j (:d 0 C's b-0 cri + pmm( G PM14 o0 C) ;.-4 P-0 PMM4 4-4 Cd OPM4 00 0 cn ;-4 cd m 0 C) cd Cd cn cd 0 A-1 —4 0 4C -11a 7:1 cn ;:t Q cn ;-4 Lt vs C) �; r -I C) �; o �� 42� . Cld 7:1 cn- 0 t4 *,+V= 7E5 Cn ;-4 ;-.4 Cd 4 63 C,3 rz 0 4-4 cd M Ct * -4-j 0 cd bD 0 E� a) cn r -q . cd :UZI V) Cd 00 I Ln K4•11 a PMR4 -4--1 M Pon* Pm* r-4 � o Q Amd 4-4 • z 40' a W bl) 4WO Cld ct U (D Cd >1 Cid cd Cld• cn Cd cd ° ct o cld Cd bD t� 424 �' v U) a� C's cd ct cd cn C,3 cd cd �' p O7� 0 ;-4 or -4 � "-4 4 4cd cn Z cd 0 00 I Lr) 0 4m� 0 ®� • PM* cn C�3 0 0 ..4 + a M 0 . 0 0 U 0 pn (u m SN 4� +' ® (1) Cd Cd C,J bj) uo 0 bl) bD cd � C'� CC3 �H cd `� � '� ® � ct Q Q U O g4 v1 +3 cn Cld • cs U ;.4 4 - Cd ED u 4) Cd US Vl n E 0 cd 7:1V � O U � U � � -N ,� 00 I Lr) 9 I'll 00 I 0 E Cn C4n 0 +j cd • cd cd cn0 cn P-4 V) (% ci C) -� o 0 0 0 P= cd v v a v v 0 �� o� O p p o Ct cl +2 ul Cd C4� cd ct Cd U 420 cd Cd ;-4 .;wwql Cd 4:44 +-5 42�) czj r -I ;-4 P-4 C) Cd Cd CIS Ln r-4 n n 4--4 1Cd cn Cd Cd Cd 0 4 Cd •0 r-4 Cd ;-4 cn C41) 0 I'll 00 I 0 E Cn C4n a PM4 O 0 .O or. -I •O P-4 cn UO O U U U V 0 pml( • 71-:5 cd 0 cn 03 E cn o Or o +C� 0 ;-4 o cn 0 (1) 1 Cd 42) -CCJ ct (1) 4-j Ln Cld cn cd 5 ;-4 0 Ul cn 4.5 ren cn cn vs 4-4 bb 00 P-4 °� � 4� 4-j 7-i O• ® � O � U � C+ U N o � U 4J �, O 4-j Cid 9 0 PM4 -+Ma M W) UD Pro "Mo m cis t 03 Cld > V-4 cd cd C) c yy ® O U dCd cn a pmg( cis C-5 - ,!:� 6mmd C) C) cn C) cd C* �3 "-4 as $:i 0 +7:1 llc� �a �: cn FTI C� 0 0 cn C)II to ct +-j cn 9\ ;:3 0 ;-4 4-j 4 I� Ct I��4O� cn IIN cn IM cd cn P-4 71:5) . o cn En P-� V --j r-4. ;-4 fl� 0 0 pmm( by 0 cis -+—) 4-4 0 0 r-4 -r-4 • �y o ® Q O 4-4 4-o w ct O m u r-4 CCS ct Ct cd C-) u cn r-4 a r--4 Cld P-4 CrI c + cn Cd cd V) cn CC O r-4 r-4 Cld r--4 r-4 ;M-4 ON En Cd v -q cn °v I4-4 0 V%-4 CAu cn Ct 4J ;..4 cn r -I 4-4 9 0 0 0 r -q o C r-4 r..4 0 U U U � M u FEMO ® ®° bA M 0 FM4 PC$ cd .�' Cfd -c r�i� C3 Cd r-4 0 -0 Vl cn cd M :Z cn Cld m co cn Cld `fid E) I 1 +c A ;j 0 0 cd u m ;--4 cn -0 C) lu- C) u , , Cld Q C,3 >-I ;:3 0 U) —, Ct cn Cf) CC 424 Cd cd cd 0 r-14 v C) -zl r_i m bO tb Ed Cd 7:1 0 /�� ( ° ( 7� Cd bD cd 4--q bl) b -O m �4 =s:� 0 cd o .!� \,� . �t c bD cn bi) V--4 M m Cd 5-4 C C41) , c;s N 00 I M V1 V1 V 43 ( I O Lri 7� 0 PM4 4-J cd 0 con �l cd 4 U 4-J u 0 cn Cd • cnCd ;:1 -4---) jm� O c) V� "Cl � W Cis ''-' ® 0 U r-, O Cd cn un 0 Cd + Cd m M + cn cd 4-A 4-A C/) sa� ro C) V1 VJ cd M VJ U 00 I 9 O U U a POO 4-4 P6� *Poo POO O ct cn u ol cn C)-4 C) bQ ;3 ;5 V -M 0 4--1 0 c U 4-j C) v ® ° U ct cn y tll C/I > 0 ;.� cn Ln cn ;m4 cd cn ct ct bl) 4=4 Cd cn 4-4 C;d cd 4 00 o 4-j 14 44 W 424 bD 42 - C�3 0 "-( -4—) r-4 - v--4 P--4 O V • 4J -o r-4 O.V V-4 vi bl) N ;-4 ;-4 P-0 0Cd u 0 •v-4 ® • P-0 0 U C;d +-j I • r-4 P-4 v-4 cd 0 a) + C� ct U ;--4 0 -cl cd ;-4 Ct C-4 0 Cd r-4 r-4 a cd Cd �54 CIO V) 00 o 4-j 9 (1) 42, rl •4-j ;-4 r-4 r ;-4 Cd Cd ;-4 71 ct `� > 0 ;-q 4-4 0 cd 0 0 Cd cn 9 r-4 r-4 ;-4 Cd C'd ; VI -4 ® O O O � cn ( I ® C!] Cd Ln tn cn 0 . Ln 0 cd 42 z � � � o U o T�� Cd + Cd. p.a `m'0.+ a p.�j 14 ;--4 r-.4 Cd 0 ell >---b cd Cd Cd bD r-4 0 0 Cd 0 0 m -4-j cd bo s:-.4 r--4 uCA 0u � ncd 4 toO Ln Cd Ln ON 0 0 0 0 o CID 04 "Zt ct 0 0 0 U] cn 0 0 0 P z z ;-4 Q 42, O V1 cn � .Q o 5-4 * 0 bl) 0 U 7:1 U 0 7� 03 M cd cd cd I . cn 03 C -1z; ( `tV I • co Lr)v 1 v) Ln r-4 Cd (,o:) 4-j Cl) V1 Cld C) V1 U "Zt ct I 00 I Ln -4--j r -I U E� cn o Cld 0 0 0 . 0 r--4 cle) 0 r-.4 0 0 0 ® o ;--4 C).4 Uv v z 4-j 0 cd 44 r--4 cd cn M cn cn ;-4 cd Cld cn C'd r-4 m o r-.4 jo cn Ln cn 0 C4� cn 0i V) C8 cn cid cq V, C40) +5 r cd I&E-4 �D ul cd ;.4 . P-4 Cld al rz� CIS cn 03 cn cd4 -cn cn Cd cd /—\ C) u U� cd cd r..4 4 a,," cd U5 4-4 0 C4 CL , 0 C's +2 m o3 UD O J5 'D UD 00 I Ln -4--j r -I U E� cn o Cld 9 00 I 0 PEA 0 D ".4 U U U U � � cn Cld 0 Cld cd o 0 +5 cd vs cc3 bo M bj) • cn g.4 4-J -4-J CTS cn to 7:1 ci 4-j14� Cld os m • cd cn U, 0 c;s 0 Cd � � � � � � U U U �°O ct cd 4-j Ln 00 0 0 cn 75a Ct Cn Cd UD 00 I cq N O d� O � � U cd 71 Cd .Cd U U ct 03 cn os Cd M M U Mct O cn • o � O ® cn . O ® • � � N 63 � � 0 4 N 4J rri O O � � cn 4J � cd 4J CIL ocn Ucn .� U .cn O v� Cd O o � U O U ;� ;..4 c Icd M /may a ^� 00 r^ V1 a o O ® o O Cd ff rA 0 cn Cld C) C/) bdo Cis C) ct Cld +C� 40 0 rmq 0 ,,.1. cn Q CO 0 cn 00 0 0 PUN( z M v1 U 4J O Pro 42 C) C) Jo 0 0 C) C) 4-3 4-4 0 C U 0 424 4c) c� U `O cn � � � � r. -M U 4� 0 � b-0 cn En c•n O 0 rA 0 cn cs CH 7:1 cn Cld cd cn 4-j 0 ;--4 CIO (4-4 0 -4-j Cld Cld cn cn 00 06 06 14 co V) co cn V) f7s C/D 71 42� C� o ® -� cn cn Un • 0 "--I Cd 7� cd ct Cd 42 Cd :z sa�• (= CD mcd ;--4 cd cd cd O O cCi ul O O 0 P-4 O cd O U O O 73 VD CZ cd V) rz:$ V) V) D� cs Cld O 0 C) 42� mp ;--4 ;-4 cd tiA m� 7�cs 7:3 ® PMA M Cld cn cn 1 1 0 00 C) (=> C) 0Irl .1 C) 1-1 C) C) C> c::> (D U (D Lr) C/D � 609, -EPS � -cot O cn 0 Cd 4-4 cd 0 Z CIO 42) 79 sa, cqj P.-4 o cd 4-4 bD Cld m cd cd CCS 0 Cl o 0 4-4 t-- 0 0 +-j 'o 0 �q� ` bo ' ` Q I ( 1 O 5 CD C) 0 0 • Cd m C) C) �= sa� 0 cd U� Cd C41) '&S E/�� 'GPS '&S &S 6S a Cd 0 cd cd cn Cd Cd 0 � cd 0 rm-4 c n > o Cd 4-j U CIO Cd 0 r-( r--4 0 Cd 4 4C-11� ct cd -� ." bl) Cd 4� ' o � °.� 4-i � � v cn 00 z 00 06 0 0 C� 4--4 C) 4-j +j cd j � O � U � �; � 4J M Cd ct � � U � �' � 4� p 4-a • cd � cd bD • Cd 03 cn C4--4 7:1 . > cl ;-4 P.( cn cd U ® U; L7 C4::; I °'� cz ( ( ( cd cd 4-4 CA cd cn .;5 0 Cd Cd ;-4 Cid ff ,It 00 Cd C4:; r-4 Cd cd tj o�� cn O o .� �v� ��v En cn �o�0 pro lci Con 4-4 °v kn z cd o o o C) .� Cd cn ct cn 0 "..4 co bA Cld cd CO o:j 7� bD C+o rl �42' C)74 o Cd u Cld li + 0 >-, *,;= -+-a 0 u 71:5 0 cd U U r I 6\ cn I=$ ct 4--q cis Cd cn Cld ct IT] Q Iri ".4 C) -4 cd -C� - 0 0 ct 4-j 424 0 P.-.4 C) ;-4 cd 0 U 0 cd UO ,It 00 0 0 °® "--I . r-4 cn . •® •® 0 0 0 0 0 4:41 Cd 40 cd Cd 0 Cd 0 m cn +-) 0 +.j cd cd +..) 0 Cd 0 bi) r-.4 . Cd 0 ul m clu u Cd cn cn m 0 Wei Cd C;s m cd ra� Cd 00 LV cncn cd ,� co C) 4-j u o r� � � lT/�^) 1r T�� V1 Q cn V1 � � 0 V1 � ® V1 �I 4�t 4-0 ct 7:1 os Cd M 7s cn C) `Jct;cn c�d 0 7� + P.4 (� �� e r T cd ® t®, ° V-] bb lci Cd C's C+..q 4-j M • M 4-A Cd Cd I;. ci cn En 03 ..... +C8 cn ; P-4 a ccnl 9 00 I 03 4-4 4-a -cat ej 42 Cld 0 0 P-4 7:$11 0 ct p O cn Cd 0 CTS .p °U � °p � O 4) °O C,t cd cn 4L cn 0 PE4 03 Cd cn 7� ;-4 0 cd r +� r-4 V) Cld N '� U 0 ct 424 0 M cn 0 cn O 03 ct cd m • Ct v:O cd as 40O 0 Cd .0 0 4c� 0 Cd 0 C�s 4-4 63 r---4 * ct 1 M cd (1);> Q cn P-� Cd cd cs rt� CTS (D ."..q E / 4—a4 o3m -A 0 0 bD -t� 0 C) C) M U ps M * M -4-j C.) spm r-4 Cd cd 4-0-4 cd C/) Cd V O V) ro cri C, ;T 1T1 00 I 03 a 4=1 ct O CTS Qn cn Cd cn cn cn 0i bD H ;--4 cn ® ® � � M o ;-4 co 1% cn cn cn z 03 cn Vi 4-j opt C;s cn cn cn cd 4t 4-j p4 4-j r..4 cd 7 r..q o r 4 M ro Cd 4o -r-4 Cd 0 r-4 cd 0 cn r-4 0 -4-j 4-4 cle) 42 a C) bjQ aj C) ;z 42) ct 0 cd 0 1:14 0 0 V) (1) cd c cti bi) �--4 0 C), ell +J U M cn 0 bjD cd C) by ct Cd cd U bb P-4 cd En cd cs r-4 0 r-4 0 0 cd r-4 & r -n r-4 C) cn bb m _4 ct bf) cd +-a or -O m 4-j cn cn cn cn UO cd cd 0 Cts C.0 ;U2 m ct bl) U) 4cd r -I Cld 4-j M cd 0 M (1) a) bl) 4-P ct 00 cn -4 40 14 +-a q bl cd v) 0 -e Cld C) (1) CO 0 UO M (1) cd Cd 4-J clm:q sa� 4-j cd cd m cl MP -4 0 C�'d' Cd -c) iUD P.4 014 P-4 I ro r-4 UO 0 P-4 0 0 Cld m +3 0 0 CZ ct ;-4 0 :z ct C) P-4 cd 0 T --q 40 0 C4- 4� C) Cd -4-j cd m r -I 0 C) 0 z Cd 4 'n Cd Cd �3 cd C) ;-4 +; cn C4� C) t4Z4 cd cd 4c-diM bl) CO cn C) cd 4-) os ® C/1 P5 C) C?s C) M cj C) p 5 cd E (4� cn cd Cd 7s r...4 0 42j) 42� . r-4 0 $:� -t r-.4 U - cn Cd C) 'o 0P-1 -C� 0 (1) U -0 Cd 0 r-4 (D 42 C) .4 tO C) 7z:3 cd Cd cd ct r.4 ;.4 bb t42 5 Cd Vl Cld 03 Cld C3 0 CIS 0 °'-9 COO Cf) ;.4 r --o ;--4 -C:l "---q U� 4 Cd +� -� 0 o cd al r -L r .e -.q C) 7� 0 -.4 cn cdA lqc� C-4 7:1 cn---4 S ClCl0 "--.--q 4 cd P-4 Cd R C) a) 4 F- Ln (p +J M Cd Cld ® >, 4 V) V) 4 bi) cn o cn .,..4 42 V) &I O •o LJ CO Ct 4-J M Cd > m Cld -4--1 cd bD Cd bf) cn CtS '42) E Cd C6 + C'd C� C's cn V-4 Cd 4� O 0 i ^ � 5 0 Z4':! 44 m 4-j ci I V) Cid cn 4-j 40 0 Q ;--4 b.0 m -4-J C) CA m C4;3 U V1 U CCZ �H V1 U � Cld C/1 � 4,J U P�1 U U ° 4-4 ° �loi� • POO �•I �1 • o� W ql o O U v v cd CIO 0 Cd Al ct u ALJ V co Cd U cn C 1�M U 0 U4-j1 Cd • ^I • U Cd O O - C/) • 'o cd y_^ 2.j� V ® Z �1, U T9 (p�I/Cd�1 l/�;1/..4 tT(:d V`J • 1'� •lTP•'`J� • P� lTr'\Jd ® o ^ = V u u V u V u u o3 VL 0 0 t-0 Cd Z• $: r4 r Cd Cd cd ur-4 Cd > aj 0 r-4 ;--4 C'n• Cd u �� p 10 cd 4 cd +-) Cd Cd lc� lt� "Ib 9 +C� Cd 0 2, Z 0 0 Z Z Z Z 1-4 V1 V1 V1 St. P4iilOfflcg."15971�aceStteet,Sia .tlaul,.M.N55102 P/(651),340-5300 F/(651)340-5820 at e mnNrWxb-gcommunications.cqm 0 Executive Summary of CBG Communications, Inc.'s Report on the Technical Aspects of Comeast's Formal Renewal Proposal to the CBG Communications, Inc. Thomas Robinson, President Dick Nielsen, Senior Engineer May 7, 2014 CBG Communications, Inc. WTA I] 1,031"Al 9 - Communications,"), conducted a systemtechnical• • • engineering services project evaluating Comcast's residential network, the Institutional Network ("I -Net") and Public, • .,. and Governmental Access signal origination, transport and signal distribution over the cable system and dedicated transmission links serving Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View,Brighton,NorthOaks, Roseville, Saint Anthonyand Shoreview, MN ("Member Cities") comprising the North Suburban Communications • •' 's ("NSCU) service area. CBG's findings and recommendations are fully described in our Final Report, "Evaluation of Comcast's Subscriber System, Evaluation of the Existing Institutional Network, Evaluation of PEG Access Signal Transport and Distribution". ("Technical Report"), dated July, 2013. CBG • assisted Renewal involved specifications required to meet the needs enabled by the subscriber network, the I -Ne and PEG Access origination and transport network. This Report was prepared by CBG at the request of the NSCC. In preparing this Report, CBG has reviewed the technical aspects ofthe formal Cable Television Franchise Renewal Proposal ("Renewal Proposal") of Comcast of Minnesota ("Comcast") in response to the NSCC's RFRP dated July 29, 2013. Our focus was on Comcast's responses to the RFRP related to system functionality and capacity as it pertainsto CableTVservices(including the subscriber network, • , _ • Access transport), system maintenance and overall system performance and the potential need for system upgrades over the course of a 10 year franchise agreement. Our findings from our review and analysis of Comcast's Renewal Proposal are described detail in main body of this Report. Overall, CBG finds: Comcast's Renewal Proposal does not comply with a number of the system technical, PEG Access transport and I -Net provisions of the model franchise. In many cases, Comcast does not specifically respond to requirements of the RFR in its Proposal. Because the requirements of the RFRP were not addressed, no conclusion can be made regarding the adequacy of Comeast's proposal in these areas. Comcast did not respond to many of the recommendations made in CBG's Technical Report, and therefore did not sufficiently respond to the needs 0 CBG Communications., Inc. determined by the Commission as described in both the Staff Report and the Community Needs Assessment prepared by the Buske Group. Some of Comcast's responses echo a unilateral sentiment of t1we will decide 37 without proposing to the Commission what it specifically believes will meet the NSCC's needs. As such, Comcast's proposal is nonresponsive in these areas W M., In summary, Comcast's Renewal Proposal, in many respects, is not so much a proposal of what it will do from a technical perspective to meet the needs determined by the Commission, but rather a dictate of what it will not do. Further, where Comcast indicates it will meet some or a portion of the needs, it often will not describe how it proposes to do so. As such, Comcast's Renewal Proposal regarding many technical, I - Net and PEG Access signal transport matters is deficient -and not reasonable. Comcast has made it clear that it is not proposing to continue the existing fiber optic and HFC I -Net as built and maintained today. Comcast has proposed to continue the HFC, I - Net for PEG Access video origination purposes only. Comcast also proposes to keep the existing fiber optic I -Net in place for PEG Access video origination purposes. However, Comcast has proposed that any utilization of the I -Net, outside of video origination, can only occur as a managed service whereby Comcast would charge -a monthly recurring charge for use of the network and therefore Comcast would profit from non -video origination use of the I -Net. During the current franchise, Comcast has enabled the NSCC and the Member Cities t.j use the I -Net for data transportation, in addition to using the I -Net for PEG Access vid& origination. Indeed, Comcast has installed equipment owned by Member Cities on the I -Net in order for this data transportation to occur. This arrangement dates back to when cable modem technology was in its infancy in the late 1990s and early 2000s a has continued through the more recent installation of Ethernet based equipment on the fiber optic I -Net. CBG strongly believes that Comcast should continue to provide the I -Net for uses beyond PEG Access video origination, as well as for such video origination, as detaile in the Buske Report and in CBG's Technical Report. The I -Net has been in place for more than 14 years and has fulfilled data communication needs for the NSCC and its Member Cities for more than 14 years and needs to continue to do so. K CBG Communications, Inc. CBG's Technical Report clearly states the need for the functionality of the HFC I -Net to continue, and for the HFC I -Net to be able to provide HD PEG Access signal transportation. However, the Report goes on to say that "the current HFC I -Net was upgraded over 12 years ago. However, the amplifiers in use date back to the 1980's. Some of these have been in operation for nearly 30 years. Replacement components are no longer made and it is likely that used replacement parts are difficult - to obtain. Therefore, we recommend that if this HFC I -Net is to be utilized going forward, these amplifiers be replaced, rather than hoping that over the course of a renewed franchise term of .< they will continue to operate successfully and replacement parts will be available. CBG recommended that the current HFC I -Net be upgraded or that other forms of signal transportation, that would fulfill the need, be implemented. Comcast in its Proposal, however, merely states that: 'Comcast will provide transport of HD PEG programming over fiber where Comcast owned fiber facilities and capacity exist. Comcast will provide transpo Ill for SD PEG programming over any platform or facility of Comcast's choosing . I Comcast also indicates that it has no plans to upgrade either the fiber I -Net or the HFC I -Net. These statements then do not address the technical needs identified and should be seen as an insufficient response. Use of The Institutional Networks is Non -Commercial Comcast indicated in its Proposal that the I -Net is currently used for commercial purposes. Comcast asserts that the City of Roseville sells I -Net services to other entities in a commercial agreement with those entities. This is simply.not true. The City of Roseville works with other cities throughout the Twin Cities area in a cost sharing scenario. The agreement between these cities is for shared ' equipment and applications and does not includ e selling access to the I -Net or I -Net services. The Comcast I -Net is used at the discretion of each of the cities to interconnect the city with the shared applications provided by the Metro I -Net. This allows sharing of manpower, applications and equipment such as centralized servers. This also allows access to applications by larger cities at reduced costs and it allows for smaller cities to have access to applications that would not otherwise be cost effective for them. 1 Comcast Renewal Proposal, page 59 0 CBG Communications,, Inc. Another technology based need that is supported in the Buske Report and CBG's Technical Report is that of interconnection with entities outside of the NSCC service area. Such interconnectivity exists today via a network labeled as the PRISMA network This network provides interconnection of video services for entities outside of the NSCC servicearea to receive video programs from CTV and it allows CTV to use video from outside the NSCC service area. It also provides interconnection with other I -Nets for voice and data communications purposes and sharing between gov&nment and educational entities. Comcast, in its Proposal, has agreed with CBG that the current PRISMA Interconnect is in need of an upgrade. Comeast proposes to use its Converged Regional Area Network ("CRAN") to replace the PRISMA equipment. However, Comcast only says it will replace the existing equipment at its headend and hubs and does not specify that CTV, the NSCC or member Cities can use it at no cost for all purposes. The Proposal states that "But additional addldrop locations in the future will be billed (or credited) at $1, 675.801monthllocation,"2. There is no mention of an initial connection to the Interconnect and it is unclear as to whether the Interconnect can be used for data or only PEG Access video sharing with QSI Report - I -Net Valuatiol Comcast, in an effort to value the I -Net and to create a basis for charging the NSCC and its Member Cities for I -Net utilization, obtained a report from QSI Consulting, Inc. ("QSI") -that places a value on the I -Net a's it exists I'... The QSI Report makes several incorrect assumptions as its basis for valuing the I -Net. First, QSI's Report uses examples from the Twin Cities and other locations throughout the Country to compare this I -Net to other largely commercial networks. Comparisons to commercial networks are inapplicable to the NSCC I -Net. The use of the NSCC I -Net is noncommercial and was built and maintained as a public benefit. The second flaw in the QSI Report is that they include the cost to build other networks as a basis for what this network is worth. They assume that a monthly recurring cost to the users of the I -Net would need to include the recovery of construction costs. 2 Comcast Renewal Proposal, page 83 0 CBG Communications, Inc. Because the I -Net has been in place for at least 14 years and because Comcast and its predecessors recovered the cost to build the I -Net from its subscribers over the years, this cost should not be included in a costing model of the I -Net. Therefore, the only cost, if anything, to the NSCC And Member Cities for utilization of the I -Net should be the cost of maintaining the I -Net over and above costs that would be incurred by Comcast to maintain their subscriber system. System Inspection / Documentation and Repairs CBG's technical Report documented a number of issues of non-compliance with the National Electrical Code (NEC) and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) on Comcast's cable TV system up to and including on buildings and homes in the NSCC area. CBG then recommended that the NSCC require Comcast to regularly inspect and document issues found on its cable TV system. In addition, the Report recommended that requirements for such inspections and documentation be included in any renewed franchise. This was embodied in the Staff Report that Comcast '9provide a detailed inspection and repair plan that addresses these and all issues and code violations in the NSCC service area". Comcast provided a significant amount of discussion on its repair procedures in place today but it never specifically described an inspection and documentation plan. 1,11111 111111q:� In CBG's Technical Report stated that there may be a need to upgrade the system in the future to meet the cable related needs of the communities served by the NSCC. The report recommended that there be a mid-term review of the system in part to evaluate the ability of the system to meet the cable related needs of the community. In Comcast's Proposal, Comcast only states: "Comcast does not propose any rebuilds or upgrades to the current system at this time, and does not propose new upgrades to the current institutional network. 3" This makes it impossible to evaluate Comcast's system's ability to meet the needs of the community going into the future and the likelihood that Comcast will upgrade the system as needed. This becomes important as Comcast may continue to use more of its system's capacity for non -cable TV services diminishing the ability of the cable TV 3 Comcast Renewal Proposal, page 57 CBG Communications.. Inc. system from delivering the cable TV needs oft e subscribers including the PEG programming. REVIEW OF P K C,' EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENT ASPECTS OF FRANCHISE RENEWAL SUBMITTED COMCAST OF O. an=qv 'rom ML I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVIEW OF PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS ISPECTS OF FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY I NUN matt This section summarizes the degree to which Comcast has complied with the primary categories of PEG access requirements contained in the RFRP. Comcast has failed to comply with many of the PEG access and public service obligations contained in the RFRP. If implemented in accordance with Comcast's proposal, there will be a dramatic reduction of services and channels to the public, since many of the requirements, needs and interests identified in the Community Needs Ascertainment and RFRP are continuations of current funding and services being provided by Comcast, pursuant to the current franchise agreement and related settlements and other agreements with NSCC. Obviously, there are changes and upgrades identified in the RFRP requirements that would b I e logical, given the dramatic changes in technology and the public's use of video and media services since the current franchises were granted in 1999. The. Proposal submitted by Comcast is inadequate to meet the identified current and future community cable -related needs and iInterests of NSCC, its ten Member Cities, NSAC, the three publi I c school districts that serve the residents of the Member Cities, community groups and organizations that provide c6mmunity-related services, area businesses, and the residents of the Member Cities. The series of tables on the following pages of this Executive Summary list key RFRP requirements and the degree to which the proposal submitted by Comcast complies with those requirements. K 0 0 > o O �-- an a) � + 1 �M OQ. � O W 0 -,CUCL to .4.,.� > � (� W Q) • (�(1) U �C: V c U 0 O L 0 —a) a) co O c:0) E E to E 0 U to Co-�� -� �•� UM O O -O U � U U p E a)E U> •> a) ® •4) � S c � = Q. '0 U � o •E p co p QL U)= z'� O W p O cCf O a) V O. p cn O DL e> : '� U � •' O C: co CL � _ -a L a) C/) U .� N Q�jS cu• UQ V< c �^ C) � ® O d' �,._ O CJ U) cn c:> _ C:'u 0) 0) 4- co = 4) 0- U cn tV -a (D a) a) U L (� u) a) WUf O O O O O-+' O ce) 75 cu iCU ® N .� — c ,t 6 C U�x t/ Co a E E E a) E E O O C) O L- U0c C) > - 0 C: O c c C c: E 0 O p= CZE O n C O p �- Z U a) O z O z Od Z U Z� Z. Z w z 0 .{-a 17% .�i 4-a /� C: 0 W N U 0 E L a) a) -6-a >- W j M — a) �� Q _(LSA � T- o � 0_ a) OAC L .. � U�-- Q �N �M -p >C,r) Com. Ute` W O C L =3 M CL 0 U) � p cn �j a) O UI ® C: CO ca �• (CS ®� C: CO to O cn � � Q � ® ®, � � a) � ANor- W. � m co m L.J.. ui cn M U a) O U v 11:11 • L U o > >� E CU ® L .0 O U W �0" C: -0 U W CU cn® N U ® � L^ > ® cu y�y� L U ,� 0 cu a) c spa) 0) 0) CD �-+ .i..c V / p cu a) >1 V 'ice cn W.; M > O p -P -i cn c: E a) cz E -4— U, a) O tJ) to a) O a C: m Z E' ' �- ^ O ca O Q .O (n C O0 CO U 0 �� a) O O a) U U CO O Q - to -� 0)U O CL ® O �p 3: -p '� to cn L a)•Q. CNFE M M coWlt > cm U a:E cn coca U a) c, Q 0_(a< C1 a) ®� (D�a)UX W® O O Q •cn cn....�C-ao s�. U W O E An tm m C w BMW r a) 0 Ba 5O > 0 m Ll.! 0 R O _CU 0 0 Q)co p V O Q •� �• ^ 0� C cn to a) c E o a 0 ,,nnC: EL0 C: coCL a) :t,Q O - O 5) S coQ--- cu �, � m v� L m O a) C O � 0 0 0� ''"' � ,�; Q I � o �' a) Q Q -0 x �L- a)cm -F-+ a) f0U cy) 0 0 a) c)a) Lo O a) c� 7 - 0-U �Q �,'U^^� r-� S. -I V r 69 -CD a) E p O O O 01,0 O CD Q Q� pVc? ®m O E ® -e-4 � c ( Q�U a) WCtOmo,OZ Q CO to c.) E5) C) -U U • =b.r 1 ca 0U Z L ® cn -0 U O 's= W w� O Q U O a) .� O —^�-� Li ,52 cn �-O a) c� a) O��v�� � O .- O L oco ��0 .� 4) O �; >, p a) • E i ce.® O U.- � 2 cO O L � cj 00 U p O Ctg -� a) A a) O a) O- i�. O a) �~ Q Q LO to O D _ co L U cn a) - �- Q) � o ® +-a -� a) .,_, � M Q Cts m ;� Uj u O ct5 to .� � � v 0 O. a) °� .� cn Q Q O O 'a •� o '� cv O L .amu. :r- _ 0 . O cn CU cn 0) 0- O c) •Q) O � O .� 4) Q a) (C3 L L Z O O � -- - V O 10 C8 L 0 U o -F-+ cn W 0 w CU 0 U Q , C2, '6 Q a) Z O Q U V cn � O 4- 0) O 'fit u�yi .. U=® L ,� � _ C- O O RS (D O z U c0 -0 '0 W ® m U m r (� -F, (/� ([j a) L M O v O m C 0) 6� . - cp (if � 4- (n tts W> �, pmt,, Q ® U tea►, O °� V J zfz 0 ,�,® 0 (D Q) _ Otte ����� ,�,rQ��m,•��� o W LL. (� ® ° ,� O L c� c� .z3 L cn =- Z� V L. Q. • �"' (1� cr=co U O Q U `/ Q = O Z O O ® Z o U) (n O .- cn Z m m c (I) O cu 0 U Z Z 0— Z 0 a) O= 0 LJJ U 42 Q� 4o 16 -� �- O (� U Z- a) 0 0 0 > C3)M m O C/) Q) _0Z ^ M :�+ ® 0) cn E MCN > U U U (D4L-;�' 4-4 0c WL Z r- c a) C ®cl) U ], � ,� _ E O W �` L ° v .�. cn O °U ®ccs cn L: j O U m pU E E m . � — cn cE CU -U� ^a)U Lu,_ • O0. O — a) L NC:�Um a) z < Ecp)< �cD 4- O O ca -0-' L a) CO co O �_ U) ® C'7 O U = O U B 0 C:-�' '> � ?, C) � ... 1--' ®_ 0 (D to U .� Z a) (� -� a) ^ 0 04-A 4-1 0 O m w- =I- 0 0 4-1 L U U �- � ,�., •- 0 CD (D Q) U 0 U -- O 0 O V' ® co ® =^ ® a) t6 0 cD E O (D E L- N a) >' N "� 0 U a) E L— N j 0 a) 0 O L- U Q _ tm 0 OM cOi) > O � O mM cn .0 - ca W WM Q (� O U ® m Oc) 0 LL CL Z �` cr•m CL a) > �. 00 a) +; O .. O N O W V ta O E E w tm Ui'O O mm M s. 0 O mO 0.0 Ch 0 O R m Q) C.) a) � c -4-a1 (tf O c� �4 ��� a) U ® E 4 - >, a) � O CO-+-' O 0 cnv v Ccn coU� 0-z�O O m ONU O 4-8 OC .� U L.. U U i> t6 Z -� CZ O • E O C U CO C/) '� Q- Q.0 O� (Z M O �•_ �oEo� W �- �� a -O cO •V e) O� ® U (a) 0) O U cu 0 E® C:cn o Z� U��,t-O O - E (6 O Oa) L_ 0O O LO �, Ja) (5 ® 0 4- cn Imo• cn a) 0- S U ''� Uj °� (i) ca c� .�..� Q CL °O 0 1 L -C O CU �(U to Q ,�, O '� ' j c 10 ® O® Q. U � -'-' C) 0. u O �a- a) Vj O O O co = V '�' , s �' (� O tt3 O p U Z ® ® U c� M O O 4-0 O �LCR V _ _ 4-1 U) E a) -a 'a Z Q) D. 0 O O i U ° � U U W U 0O (D 0 • C) ,U °._ � � � U U ® V a) O O UE O �.. O (Ci � -� O O Za-U a)a) Z (tf Z� UU O O•� O � (n Zcn�c>>•�C.).—� �O to � O +_ "� O a) to U) -I.- CO "� � a) _ ��Q��-. M � ''= O p�- ^ a) ��`�' =- O Q m O L U co O O -0 M c a) CU> U >' CUE cm 0 C:a) •� E_� U'+- O a) ��= 0- C O,U(n a Oce V •� I� LU CU U- U L• 'O > tt5 cu 0 c U N Z p O U -p 0S 0 O .� Z (j U M-6 a) E �� `2C: (1) (1) a) Z LO ��L'i(Do" cu Z (�0®���Oa� (� �°� O U O L "O " C: 4- a) �� L- O to . p CD cO cnV� ��� C U 69- cn O U a) 4- U c6 -� a) (� a) � O v° s2, s- Llv • v -FU C) (a (n4 �� 0 a) Q� U �p Q — ' 4-• p , . , U � � tq � Q sig E .+� Q a) �� �E W 0-�a) E 0 CL U a) p CU (U cn U i— �Ta) LO -� m (6 Z o� �> W (D � I- (� O Q CL Z a) E U < 0 U (� M a) 4- gym/ 5 5 p U- -�+ cn O l.l..° -0 Q. U (� ■® � L Uj ■® W G1 td — O L Q)ME ■' .13 IMMMMM cn!� ■� tait Ea a .� ' .� 0 0 v W L ♦o (u l!a) U U �♦ m Talmey Drake claims that the Group W survey is "fatally flawed' because it the sample did not include cell -phone -only respondenff'. Group W complied with the 'federal law that prohibits use of automatic dialing systems to contact a cell phone number without prior consent. Survey research professionals have als,# raised many other concerns about the use of cell numbers in their work. Given N budget, legal and other real world considerations, it was appropriate for Group W to conduct the survey as it did. 2. Talmey-Drake implies that the Group W survey report did not include what it believes is sufficient methodological detail, and states that this negates "the trustworthiness of the survey and the professionalism of the expert who is presenting the results of the survey." This criticism is not supported by standard industry practice. 3. Talmey-Drake added in respondents who were not asked a particular question to minimize survey results that show support for community access services and programming. It is inappropriate and misleading to calculate a result that includes people who were not asked a question and call it the "total sample response." One example of the double standards employed by Talmey-Drake: A Group W survey finding that 72.5% of respondents said it was "Very Important" or "Important" tohave local cable programming is belittled by Talmey-Drake as "not particularly high." But it states that its survey finding that 69% of customers say they are very or somewhat satisfied with cable service shows that customer satisfaction is It solid. )) 5. Talmey-Drake's critique contains several statements that involve unfounded assumptions, including: a. Talmey-Drake states that if CTV programs were rated using the samE methods as commercial channels, "their ratings would barely bc infinitesimal." It is impossible to know what the ratings of the CTV programc would be under that scenario, since national ratings firms like The Nielser Company have never included community access channels in their ratings. b.Talmey-Drake states that if a respondent says he is very interested ir watching local sports, "he may well be imagining a production level on pa, but when he actually sees a televised local ame with NFL games, 9 %. anything but NFL quality play or production and he loses interest. " Talmey. Drake simply assumes that CTV's award-winning local sports productionc are poorly produced, an inappropriate assumption that is easily refuted. 6. Talmey-Drake says the Group W survey is "flawed" because, unlike Talmey- Drake's survey, quotas were not enforced to select respondents based upon their gender, level of cable service, and geographic location. One could ask, why not also enforce requirements for age, income and ethnic distribution? At what point of "enforcing )) requirements does a random sample cease to be random? 7. Rather than asking about the importance of the CTV channelsdirectly (as the Group W survey did), Talmey-Drake simply assumes that weekly viewing amounts are a valid "indication of the importance of community access channels." Weekly viewing amounts have no substantiated relationship to the perceived "importance" of community access channels. These reported weekly viewing amounts could be related (for example) to the fact that unlike the other M channels no information about upcoming programs on the CTV channels. 8. Drawing upon Talmey-Drake's misleading interpretation of its survey results, Comcast proposes tosignificantlyreduce thenumber of access in the NSCC franchise area (saying that this "strengthens" them). Actually, a ,/_fir•• pluralityof - -surveyrespondents•:thatComcast should -the current numberofcommunity more) -- as • compared •• • • • who • to back • of the r - -surveyrespondentssupporteda reduction• community access channels as proposed by Comcast.1 9. Talmey-Drake repeatedly asserts r! responses • • its survey questions show that cable subscribers are not inclined to support local programming financially. However, Talmey-Drake's questions imply (or state outright) that customers must pay all of Comcast's PEG access -related costs, since that is allowed by federal law. It should be •ted that just because the federal allows to • • something, this does not mean that it must be done. 10. I m - - carefully words description of various• of programming attemptsservices, as it to i(measure" the importance of receiving these services in high-definition (HD). A purposely -vague and boring definition of community access programming •r•, included, • r i only one example: . , e _ 1 responses lead Talmey-Drake to conclude that having the community access L nnels offered in HD is the "least important." A follow-up question regardingthe acceptable amount to pay for these channels in HD is also very misleading, since it implies r t HD channels are purchased on a per -channel basis. 1. Finally, community- programming n statementoption with this loaded wording: your local government require the cable company to set aside additional capacity so that you can also watch past meetings of your local city govemment ... " The bias is compounded with a mean fewer channels will be available for watching other types of regular, non - access cable programming or movies On Demand...." This is simply not true. The Talmey-Drake critique also dismisses the legitimacy of the contributions from those who participated in the other community needs ascertainment activities that TBG conducted (five focus groups, an on-line survey of area residents, and small group interviews with PEG access and I -Net stakeholders). A variety of methods were used to invite the public to participate in these activities, residents and stakeholders, press releases to area media outlets, flyers posted at locations throughout the franchise area, and newspaper advertisements. 1 Talmey-Drake only asked a question about the desired number of community access channels, willfully deciding not to ask a question about the desired number of channels dedicated to any other type of programming (e.g., sports programming, which currently occupies 44 channels on Comcast's line-up). y x ront Range Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal- Proposal Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC' -)was retained by Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC (11B&G")1 to review the Comcast ofMinnesota, |nc's("Cornoast")response tothe Request for Renewal Proposal (""RFRP") issued by the North Suburban Communications Commission and for FRC to identify any issues and concerns it has with the Comcast proposal. The North Suburban Communications Commission (the ""NSCC"' or the "Commission") is a municipal joint powers consortium organized by Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota (individually, a "Mernber City" and, collectively, the ""Member Cities") pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59,, as amended, to administer and enforce cable franchises awarded by the Member Cities. Comcast responded to the RFRP on December 20^ 20I3 ("'Proposal,") with a lengthy submission and numerous exhibits. Review Methodology FRC has reviewed the Proposal bydetermining the extent towhich Comcast asmet the needs and interests contained in the RPRF and associated exhibits primarily from a financial viewpoint. The relevant provisions of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 546) states: (c)(1) Upon submittal by a cable operator ofaproposal tothe f ranchising authority for the renewal ofefranchise pursuant tosubsection (b), the franchisingauthority shall provide prompt public notice of such proposal and, during the 4 - month period which begins onthe date ofthe submission ofthe cable operator's proposal pursuant tosubsection (b), renew the franchise or, issue aprelim inaryassessrnentthat the franchise should not berenewed and, atthe request oftheoperatororonits own initiative, commence an administrative pnoceedin@� afterprovidingprornpt public notice ofsuch proceeding, inaccordance with paragnaph(2)to consider vvhether— (A)the cable operator has substantially complied with the rnateria|tennsofthe existing franchise and with applicable law; (13) the quality of the operator's service, including signal qua|ity, response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard10the mix orquality ofcable services orother services provided over thesystern,has been reasonable inlight of community needs; (C) the operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability �Brad|ey & Guzzetta, LLC has recently changed its name to Bradley Hagen & Gullikson, LLC Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal --Proposal toprovide the services, facilities, and equipment as set forth in the operator's proposal; and (®) the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable -related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests. FRC primarily focused on subsection (®) above where the proposal needs to be evaluated "taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests." The legislative history provides further insights to this "cost" standard where it states "'[i]n assessing the costs, the cable operator's ability.to earn a fair rate of return on its investment and the impact of such costs on subscriber rates are important consideration s.i2The RFRP contained numerous requirements to address the costs of the identified needs and interest with respect to the financial impact on Comcast and the impact on subscriber rates.3 Issues Identification FRC has identified five issues with the Proposal. Those issues are: Complete lack of any financial projections to compare the RFRP requirements to the potential earnings by Comcast and the impact on subscriber rates in the NSCC franchise area. Lack of any recognition and financial credit that the current I -Net construction costs have been fully and completely paid for by NSCC subscribers. Lack of any recognition that Comcast has improperly recaptured valuable analog spectrum from the NSCC and will be able to use that recaptured spectrum for its own money -making purposes without compensation to the NSCC and the subscribers. Comcast has proposed that the NSAC be required to use its reasonable reserves accumulated by the NSAC to cover future NSAC operating and capital requirements that will place the NSAC in an exposed financial position which could potentially lead to a financial collapse of the NSAC. Comcast repeatedly complains that operating support cannot be required by the NSCC/NSAC but fails to acknowledge that the Cable Act allows the cable operator to voluntarily offer operating support. Given the public support for the NSAC's programming, Comcast should have volunteered to pay operating support to the NSAC as part of its proposal. In a recent development, Comcast has agreed to extend a 2 See H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 74 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4656. 3 See e.g., RFRP Form III.F. © Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 2 Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal current franchise agreement for aminimum oftwo years while informal negotiations are taking place. The extension continues acapital and operating support PEG commitment that is greater than the current NSCC PEG agreement and drastically larger than Conncast'sproposal. FRC will summarize each of these five issues below. Financial Projections Form III attached to the RFRP contained a listing of the financial information and projections that were required as part of Comcast"s Proposal. Form III.F contained requirements for pro forma financial projections by Comcast. The specific requirementS4 a re: The Applicant shall furnish tables following the format below and provide the requested pro forma projections for the Applicant's operations in the Member Cities for the proposed franchise term (see Form XI), assuming a franchise for the City is awarded on January 2, 2O14.= If the system's assumed revenues or expenses will refect an allocation of assumed expenses or revenues for some other entity (including, but not limited to, overhead allocations and management fees), pro forma projections for such other entity should be provided as vve||. The pro forma projections should include approximately the same line -item level of detail indicated on the attached forms, but particular details of presentation may differ if the Applicant believes that alternatives are more appropriate given its internal accounting practices. Key assumptions supporting the projections should be documented and submitted as notes to the pro formas. In particular, assumptions regarding system modifications, PEG and institutional network requirements, franchise fee expenses, and any other franchise requirements should beclearly identified and treatment of associated costs or revenues in the financial projections should be highlighted or explained. Financial pro formas must be based upon RFRP requirements. If the application deviates from those requirements, submit separate and additional pro formas showing the financial impact of each difference. Comcast response As shown by the N8CC staffs own report and the public filings of Cornoast's corporate parent, [onmcast'sUnancial capability to perform is not in question. Comcast objects to the demands in this section for that reason, and also because the questions below are ^RFRPForm U1,page 1O1 5 The NSCC recognizes that all franchises for the Member Cities will not be awarded on January 1, 2014 This date, has been selected for purposes ofconvenient analysis. @ Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 3 Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal burdensome, and unnecessary to evaluate Comcast's overall financial capabilities. Moreover, due to rapid and ongoing changes in technology and the cable industry, Comcast would be otherwise unable to make reliable pro forma financial projections for the life of a 10 -year franchise. Nevertheless, to try to accommodate this request, Comcast has supplied a 3—year history as Exhibit 13 and subscriber information as Exhibit 16. Further, with regards to the financial projections of each year of the proposed term of the franchise, they simply referred to this response above. As such there is no data provided by Comcast that will allow any measurement of impact of meeting the future cable related needs and interests. Also Form IIID asked Comcast for information about its financial goals including historical rate of return on investment. Comcast's response? was® Overall financial goals for the member cities' systems are to provide a reasonable return on existing and newly invested capital, commensurate with the anticipated risks of the business and the required returns of the capital markets. Since business and market risks change over time with the economy and as competition and technology rapidly increase, Comcast has not established a stated rate of return for the system. Actual financial returns will always be dependent upon satisfying customers with an array of service offerings delivered in an economically efficient manner. Financial returns do and will vary across cable systems as a result of competition, market characteristics, regulation, and system efficiencies. Without the required historical and proforma financial data include data on subscriber rates and Comcast's financial goals like return on investment, Comcast has not presented any evidence that would suggest that the RFRP requirement would be overly burdensome on subscribers and would not meet Comcast's financial goals. Quite to contrary, Comcast avoids addressing the fact that PEG obligations are subscriber pass-throughs and will have no impact on the financial results of Comcast. Based on FRC's analysis of subscriber rates in the NSCC franchise areas, PEG fees historically assessed to subscribers have risen at a much smaller rate of increase than has the cable rates under Comcast's control. FRC has noted that the Proposal has improperly attempted to use the FRC Financial Analysis of Comcast Corporation 8 as some sort of endorsement of Comcast financial capability to operate the cable system. The financial report was not meant to assess the financial capability of Comcast but was, as shown in the report, an attempt to ascertain the level of profitability that Comcast generates in the franchise area. With the level of profitability estimated, Comcast 7 Proposal at 45. See Attachment D to the RFRP. Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 4 Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal could easily invest these profits in the NSCC franchise area by providing the level of capital and operating support contained in the RFRP and/or reducing the pass-through burden on the subscribers and still return significant profits to the corporation. I -Net Facilities Comcast has rejected the RFRP requirement to basically maintain the current HFC and fiber I - Net and has instead suggested that the I -Net would only be maintained for only PEG transport and that the balance of the use of the I -Net will be based on "fair -market value."9 As an initial matter,, Comcast is incorrect that the Cable Act limits the use of an I -Net to only PEG transport. Again referring to the legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act, it is clear the Congress intended PEG requirements to be separate and distinct from I -Net requirements. s. The legislative history concludes: A franchising authority, under 611(b), may require as part of its request for proposals the number of channels that an operator must set aside for public, education or governmental use. Subsection 611(b) also permits franchising authorities to require that channel capacity on institutional networks be designated for educational or governmental use. The term "institutional network" means a communication network which is constructed or operated by the cable operator and which is generally available only to non-residential subscribers.10 FRC believes it is clear that PEG needs are separate from I -Net needs based on this legislative history and therefore should reject Comcast unsupported position. Comcast I- et proposal unfairly restricts the needs of the franchising authority. Comcast also fails to consider that the full construction costs (as determined by the cable operator) of these I -Net facilities have been fully recovered from subscribers as part of the PEG fee included in Comcast's regulated service rate. For Comcast to now re -take these paid for I -Net facilities and subsequently charge the NSCC/NSAC for these services at market based rates will allow C ' omcast to earn a profit on these fully paid for I -Net facilities. Such a self-serving proposal does not meet the needs and interests of the subscribers in the NSCC franchise area. 9 Proposal at 10. 10 See H.R. REP. No. 98-934, at 46 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4656. Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 5 Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal Analog Spectrum The current franchise agreement with Comcast allows the NSCC to use/program eight (8) analog channels on the basic tier. 11 When Comcast converted all of the analog channels to a digital format last year, Comcast was able to re -capture a significant amount of bandwidth on the system. According to the 2014 FCC Form 1240 filed with the NSCC, the Basic service tier contains thirty-two (32) channels. If you assume conservatively that six (6) digital channels can be place in the space of one analog channel, Comcast was able to recapture approximately twenty-six (26) analog channels with this digital conversion. This allows Comcast to reprogram these re -captured twenty-six channels and with an assumed six digital channels for each analog channel re -captured, Comcast would be able to add one hundred and fifty-six (156) new digital services. The programming value of those new channels is quite significant. Additionally, Comcast might be able to use this re -captured analog spectrum to provide faster Internet speeds by bonding channels together and/or offer new services like home security services. Additionally and more importantly, the re -captured analog spectrum assigned to the eight (8) PEG channels has potentially violated the current franchise agreements in the franchise area. Assuming a reasonable valuation technique, FRC has estimated that the value of these lost analog PEG channels has a value to Comcast of approximately $1,250,000 annually. Comcast in its proposal has not considered the lost value of these re -captured analog PEG channels. Without this consideration,. Comcast will be unfairly able to enrich its profits from the current system by not compensating the NSCC for this franchise violation. Operatlncg, Deserves Comcast hasro osed that the NSCC/NSAC use some of its current reserves to offset capital p p and operating eratin costs on a going forward basis. The E -Consulting Group Report (ECG 12- completely mischaracterizes the reserves held by the NSCC and NSAC. ECG improperly lumps p y the NSCC and NSAC's reserves together. The NSCC's reserves are generated solely by operating reserves funded by the franchise fees provided by the member cities, not any reserves generated from PEG funding and therefore should not be used to fund NSAC needs. From the $2.1 million discussed in the ECG Report, over $400,000 pertains to the NSCC, leaving a balance of over $1.7 million for the NSAC.13 Again improperly suggesting, ECG would have -the NSAC use these reserves to fund future capital purchases without recognizing that approximately $100,000 of that so called NSAC reserve in the NSAC's checking account used to pay it monthly bills which should not be depleted under any reasonable theory. Also included in the so called reserves is a required deposit that the NSAC must maintain in the bank as part of its lease letter c Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page O g Executive Summary FRC's Review of Comcast's Formal Renewal Proposal of credit requirement. Finally, it would be financially imprudent for the NSAC to not maintain approximately a six month reserve of it annual budget as set forth in non-profit guidelines. The ECG "recommendation" completely misunderstands the financial reserves that the NSAC has prudently incurred during this franchise term and using any of these funds would be detrimental to the NSAC on a going forward basis to purchase future expenditures. The result of this ill-advised recommendation by ECG to use these reserves for future expenditures would place the NSAC in an exposed financial position that could lead to the collapse if the NSAC unless that is the end result the Proposal is attempting to suggest. These reserves have been prudently incurred under the expiring franchise and memoranda of understanding and should not be used to offset future capital and operating support obligation. Most importantly, these funds are not Comcast funds but rather funds provided by subscribers and to be prudently used by the NSAC. Operating Support Payments From the very onset of the Proposal, it suggests that operational support contributions are unlawfu 1.14 The FCC has made it very clear in 1999 that a cable operator is free to make voluntary operating payments as part of a franchise agreement. In the letter ruling issued on June 25, 1999, the FCC added the following modification and clarification: The legislative history explains that "Subsection 622(g)(2)(C) establishes a specific provision for PEG access in new franchises. In general, this section defines as a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and does not include as a "fee" any franchise requirements for the provision of services, facilities or equipment. As regards PEG access in new franchises, payment for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under the provision. These requirements may be established by the franchising authority under Section 611(b) or Section 624(b)(1). In addition, any payments which a cable operator makes voluntarily relating to support of public, educational and governmental access and which are not *required by the franchise would not be subject to the 5 percent franchise fee cap." See H.R. Rep. No. 98-934 at 65 (1984) reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4702; see also 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4753 (Colloquy between Rep. Wirth and Rep. Bliley). (Emphasis added). Based on the well documented needs and interests in the franchise area, the Proposal should have agreed to provide, at a minimum a voluntary payment, for the operational needs and interests identified in order to allow the NSCC to continue to provide the services that were confirmed by the Ascertainment Report. 14 See e.g., Proposal at 1. mom © Front Range Consulting, Inc. Page 7 Executive Summary FRC's Review of Com-c-ast's Form -al- Renewal Proposal Recently Comcast has agreed to resolve the same 6 MHz issue discussed above with the Ramsey Washington cable commission by agreeing to provide an HD PEG channel now and has agreed to continue the same capital and operating support payments for approximately two years while the commission negotiates an informal renewal with Comcast and potentially longer as negotiations continue. The current PEG capital and operating support payments in the Ramsey Washington area are similar if not greater than the current NSCC capital and operating support payments. it would seem logical that the suggestion that the current PEG capital and operating support payments are impacting subscriber retention and acquisition has been dismissed by Comcast as part of that settlement agreement with the Ramsey Washington cable commission. FRC has concluded that the Proposal falls woefully short on the required financial information contained in the RFRP that is necessary to assess the impact on Comcast earned rate of return and any impact on subscriber rates-. FRC believes that many of the modifications contained in the Proposal from the RFRP would likely allow Comcast to increase its profitability in the franchise area and the reduction of services provided by the NSCC/NSAC. The Proposal has not considered the already paid for I -Net and the impact of the recapture of analog PEG spectrum which will both allow Comcast to earn additional profits. The Proposal has suggested a use of the reserves that will place the NSAC in a venerable financial position and should have considered the operating payments to be, ata minimum, a voluntary payment. Page 8 Front Range Consulting, Inc. RULES FOR CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FO COMCAST OF MINNESOTA, INC, FRANCHISE RENEWAL I Section 1. The Commission hereby establishes procedural guidelines for purpose of the administrative hearing under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as follows: A. The Commission shall appoint an administrative law judge ("hearing officer") to conduct the administrative hearing and issue recommended findings of fact for consideration by the Commission. Comcast and the Commission will jointly determine the process for selecting an administrative law judge, if necessary. The administrative hearing will be conducted, to the extent practicable and consistent with the requirements of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, pursuant to the provisions for administrative hearings in the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. The specific requirements for the administrative hearing shall be as follows: B. Pre -hearing Discovery: (1) Each side is permitted limited requests for production of documents and twenty (20) interrogatories. With respect to interrogatories, the following rules apply: (a) Interrogatories are to be answered by any officer or agent of either party, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party; and (b) Each interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for the objection and answer to the extent that the interrogatory is not objectionable. All objections shall be stated with specificity and any ground for objection which is not stated in a timely manner is waived unless the party's failure is excused by the Commission for good cause shown; and (c) Interrogatories will be answered within the timeframe established by the hearing officer; (2) No depositions shall be permitted. (3) The hearingofficer will rule on all discovery disputes which may p arise. (4) Discovery shall close fifteen (15) days before the administrative hearing. C. Pre -hearing Disclosures: (1) Each side shall disclose to the other the identity of any person who may be used at the hearing to present expert testimony prior to the hearing date. The disclosure must be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert which shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the expert informing his or her opinions; and any exhibits to be used as a summary or in support of the opinions so rendered; the qualifications of the witness; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony of the expert; and a listing of other cases in which the expert has testified at trial within the preceding four (4) years. (2) Exhibits and witness lists will be mutually exchanged one (1) week prior to hearing date. Witness lists will briefly state the subject of the expected testimony of each witness. D. Administrative Hearing: (1) The hearing will be conducted on a date established by the hearing officer; - (2) Each side may be represented by an attorney and shall be afforded the opportunity to present relevant evidence and to call and examine witnesses and cross-examine witnesses of the other party; (3) Commission members may not be called as witnesses nor may the Commission's or Comcast's legal counsel be called as witnesses. (4) Witnesses will be sworn; (5) The hearing shall be transcribed by a court reporter; (6) The hearing officer will determine evidentiary objections. Strict compliance with the federal rules of evidence will not be necessary. (7) Post -hearing briefs will be permitted in lieu of closing argument. Briefs will be mutually exchanged at a date established by the hearing officer; (8) The hearing officer will issue recommended findings of fact based upon the record of the proceeding and stating the reasons therefore, pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. E. The Commission will review the recommended findings of fact from the hearing officer and will, upon request of the parties, permit oral argument before the Commission not to exceed thirty (30) minutes per party. Thereafter the Commission will issue a written decision recommending to the Member Cities to grant or deny the proposal for renewal pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. Section 2. Neither the Commission's July 29, 2013, Staff Report and RFRP or Comcast's December 20, 2013, Proposal have been amended nor modified in any way since the dates submitted. Section 3. The Commission finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the mandates contained in federal law including 47 U.S.C. § 546. LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion x Action x Resolution Work Session Meeting Date May 27, 2014 STAFF INITIAL --tv—P In preparation for the Farmers Market, staff prepared guidelines and an application for vendors. A copy is attached and was reviewed by a League attorney. One of the ever pre- sent issues is whether to require folks using City property to carry insurance. The League attorney left this to the discretion of the Council. He wrote: "Insurance requirements for farmers markets often cause a problem as many small vendors just don't carry insurance. While requiring insurance definitely helps to protect the city, I would guess that the majority of cities do not require farmers mar- ket vendors to have insurance as it eliminates many potential vendors. Based on my experience and the lack of claims, I do think it would be reasonable for the city to waive the insurance requirements. That decision, however, is up to the city. You might want to check with some potential vendors and get their reaction to the insur- ance requirement. If the city chooses not to require insurance, the city (but not the vendor) would still be covered by its LMCIT coverage for any claims. Generally speaking, the risk of liability to the city for this type of event is low. An injured person would have to show the city was negligent. Of course, the city can always get sued m4ardless of whether it has done anything wrong." The PCIC volunteer coordinating the event said the small-scale vendors she has been in contact with generally don't carry insurance and requiring insurance would hinder the a ity to get vendors to the event. As drafted, the agreement requires vendors to defend and indemnify the City and encourages (but does not require) insurance. The Council may adopt the guidelines as is or amend them prior to adoption. 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONO Motion to approve the Market Information and Guidelines/Policies for the 2014 Lauderdale Farmers Market. „.auderdale Farmers Market in the Park —Thursdays,: July 17, August 21, and September 18, 201,47 Market Information and Guidelines/Policies for the 2014 Season W-1• The Lauderdale Farmers Market is a market in which farmers, growers, artists, and crafters can sell their own products directly to the public, allowing consumers to have a direct relationship with the producer of the items they purchase. This Market will emphasize diversity, quality, and freshness. Application and Fees • Those wishina to participate in the Market must complete an application form. Applications must be returned to the Marketing Coordinator, 1704 Eustis Street, Lauderdale, MN 55113. • The Market Coordinator shall review and approve all vendor applications before a vendor can participate in the Market. • Membership is free this season. Market Goods The following items are approved for sale: • Vendor grown fresh fruits and vegetables; • Vendor grown herbs and spices; • Vendor produced farmstead products such as cheese, meats, fish, poultry, eggs, baked goods, canned goods, honey, maple syrup and preserves, if prepared and packaged in accordance with rules established by the MN Department of Agriculture; • Vendor grown bedding plants, hanging and potted plants, and cut flowers; • Vendor grown dried flowers or plants; and Vendor made arts and crafts. Products not listed above must receive clearance from the Market Coordinator before sale. Vendors may not sell any items not approved or shown in their market application. The Market Coordinator has the right to ask vendor to remove such products. All items must be prepared, displayed, and stored in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Health, and Ramsey County Public Health Department guidelines. All producers of processed items (cheese, meats, jams, jellies, syrups, baked goods, etc.) are required to adhere to all state and local laws pertaining to the production and selling of such goods. Processed food items should be sold with a valid processing license or comply with Minnesota labeling law requirements. Produce sold as Certified Organic must have originated from a Certified Farm. Farmers/growers that are not Certified Organic can advertise or sell produce as "Chemical Free” if they practice chemical free -fanning. All items should be sold by bulk, bundle, or individual item. Items sold by weight units of measure require a Minnesota State Certified Scale. The Market Coordinator reserves the right to inspect crops and production areas at any time before or during the market season. Market Operations 0 The market will begin at exactly 4:00 p.m. No sales are allowed before this time. Failure to comply with the starting time will result in a $10 fine and/or loss of future selling privileges. Set up begins at 3:00 p.m. Venders are encouraged to be in place 1/2 hour before the Market opens. Vendors must remain until the Market closes. M L OftmOldn 'ale Farmers Market in the Park d U C CI Thursdays: July 17,, August 21,, and September 18, 2014 4:00 p.m,, — 7:00 p.m. -M, MI=# F -I 111,1111 2M Market will be held at Lauderdale City Hall if it is raining (1891 Walnut Street, Lauderdale MN 55113). Vendors are responsible for providing tables, canopies, and other items needed for display. Tents and canopies must be weighted down. No stakes may be pounded into the tarmac. All displays must be neat and tasteful. • The general cleanliness of the Market area is everyone's responsibility. All vendors must keep their area neat while selling and make certain that the area is clean before leaving. • All Market vendors should represent themselves in an appropriate manner, dress, and state of cleanliness. Shirts and shoes must be worn. • All vendors must agree to abide by fair business practices. • Any vendor who the Market or city staff feel is not complying with these rules may be asked to leave. The vendor, in turn, may petition to be re -accepted to the Market, if approved. • The Lauderdale Farmers Market does not set prices but discouragesthe "dumping" of product at very low prices. During the July event, vendors can drive to their sales location for set up from 3: 00 p. m. to 3:30p.m. Due to the concert, vendors will need to carry their items back to their vehicles. Space will be assigned by Market staff. Vendors must remove all trash from the market area by 7:30 p.m. This includes produce debris, bags, and boxes from their sales. Trash cans are provided for incidental trash only. Permits, ficenses, taxes, and insurance • All permits and licenses required by the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, the State of Minnesota, or the Federal Government are the sole responsibility of the vendors. • Any required sales tax collections and remittances are the sole responsibility of the vendors. • The City of Lauderdale is not liable for any injury, theft, or damage to either the buyer or seller, or their property, arising out of or pertaining to preparation for or participation in the Lauderdale Farmers Market; whether such injury, theft, or damage occurred prior, during, or after the Lauderdale Farmers Market, seller further agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City of Lauderdale harmless for and against any claims against the City. • All vendors are encouraged to carry their own general liability and product liability insurance, as the City does not provide this coverage. FITM Business/Farm name: Name of primary seller: Street address: Lauderdale Farmers Market in the Park Thursdays: July 17,, August 21,, and September 18, 2014 4:00 Lauderdale Community Park I nPUM 111111 Alw,,n W 3my City: —State: Zip: Home phone: Cell P one: 119 Website: Address where crops are grown or items are produced: Do you grow or produce all your items? (circle one) YES NO If not, please explain: Are your items organic? Organic Certified Organic Neither Are you selling any processed food items? (circle one) YES NO If you answered yes to the previous question, you agree to abide by the "Pickle Bill" regulations and hold necessary food licenses? (circle one) YES NO All of your bakery items are made from scratch? (circle one) YES NO What food related licenses do you currently hold? Please list all items you intend to sell at the market. Items not listed may not be sold at the market without Market staff approval. Add additional page if necessary. if possible, list specific varieties. Lauderdale Farmers Market win the Park Thursdays: July 17,, August 21,, and September 18, 2014 4:00 p.m — 7:00 pm. Lauderdale Community Park Please mark the weeks you plan on attending the market. 703mm have read and agree to abide by all City of Lauderdale 2014 Farmers Market guidelines and policies. I agree that the City of Lauderdale and their respective officers, employees, agents, and consultants are not liable for any injury, theft, or damage to either the buyer or seller, or their property, arising out of or pertaining to preparation for or participation in the Lauderdale Farmers Market; whether such injury, theft, or damage occurred prior, during, or after the Lauderdale Farmers Market; seller further agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Lauderdale their respective officers, employees, agents, and consultants for and against any and all claims against the City. I understand that it is recommended that I carry my own general liability and product liability insurance., as the City of Lauderdale does not provide this coverage. Signature of Seller: ** Please return the completed application to the Marketing Coordinator: Susie Zahratka, 1704 Eustis Street, Lauderdale, T\4N 55113. LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session _X Meeting Date May 27, 2014 ITEM NUMBER 2430 Larpenter STAFF INITIAL i 09iii`q�p! 11111; V The purchase of 2430 Larpenteur Avenue was completed on March 27. It took longer to complete than we had hoped but we now know there is little by way of toxins on the site that would prevent its ultimate redevelopment. In the interim, the Council needs to decide on the best use for the property. During the early conversations about purchasing the building, the Council discussed whether to tear the building down if it was acquired or to use it. The environmental assessment provided by the EPA grant identified the items that would need to be removed prior to demolition, such as the fluorescent lights, the thermostat, and the chimney with the asbestos grout. I have been told that a demolition is in the neighborhood of $10,000 but I have not substantiated that number with a contractor. During those discussions, we also talked about the City's lack of storage space in the current public works garage and thefts from the equipment stored outside. The City can use the sta- tion for the storage of the trucks, mowers, skid loader attachments, and the sewer j etter (if it is heated). Storage would also help them stay in good repair longer. I asked Dave and Joe to attend this meeting and prepare a summary of the items to be re- paired or improved if it is to be used for storage. They provided the following list: • Powerwash the stucco to remove the loose paint • Paint the building • Repair trim and molding on the office window • Remove siding on the south exterior wall • Repair parts of the exterior wall They expect this to cost approximately $2,000. If the building is kept for the long term, they can evaluate whether to insulate the walls and heat the building. Corval is also requesting the City construct a retaining behind the building. Staff will dis- cuss in further detail during the meeting. Ultimately, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the best options for the future use of the site. If anyone wants to see the building in advance, please let me know.