HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1986/05/19CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENUA SESSION
MAY 19, 1986
6:00 P.M.
1. Discussion of Proposed outdoor Concert at Mermaid with
Dan Hall
2. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Transfer of
Ownership and Control of Group W Cable, Inc.
3. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Telephone
System Maintenance Agreement
4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum and Resolutions
Regarding Interfund Loan for Warming Houses
5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Estimated
Storm Sewer Improvement Costs Per Typical House in North
Ardan and Ardan Drainage Basins
6. Consideratior of Staff Memorandum Regarding MSA Street
Project 1986
7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Policy for
Assessing Corner Lots that are Subdivided
8. Consideration of Public Service Program and Capital
Improvement Plan of 1986 Long Term Financial Plan
PROCEEDINGS OF THE. CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
P.AMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
UN i% i - "I "nU-VLU REgMay 2, 1986
May 12, 1986
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds view, MN 53112
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order
Mayor Linke at 6:01 pM on Monday, May 12, 1986.
The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Quick,
Haake, Hankner and Mayor Linke.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/Administrator
Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director
Thatcher.
'otion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to approve the April
1,11986 minutes as presented.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to approve the May 5,
1986 —minutes as presented.
5 ayes 0 nays
police Chief Ramacher introduced the three police
officers who were recently promoted, Lieutenant
Dave Johnson.HeSergeant
thatReed
bet eenand
themetheynJerry
have
40 years experience in the police department.
The Council congratulated the gentlemen on their
recent promotions.
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened
the public hearing at 6:05 PM.
Herbst made a presentation of what they are
.questing, a major subdivision of one lot into
three, and rezoning from B-3 to I-1.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4, Approval of
Minutes:
April 28, 1986 i
May 5, 1986
Motion Carried
Motion carried
5. public Hearings
Herbst and Sons
Mal, 12, 1986
Mounds View City count rj page Two
Regular Meeting UT"'f
aGUEn --------------------------------------CU
Director Thatcher explained the Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal and they recommend approval. He
added this is not in a wetland or a flood plain.
Mayor Linke closed the hearing and reopened the regular
meeting at 6:07 PM.
There were no residents requests or comments from the U' 4
Requests and
floor. Comments from
the Floor
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve the consent
7.
of
Approval Agenda
Consent Age
agenda, as presented, and waive the reading - the
resolutions.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Quick/Haake to approve Resolution No.
168-85,
8.
Consideration
of Resolution
2007, regarding Mounds View Planning Case Nc.
2299 County Road
No. 2007
Herbst and Sons Demolition Company,
/
H-2, and waive the reading.
t
Motion Carr.
5 ayes 0 nays
v_ t„or/t.inke to approve the first
9.
First Reading
of Ordinance
-
reaj—,,4'of Ordinance No. 40n, an uLu,.".•I- - -
viewbynq
amendand
No. aUe
the municipal code of Mounds
waive
Chapter 41 entitled "Sp
the reading.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Hankner/Blanchard to have the second
10.
and Adoptioncond of
Motion/Second:
readi doption of Ordinance No. ai0codementitled
Ordinance No.
Chapter 48 of the Mounds View municipal
Ordinance", and waive the reading.
401
"Wetland Zoning
Councilmember Blanchard - aye
Councilmember Quick - aye
Councilmember Haake - aye
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Motion Carried
Mayor Linke - aye
11.
f
Director Thatcher reported the Planning Commission
at their
Glisenexplained
Staff Menw
StaffConsiMemo
had reviewed the request of Checovalter
Regarding c er
last meeting and recommends approval roved b
was aPF y
Glisan Minor
that the proposed minor subdivision
1970 but the Certificate
Subdivision
the City Council on April 27,
filed by the applicant with
of survey was never
86
Mounds View City Council Page Three
CU1;'U_1R 1!f'1�1 May 12 , 1 9
Regular Meeting---------- MA 1 1 1 V VED-----------------
----------
�gamsey County, an Mi. Glisan must receive approval from
.he City Council once again. tie recommended a public
hearing be set for the earliest possible date.
Motion/Second: Haake/Quick to set a public hearing for
the Chester Glisan minor subdivision for June 9, 1986
at 7:13 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays Motio- Carried
Director Thatcher reported that
was agreed upon by the Park and
the Stanley Fisher subdivision
$527 is the fee
Rec Commission
park dedication
which
for
fee.
12. Consideration
of Park and Rec
Commission
Recommendation
Motion/Second: Haake/Linke to
Rec Commission's recommendation
Fisher subdivision, for a park
accept the Park
on the Stanley
dedication fee of
and
$527.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the process used 13. Consideration of
in interviewing and screening applicants for the Staff Recommenda
receptionist position. tion on Hiring
of. Receptionist
r
1 otion/Second: Haake/Quick to authorize the hieing
of Carol Sue Rasmussen as City Hall Receptionist
commencing June 2, 1986 at a rate of $6.00 per hour
with a six month propationary period and a three month
review with a $.25 per hour increase assuming
acceptable performance.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reported the City has an account for 14. Consideration
deposits received from developers for services provided of Resolution
by the City, and some of the funds have been in there No. 200B
since 1980. He also explained there are some who owe
the City money which they have never paid, and it would
cost more to try and collect than it would to write it
cff. fie added that this process will occur at tha end
of each year, from now on.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to approve Resolution No.
2008, authorizing recognition of certain developers
deposits as charges F-r ocr.i�es and the write-off of
certain amounts due from developers as uncollectible,
and waive the reading.
ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council N
Me 12 1986
Regular Meeting - }� L�
J g
Pa a Four
------------ - ------------'-'-
XU
Director Thatcher reviewed a proposed press release 15. Report of
regarding the problems of residents discharging sump Public Worl
pumps into the sanitary sewer rather than the street Community Dv. t.
gutter. Ile explained they are asking for voluntary Director
compliance, and the dumping into the sanitary sewer
increases the City's charge from the MWCC, which is
then passed along to the residents.
There was discussion among the Council of the best way
to get the word out to the citizens, and the costs
involved in doing a mailing and printing labels. They
also discussed amending the building code chapter to
require where the drain line be installed, which would
alleviate this problem.
It was the concensus of the Council to publish the
press release in the New Brighton Bulletin and in the
next City newsletter.
Attorney Meyers reminded the Council of the hearing
76. Report of
at 7:30 PM this evening at Spring Lake Park High
Attorney
School concerning the EIS. He explained he had
met with Mr. Merritt and he reviewed some of the
statements from MAC and the MPCA, and what the
issues are that are to be discussed.
Councilmember Blanchard had no report.
17. Reports of
Councilmembers:
Councilmember
Blanchard
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Councilmomha.
Quick
Councilmember Haake inquired whether an article would
Councilmember
be in the New Brighton Bulletin regarding the upcoming
Haake
informational meeting on the airport.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied one would be in
this weeks edition, as well as a messaqe posted on
the sign board in front of City Hall, and on the cable
channel.
Councilmember Hankner stated she was pleased with Councilmember
the information she has seen on the access channel. Hankner
She also stated they should get working on the
City Council/Staff picnic and have an organizational
sleeting. It was agreed that they would meet at City
Hall at 3 PM on May 20, and �ieikiAdministrator
Paulay would advise the City Staff that would be
involved.
Mounds View City Council fA ' a May 12, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Five
---------------------------- ---- ` --7-4 _-,---------------
�gayor Linke reported the character generator for the cable Mayor Linke
/stem is operational and located in the Park and Rec
Department.
Mayor Linke reported tie had attended the Planning
Commission meeting the previous week and they informed
him they should have the Wuornrs report to the Council
by mid -May.
Mayor Linke reported he had attended the i.cc cream
social at Pinewocd School.
Mayor Linke reported the Met Council had met last week
n the development guide for the airport. He reviewed
some of their findings and reported they have approved
it as presented by the Task Force.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the character 18. Report or
generator will be located in the Council chambers soon, Clerk/Admini
which should catch the eye of people entering City Hall. for
Clerk/Administrator Pauley presented the Council with
copies of the memo from the Transportation Division of
the Met Council dated May 6, 1986 regarding the Anoka
-ounty-Blaine Airport Development Draft EIS/EA.
.finance Director Brager asked for authorization from
the Council to enter into a contract with Superior
Data Corporatlun for the installation of computer
cable in City Hall, the Police Department and Maintenance
Garage. file reviewed his memo of May 12 to the Council
and explained the necessity of having this cable
installed. He also stated the computer is duc to ship
early, and will arrive in .June rather than July, so
they must be ready for it.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained all offices at
City Hall will be wired at the same time, for future
use, which will result in a better discount at this
time.
Councilmember Quick asked if a separate heating and
cooling system would be installed for the computer
room. Finance Dire=tor Brager replied that the
technical people do not feel it is necessary and
they can use what the City presently has.
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve a contract
w th Superior Data Corporation in the amount of
$5,554.20 for installation of computer cable in City
ill, the Police uepartment and Maiuteudnce Garage.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
UMounds View city Council �,`ESO-_May 12, 1OR6
Y! 1�! Pa eRe ular Meetin------9- Six
-------------------------------------------------- --------
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 7:00 PM. 19. Adjournments
I
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
0
i Mf:MO TO: MAYOR AND CITY
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTR
DATE: MAY 12, 1986
SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GROUP W
CARI.F., INC.
Attached to this memorandum you will find several pieces of
correspondence f•om North Suburban Cable Commission
Administrator Bootsie Anderson and their co -counsels Thomas
Creighton and Craig Currie.
To summarize the information provided and the recent actions
of the North Suburban Cable Commission they are as follows:
The Commission adopted a resolution approving the
transfer of ownership of Group W Cable from
Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Inc. to a group
of five individual corporations. These five have
been found by attorneys for the Commission as being
fully qualified and capable of taking over Group W
Cable, Inc. and the North Suburban Cable Franchise
and did recommend approval of same. Attached for
your consideraton is Resolution No. 2010 Approving
the Transfer of ownership of Group W Catie, Inc.
The second request presented to the North Suburban
Cable Commission called for the transfer of
ownership and control of Group W Cab1c of the North
Suburbc, Inc. and transfer of the cable
communications franchise ordi,iance to North Central
Cable Communications owned by Mr. Gustave Hauser.
As you may recall, this is the individual on whom we
have received significants amounts of information
regarding his wholly unacceptable operational
practices with respect to cable TV and the fact that
he has refused on numerous occassions to provide the
North Suburban Cable Commission with adequate
financial documentation regardinq his assumption of
Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc. The
Commission denied this request due to the fact that
we have thirty days to approve a request once it is
formally submitted to the Commission. Due to the
fact that Mr. Hauser refused to supply needed
information, the thirty day time timeclock had
nearly run out and denial allows the cancellation of
the time period betore it expires and transfer is
required per provisions of the franchise.
Mr. lim bar may resubmit his request fnr trancfPr of
ownership and control at a future date and a new
thirty day timeclock will commence upon receipt of
that request by the Cable Commission.
MAYOR AND CITY "OUNCIf.
PAGE TWO
MAY 12, 1986
The denial was recommended by the attorneys and
consultant to the North Suburban Cable Commission
due to the lack of adequate information and the
Commission has recommended that the ten member
cities adopt the attached Resolution No. 2011
confirming their earlier action.
Cable Administrator Rnotsie Anderson will be present at the
May 19th Agenda Session to review with you these documents
and present in greater detail the recommendations of the
Commission. it is the considered opinion of this member of
the City Staff that the actions of the Commission are both
appropriate and well-founded and would strongly recommend
the Council's approval of their action by adopting the
attached Resolutions No. 2010 and 2011.
DFP/mjs
Attachments:
elk
RESOLUTION NO. 2010
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STAFF. OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING TUF, TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF GROUP W
CABLE, INC..
WHEREAS, Group W Cable, Inc., a New York Corporation
(hereinafter "Group W Cable"), by and through Group W Cable
of the North Suburbs, Inc., a wholly -owned subsidiary, owns,
operates and maintains a cable television system in the City
pursuant to the terms and conditions of City Ordinance No.
319 (hereinafter "Cable Communications Franchise
Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, Group W Cable's parent corporation, Westing-
house Broadcasting and Cable, Inc., an Indiana Corporation
(hereinafter "Westinghouse"), desires to sell and otherwise
transfer all of the issued and outstandinq shares of the
capital stock of Group W Cable to Century Southwest Cable
Television, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; TCI Holdings,
Inc., a Colorado Corporations American Television and
Communications Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and
affiliates of, or subsidiaries of partnerships owned or
controlled by, Houston Industries Incorporated, a Texas
Corporation; Comcast Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation; and Daniels 6 Associates, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; (hereinafter "Buyers"), and thereby transfer
control of Group W Cable to the Buyers; and
WHEREAS, Group W Cable has requested the consent from
the City to a change in ownership and control of Group W
Cable to the Buyers and the transfer of ownership and
control and ultimate transfer of the Cable Communicetions
Franchise Ordinance as amended to North Central Cable
Communications, L.P.; and
WHEREAS, the North Suburban Cahle Commission (here-
inafter "Commission") has been deiegated the authority and
responsibility to coordinate, administer and enforce the
Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance on behalf of the
City pursuant to the terms of a .Toint and Cooperative
Agreement for the Administration of a Cable Television
Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has held a public hearing on
behalf of the City and has reviewed the legal, technical,
and financial qualifications of Buyers and found them
adequate to own and operate Group W Cable; and
RESOLUTION NO. 2010
PAGE. TWO
WHEREAS, the Commission has recommended to City
approval of the transfer of control of Group W Cable to
Buyers subject to the actual closing of the stock sale in
June, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Commission and City have been advised by
Group W Cable and the Buyers that the approval of such stock
transfer to Buyers shall in no way be interpreted as an
approval, either express or implied, of the transfer of
ownership and control and ultimate transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance Lo North Central Cable
Communications, L.P.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mounds View!
1. That the City hereby approves the sale by
Westinghouse of all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the capital stock of Group W Cable,
Inc. and the transfer of control of Group W
Cable, Inc. to the Buyers subject to an actual
closing of the stock sale transaction in June,
1986, pursuant to the terms and conditions
currently understood by the City as evidenced by
the Notice of Transfer, and other information and
documents, provided to said Commission and City.
2. That the approval of the transfer of ownership
and control of Group W Cable, Inc. to the Buyers
is hereby deemed not to include any approval,
either express of implied, as to any subsequent
transfer of ownership or control of Group W
Cable, Inc. or Group W Cable of the North
Suburbs, Inc. or transfer of the Cable communica-
tions Franchise ordinance or related cable
communications system to North Central Cable
Communications, L.P., or to any other entity or
individual.
3. That this approval is specifically conditioned
upon payment in full prior to an actual closing
of the stock sale transaction in June, 1986, or
all expenses incurred by Commission and City
related to the Request for Approval of Transfer
dated February 1, 1986, including those related
expenses incurred prior to receipt thereof, but
incurred in preparation for the receipt of the
go
Request for Approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010
PAGE, THREE
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
That this approval is specifically conditioned
upon the understanding that any changes or
modifications in the Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance or cable communications
system (in place or proposed) which are subject
to requlation or control by City and/or
Commission shall not be made withnut the piiur
review and approval of City and/or Commission
pursuant to such procedures as are contained in
the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance or
otherwise applicable law.
Adopted this 27 day of May, 1996.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 2011
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSF,Y
STArE OF MINNF,SOTA
RF.SnLhTION DENYING THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP AND
CONTROL OF GROUP W CABLE OF THE NORTH SUBURBS, INC. AND
TRANSFER OF THE CABLE, COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE TO
NORTH CENTRAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, L.P.
WHEREAS, Group W Cable, Inc., a New York Corporation,
by and through Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc., a
wholly -owned subsidiary, (hereinafter collectively "Group W
Cable") owns, operates and maintains a cable television
system in the City pursuant to the terms and conditions of
City Ordinance No. 319 (hereinafter "Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, Group W Cable has requested the consent from
the City to a transfer of ownership and control of Group P
Cable and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance as amended to North Central Cable Communications, L.P. (hereinafter "North Central_'); and
WHEREAS, the North Suburban Cable Commission (herein-
atter "Commission") has beer delegated the authority and
responsibility to coordinate, administer and enforce the
Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance on behalf of City
Pursuant to the terms of a Joint and Cooperative Aqreement
for the Administration of a Cable Television Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has held a public hearing on
behalf of City and has reviewed the legal, technical, and
financial qualifications of North Central; and
WHEREAS, THE Commission has recommended to City
denial of the transfer of ownership and control of Gruup W
Cable and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise
Ordinanre to North Central.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mounds View:
I. Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of fh< worth Svburba❑ Cable Commission (attached
hereto and made a part hereof) the City denies
the request to approve the transfer and owner-
RESOLUTION NO. 2011
PAGE TWO
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
ship and control of Group N Cable of the North
Suburbs, Inc. and transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance to North
Central Cable Communications, L.P.
Adopted this 27 day of May, 1986.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
J
ppP�h'E EIMER WOLiF "m'""" Kw l,MQM. R..,Orm"WAMW
SHEPARD XZ "%V, " �'"'" "r.m ",~e Dc �
ANSCTE
Rd. FrT1l+7rr R.,.•014':3lM" RindcmMM
AONNELLY
lw' Rw R'I' low Rd. all
���hi:'lEl//qjy
1
Saint
Paul
May 9,
1966
P2 61
1r
u
&PU,DM=O1.
Ma"oM"M b4
YlDRe13 ■SOY
"IOJ sa.v.NW
Rd-
RJ••d A'"1R qD
RJ. ,rmw
TO: Members -Cities o-Jl Suburban Cable commission
Be: Proposed Sale of Group M Cable, Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The North Suburban Cable Commission, acting on behalf
of its Member -Cities, has reviewed and evaluated a proposed
sale of all of the outstanding capital stock of Group W
Cable, Inc. The Commission has recommended to its
Member -Cities that they approve the sale transaction, as
set forth in the Commission's Resolution, a copy of whi--h
has been provided to you. The Commission's Resolution at
Recommendation number 3 specified as a condition to such
sale approval that the Commission and Member -Cities be
provided with indemnity protection by Group W Cable, Inc.
Please be advised that an Indemnity Agreement executed
by Group W Cable, Inc. has been received in satisfaction
of the said approval condition.
Following adoption of your Resolution regarding this
matter, a certified copy of such
Rproluti n should
hattente 6ent
to the Commission's offices, marked to
of
Mc. Bootsie Anderson, Administrator.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
C�
Craig Currie
CC:cad
cc: Ms. Bootsie Anderson
VOK'fI I SUI>U[:IWq CA13LE COMMISSION
.;'.i i;,' li-ii I'4 AON;i IAI I, d: III Uit 11, 111:aJ1,
i
AID
RECO C*
i4wv
yp 0 S
May 1, 1986
TO: CITY MANAGERS 4
FROM: Bootste Anderson P» d
Administrator
I am sending you yet another report on the issue of the Westinghouse -Croup W Cable
transfer of ownership.
On April 13t1. I attended a NLC/NATOA Conference which centered around municipal
telecommunications problems of today and what the future predicts. Believe it or not
some of the future of telecommmunlcations in your city not only includes cable but also
might decide the future control you may or may not have over things like franchise
fees, use of the I -Net (Institutional Network), community programs, etc.
First the transfer information. Enclosed you will find a letter from Craig Curry
recommending approval of the transfer of stock from Westinghouse to the group of five
buyers. Additionally, enclosed is a letter from Tom Creighton recommending denial of
the second transfer to North Central Cable Communlca N ons or Mr. GYslave Hauser. The
appropriate resolutions will be sent for immediate conaideratlun by your City Councll
at the next available meeting. To facilitate the closing of the stock transfer, it is
important that each city complete the discusrions concerning the resolutions as
quickly as possible. If you have further questions regarding this issue, feel free to
call either myself or Tom Creighton.
This brings me to my second point. As most of you must know by now. Deremher 79. 1986
begins the dawning of a new are with the cable industry. On that date the cable
industry becomes un-regulated in the areas of rate and general banagemeat. The
Industry, however, would have all cities believe that on that date total regulating
suthnrity is ended. By using that type of tactic, though, many cities have begun
to "givo-up" enforcing the remaining enforceable areas of the cable franchise.
Enclosed are two cable industry legislative updates prepared by two different stterney's
groups.
I ^ i,,'.� • In/, , A • IL.W r+ N..•R.n•4n N.q, 11 i. • P,,.& • 9 Arw„a; •
City Managers
May 1, 1986
Page 2
Due to the new Federal Cable Policy, the industry has begun an intense campaign
consisting of possible litigation toward commissions or regulating bodies in an
attempt to force submission to industry demands on regulated items. Any city
or commission that allows modification of an existlag franchise without careful
consideration as to the effect that modification any have on the citizens, is
in effect rendering all future development or expansion of services Irrevocable.
My statements are meant to slats each city so as to have each city become more
Informed as to the future of your I -Net, franchise fees, public access staff
and equipment, and channels.
As the age of telecommunications becomes a reality In the ten cities, ycu might
realize that various parts of the franchise are Interchangeable with your plane
to develop and expand communication within your city, throughout your cucaunity
and within our communities.
BA: kjr
Attachments
e
OPPENHEIMER WOEII ' .. •.• .. "'
STLASHE ^ARD , �'w:,sa.n. a.,..•.•..•v
AND ti.�•••.w .. wr A LVN T A �� A.IyM TY'6 .f•Sw • q.
DONNEEEY �� �-% ...
Saint Paul
April 20, 1906
North Suburban Cable Commission
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Re: Group W Cable, Incorporated Request for
Approval of Transfer of ownership and Contro)
Dear Members of the Commission:
Please find below a summary and analysis of a request
from Group W Cable, Incorporated, to the Member Cities of
the North Suburban Cable Commission to approve the sale and
transfer (the "Transfer Transaction') of al) of the issued
and outstanding shares of the capital stock of Group W Cable,
Incorporated ("Group W') from Westinghouse Broadcasting And
Cable, Incorporated to a group of five Buyers (the "Buyers').
The purpose of this report is to provide the Commission
with an understanding of the Transfer Transaction and the
standard for reviewing whether to approve such Transaction.
I. Description of Transaction
The proposed Transfer Transaction involves the following
parties:
1. Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable, Incorporated
("Westinghouse');
2. American Television and Communications Corporation
and its affiliates and assignees ('ATC'):
3. Comcast corporation and its affiliates and assignees
('Comcast');
4. Daniels i Associates, Inc. and its affiliates and
assignees ("Daniels');
5. TCI Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates end assignees
('TCIH"); and
6. Century Southwest Cable Television, Inc. and its
affiliates and assignees ('Century').
Parties two through six, above, or their designated
affiliates or assignees, as Buyers, will purchase all of
U114NHtIMtx WUill
FDSTtA SHEPARD
AND
DONNELLY
Ncrth Suburban Cable Commissior
April 28, 1906
Page Two
the stock of Group W. Sometime before the end of June of
1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'closing•) the Buyers
are jointly and severally obligated to close the purchase
of Group W's stock from Westinghouse subject to the terms
and conditions of a purchase agreement dated as of December
23, 1985 ('Purchase Agreement*).
Upon the closing, the stock of Group W will be apportioned
among and owned by the Buyers in the following approximate
proportions:
TCIH and its affiliates or assignees 32.6►
ATC and its affiliates or assignees 26.4%
comcast and its affiliates or assignees 25.41
Century and its affiliates or assignees 12.0►
Daniels end its affiliates or assignees 3.6►
100.0►
The Buyers have aqreed that, upon the closing, they
will elect the following individuals to serve as the Board
of Directors of Group W:
Presently an
Name offirpr of: Office Held
Thomas W. Binning ATC Executive Vice President
Stewart Blair TCIH Senior Vice President
Julian A. Brodsky Comcast Senior Vice President
Thomas A. Marinkcvich Daniels ?resident
Leonard Tow Century President
After the closing, Group W will be supervised by the
Board of Directors specified above and each Buyer will have
primary operational responsitiiity for a group of cable systems
which it has agreed to subsequently purchase, or trarsfer
to other parties, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.
The six suburban Twin Cities systems currently owned
by Group W, including the North Suburban cable system (the
'System'), have been allocated to Daniels. Daniels has
assigned its interests in those systems to Daniels -Hauser
Holding Company ('D-H Holdings'), a Colorado general
partnership consisting of Daniels i Associates, Inc. and
North Central Cable Communications Company L.P. as general
partners. North Central Cable Communications Company L.P.
('North Central') is a Minnesota limited partnership consisting
t1 TLNMLVW WULtf
ADTIA SWARD
DONNCIiy
North Suburban Cable Commission
April 28, 1986
Page Three
of Hauser Cable Communications Incorporated as general partner
and R. E. Hauser Incorporated as limited partner.
The Buyers have also agreed that as soon as possible
after the closing, Group W will transfer control and ownership
of the Group W subsidiary corporations to the individual
Buyers. Group W Cable of the Northern Suburbs, Inc., the
Group W subsidiary owning your cable System, will be
transferred to Daniels which in turn will assign its interest
to D-H Holdings. These potential subsequent transfer
transactions cannot occur without your specific review and
approval, separate from and in addition to your ccnsideration
of the Transfer Transaction. Nevertheless, the management
(but not ownership control) of your System will be immediately
undertaken by North Central, as agreed by the Buyers, upon
the conclusion of Transaction. Although the Group W stock
Transfer Transaction requires your approval, this change
in management of your System can legally occur without your
approval.
1I. Standard of Review
The Com_^ission's task with regard to the Transfer
Transaction is to review the nature and effect of the
Transaction and to recommend to its Member Cities approval
or denial of the transfer of stock from Westinghouse to the
grouD of Buyers. The Cities must make the ultimate
determination. The standard of review is that the Cities'
consent, based upon the Commission's recommendation, shall
not be unreasonably withhclu. For the purpose :f determining
whether it will recormend consent to the change of control
in Group W, the Commission's staff and counsel have made
inquiry into the legal, technical, and financial qualifications
of the Buyers.
The analysis of the proposed Transfer Transction is
somewhat different from the analysis of the proposed potential
subsequent transactions. Since the proposed Transfer
Transaction is a stock transfer, in which Group N and Group
W of the Northern Suburbs, Incorporated remain intact, it
will not be necessary to transfer the Member Cities' franchises
at the conclusion of that Transaction. Therefore, the
performance of your cable communications franchises will
continue to be guaranteed by Group W as controlled by new
stock owners. The assets of Group W will remain intact at
the conclusion of the Transfer Transaction. only the
n+enagement of Group W, Incorporated (through its Board of
OPPENHCIMER WOLFT
FOSpTER SHVARD
DONNELLY
North Suburban Cable Commission
April 28, 1986
Page Four
Directors) and of your cable System throLgh North Central
will be affected.
The Purchase Agreement between Westinghouse and the
Buyers requires that the Buyers assume all Group W systems
.as is'. The Buyers are not permitted to request or meke
any franchise modifications, nor have you been requested
by the Buyers to make any such franchise modifications.
The Commission should consider the following factors
in determining whether to recommend approval or denial of
the Transfer Transaction:
1) Legal and character qualifications of Group W and
the Buyers;
2) Technical ability of Group W as a result of the
change in control land if necessary the technical
ability of the Buyers and any third party engaged
by Group W to manage your system); and
3) Financial stability of Group W as a result of the '
change of control.
III. Analysis
A. Legal qualifications
The legal qualifications standard relates primarily
to an analysis of whether the Buyers involved in the
transaction are duly organized and authorized to own the
cable system and franchises. Each of the Buyers involved
in this transaction is duly organized and authorized to own
a cable system and franchise. Two of the Buyers are the
two largest cable companies in the United States. The
character qualifications of the Buyers are satisfactory.
Therefore, based upon our review of the information
provided, it would appear that the Commission and Cities
could not reasonably withhold approval of the Transfer
Transaction based upon the legal or character qualifications
of the Buyers.
B. Technical ability
The technical ability factor relates to the technical
expertise and experience in operating and maintaining a cable
OPPENHEIMER WC'
FOSTER
AND SHEPARD
DONNELLY
North Suburban Cable Commission
Apri. 28, 1966
Page Five
system. Since Group W will remain in existence, the technical
ability of the franchise ho!der is not at question. However,
a review of the Buyers may be undertaken. In such a review,
it is noted that the Buyers have extensive cable television
experience. Therefore, in reviewing the technical abilities
of the Buyers, it would be unreasonable to determine that
the Buyers are not technically qualified to own and operate
your cable system.
Further, since North Central has been designated as
the manager of your cable System upon completion of the
Transfer Transaction, it is a valid inquiry to determine
the technical ability of such management. The technical
ability factor relates to the technical expertise and
experience of North Central in operating and managing a cable
system. Since North Central is a new entity, it has not
directly owned or operated any cable systems. Therefore,
the ability of its managing principals must be reviewed.
Information has been provided concerning such principals'
experiences in owning, operating, and managing cable systems.
Hauser Cable Communications, Inc., ('Hauser Cable")
as general partner of North Central, will be primarily
responsible for the management of North Central. A majority
interest in Hauser Cable will be held by Gustave M. Hauser,
or a company controlled by Mr. Hauser. Additionally, John
D. Evans, or a company controlled by Mr. Evans, will also
own stock in Hauser Cable. Moreover, Hauser Cable has stated
that it irtends to enter into a standard management agreement
with Hauser Co^iuni cations, Inc. (-Hc—) to be responsible
for the day-to-day supervisory management of Ncrth Central
and the cable systems.
The information which has been reviewed by Commission
staff indicates that Mr. Hauser, Mr. Evans, and HC have cable
management capability and experience sufficient to satisfy
the technical ability factor as applied to your cable System.
Mr. Hauser is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HC,
Arlington Cable Partners, and Suburban Cablevision Company.
He formerly served as Chairman and Chief Executive officer
of Warner Amex Cattle Communications, Inc. He has been involved
in cable television and other electronic communications since
the early 1960's. Mr. Evans, as President of HC and Arlington
Cable Partners, has 13 years of management experience in
the cable television industry. He manages a'34,000 subscriber
cable system in Arlington, Virginia and a 33,000 subscriber
OrrWHUMOR WOL"
FOS rEA SWARD
AND
DONNf11Y
North Suburban Cable Commission
April 28, 1966
Page Six
system in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. He has also served as
System and Regional Manager for over 90,000 subacribs:s in
Columbus, Ohio for American Television and Communications.
Hauser Communications, Inc., which will be the manager of
your cable system, has experience in managing the Arlington
system, Brooklyn. Center system, and is intending to acquire
a 23,000 subscriber system in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Upon completion of the Transfer Transaction, lour cable
System's management will be provided by North Central pursuant
to a management agreement with Group W. Group W, however,
will remain ultimately responsible to the Commission and
Member Cities for proper management of the System. If North
Central failed to properly discharge such management
responsibilities, Group W would be liable for any harm or
loss incurred by System users or the Commission or Cities,
and would be able to replace North Central with another manager
to satisfy such management obligations.
The information provided to us indicates that North
Central, through its principals, has cable management
capability and experience that may be sufficient to satisfy
the technical ability factor as applied to your cable system.
Group W remains legally responsible for proper management
end will be able to monitor and replace North Central if
such management is not adequate. Based upon the review of
the information provided, it would appear that neither the
Commission nor Member Cities could reasonably withhold approval
of the Transfer Transaction based upon the technical ability
of the Buyers, Group W and North Central.
C. Financial stability
The financial stability factor relates to whether upon
completion of the Transfer Transaction, the franchise holder
or guarantor has the financial resources available or committed
to not only acquire the System, but also to meet the existing
franchise requirements.
It is not appropriate to evaluate the financial resources
of the Buyers for the purpose of the Transfer Transaction.
The Buyers, as stockholders, are not required to commit their
individual corporate assets to the performance of Group W
Incorporated or its subsidiaries. Although Westinghouse
Incorporated has at times apparently provided financial
assistance to Group W, as a stockholder Westinghouse is not
be required to commit financial resourres to the performance
of its subsidiary. Therefore, following the Transfer
Transaction, nothing will change as to the stockholder
resources legally committed to Group W.
FFOST AHSHErARD
AND
DONNEIIY
North Suburban Cable Commission
AFril 28, 1986
Page Seven
The assets of Group W remain intact at the conclusion
of the Transfer Transaction, causing no change from the
financial situation which exists for Group W prior to the
closing of the Transfer Transaction. while the System's
own financial operations and performance will be a mejor
factor in determining System services and subscriber costs,
the assets, resources and economy of scale advantages of
the entire Group W organization will be available to support
current System services and costs and to partially lessen
any service or cost adjustments that may become necessary
in the future.
If, in the future, Group W proceeds to transfer its
systems to the Buyers, the resources available to Group W
will diminish. While such transfers would reduce the assets
and resources available for System support, Group W could
have "sold -off' its other existing systems at any time, even
prior to the Transfer Transaction. A Court would likely
conclude that the Member Cities do not have authority to
stop Group W from diminishing its assets by seliing other
systems. Therefore, such potential for system sale or transfer
transactions in the future is not a situation that differs
from the existing rights and arrangements under the Member
Cities' franchises, and is not a basis for objecting to the
Transfer Transaction.
Since Group W continues to exist and guarantee performance
of your franchises, we cannot discern a reasonable basis
to deny the Transfer Transaction based on the financial
stability of Group W, Inc. In light of the considerable
financial resources available to Group W at the conclusion
of the Transfer Transaction for System support, neither the
Commission nor Member Cities could reasonably withhold approval
of the Transfer Transaction based upon the financial stability
factor. Mr. Kevin Cattoor, your financial co-isultant, has
concurred in these findin,gs.ISee attached letter)
IV. Conclusion
Based upon the above analysis, it is our determination
that the Commission and Member Cities can not reasonably
withhold approval of the Transfer Transaction.
very truly yours,
OPPEN/H/EIMER WWOOLFF FOSTER SHEPARD AND DONNELLY
By / A /n
aig urrie
CC:csd
O11KCT DIAL MUMsrs
(612) 313-1296
O'CONNOR i HANNAN
ATTOaM[T{ Al LAW
1600 IDS C[MT[R
eO 60UTM 11"TM aTa[[T
MIM11[A►011a. MIIIM[aDTA eNOs-aaM
1"1 ael-aeOO
t[L[ll feoeaA
T[L[C00I911 16t1 241 aaoo lane
V:.n ...
r ,QAtiLt
�,FFIT� ��T �• � N� ,T.S`
April 25, 1966
Mr. John D. Evans
North Central Cable Communications Company, L.P.
2707 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201
REs North Suburban Cable Commission
North Central Suburban Cable Commission
Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission
Quad Cities Cable Commission
' Dear Mr. Evans
Awl sou
As you are aver&, the public hearings regarding Transaction
12 which were continued for the purpose of the Commission's
analysis of your financial information will resume Monday, April
28, 1986, with the North Central Suburban Cable Commission setting.
As you are further aware, your response to the Municipal Requests
Pot Information were due for the various Cc -missions in the
first two weeks in March. In all instances your response was
not received within the requested two week period, and further,
was deemed not to provide sufficient financial information to
adequately analyse the transfer. Therefore, as permitted in
the original Municipal Request For Information, Mr. Cattoor,
the independent financial consultant advising the above -mentioned
four Commissions, requested additional information of you.
Your response was received April 3, 1966. Since it was impossible
to review that information prior to the public hearings regarding
Transaction 12 from Group r Incorporated to North Central Cable
Communications Company, L.P. (North Central), the Commissions
all continued their public hearings.
Mr. Cattoor has informed we today that although he met
with you on April 9, 1986 to review what be considered inadequate
documentation of your assumptions, and subsequently again requested
' (in a letter dated April 15, 1986) documentation of all assumptions
supporting the pro formal, he has not as of today, received
adequate supporting documentation. me has therefore informed
me that he is unable to issue a final report at this time for
the consideration of the Commissions at their continued public
hearings.
O'CONNOR 6 MANNAN
AT roaMCTs AT LAw
Mr. John D. Evans
Page Two
April 25, 1986
This letter is to inform you on behalf of the above -mentioned
Commiasions and on behalf of Mr. Cattoor, that I as officially
withdrawing the request of April 15, 1986 requesting documertation
of all assumptions supporting your pro forams. This withdrawal
is necessary in light of the fact that both Mr. Cattoor and
my office would not have sufficient time to analyse any response
which you might prepare prior to the continued public hearings.
Additionally, I will not recommend further continuance of the
public hearings, and, instead will proceed now to prepare my
recommendations to the above -mentioned Commissions based upon
Mr. Cattoor's analysis of the information we have available
to us.
Mr. Cattoor is unable to attend the North Central public
hearing of April 28 and the North Suburban hearing of May 1,
1986. While those Commissions may choose to continue their
public hearings for a short period of time until Mr. Cattoor
may attend, they may also choose to proceed with the approval
or denial of the request regarding Transaction 82. This will
be possible in light of the fact that Mr. Cattoor has informed
us today in writing that 'due to the lack of documentation supporting
North Central's pro formas, I am unable to issue a final report
at this time. Therefore, my preliminary report addressed to
the Commission in the most recent public hearings still stand&.'
For your information and based on Mr. Cattoor's preliminary
report and your lack of documentation supporting North Central's
pro forma$, I intend to recommend to the above four named Commissions
that they deny Transaction 02.
If you should have any questions, please fe►1 free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
zlthome D. reighto
TDC:abg
cc: Norval Reece, Group w, Inc., New York
James Erickson, Larkin -Roffman
Tom Sharrard, Group N, Inc. District Manager a
Rootsie Anderson
Mike Cusick
Ralph Campbell
Terry O'Connell
Mark Matthews
Denise Durante
Jim Comers
Mary Jane Thompson
MATT,¢w L IF18OW % ►A
JOHN M SPENCER ►c'
JOEE►H A BELISLE'
KATHY J afRF'
x ►ATMOK MEEHM
a rauar
J OW ► vWG
$10 oAViOM'
a rgrar
Tf 4.f4w
..r•.o.•.m w
nr.n w
LBBOWM & SPF1' m
A isnrerft 01 Protsn&* Cofporsmore
J u"e t ..
30W Bncsyne Boulevard
Mism Fiords 33137
(305) 576.7973
Twa ,X)S, en Aso
CABLE RbGULATORT UPDATE
5 At '$l'
YJor vfmgr+w A. N
eVambon Dc t000s
r3wI 7A''Jds3
1w 11a W.-a
Judicial Proceedings to Match
Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles -
U.S. Supreme Court. Involves an action brought by Preferred, a
cable television company, against the City of Los Angeles,
claiming that the City's franchising process violated Pre-
ferred's rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Spec ifi-
tally, Preferred contended that its right to construct a cable
television system and disseminate programming via the cable
medium was protected by the First Amerdment. Therefore, Pre-
ferred argued, access to facilities (utility poles), needed to
exercise this First Amendment right, should not be subject to
the unfettered discretion of the City's franchising process. A
U.S. District Court dismissed Preferred's complaint, but the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lover court, in
March 1985, and adopted Preferred's First Amendment argument.
The Ninth Circuit limited the scope of Its decision to those
situations where a city's utility poles or unQerground conduits
have the capacity necessary for accomodatirg more than ore
c&tls system. The cas: is curr:ntly pending before the United
w
i
States Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case will be heard
by the Court on April 29, 1986. '
American Civil Liberties Union at al. vs, FCC - U.S. Court
of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. This appeal filed on October 29,
1985 deals with the rules adopted by the Comrtsaior, in their
Order implementing the Cable Act's rate deregulation provi-
sion, under Section 623 of the Cable Act, franchising author-
!ties are allowed to regulate subscriber rates for 'basic cable
services, only if their cable system is not subject to
'effective competition'. In their rule making proceeding the
Commission defined ' basic cable service' as •cable service
regularly provided to all subscribers including the retransmis-
sion of must carry broadcast television signals and public,
educational and governmental channels.' In addition, the Com-
mission decided that a rahl-
---•.. w suoJect to
'effective competition', if at least three television stations
placed a grsde B signal over any portion of the .a;,Ie community
or at least three stations are significantly viewed within the
community. Local government groups suggested, in cruasents
filed in the rule making proceeding, that the Commissior re-
quire a total of tan broadcast signals within the cable com-
munity, before there is to be considered 'effective competi-
tion' for a cable system. The appeal at the circuit court is
currently being held in abeyance pending resolution of several
a
Petitions for reconsideration of t, Commission's Order, The
COlm:issiOn'a Reconsideration Order, o be released in the near
-2-
future, is not expected to resolve the dispute surrounding the
Commission's definition of 'effective competition'.
City of New York vs. FCC - U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.
Circuit. This involves an appeal of a Commission order, which
prohibited state and local technical regulations for class 1
(broadcast) channels on a cable system that are inconsistent
with those adopted by the Commission. The Order also preempted
any state or local technical regulation for non -class 1
01aonel5. The City of New York and otner petitioner■ claim,
that under the Cable Act the Commission lacks authority to pre-
empt non-federal technical regulation of cable systems, In*
final brief is due to be filed on May 27, 1986, with oral arqu-
ments to follow.
Florida Power Corporation vs. FCC - On appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court. in this case a utility company challenged an
order of the FCC - authorizing certa,n cable television
companies to maintain pole attachments at a rate significantly
less than that specified in prior pole attachment contracts
between the parties. These lower rates, the Commission found,
were guaranteed the cable company, under the provisions of the
Pole Attachment Act. of 1978. The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals decided that the FCC Order, guarantying the cable Com-
pany a pole attachment rate lower than the previous contract
rate, was a taking of the utility company's property without
just compensation and thereby was a violation of the Fifth
3
Amendment. In effect, the Court found that the rate provisions
contained in the Pole Attachment Act of 1978 were unconstitu-
tional. The National Cable Television Association, Cox Cable
and Croup W have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review thls
ruling.
Tribune -United Cable vs. Mortgomery County - United States
Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Montgomery County recently
requested that the entire panel of Fourth Circuit Court judges
review a three -judge panel's interpretation of the franchise
modification provisions of the 1984 Cable Act. The three -judge
panel from the Fourth Circuit, found that a franchising
authority may not penalize cable operators for violation of
franchise agreements, before final action is taken on any re-
quest by the cable system for modification of the franchise
agreement under Section 625 of the Cable Act. In its appeal u
the full circuit, the County argued that the previous decision.
Will im.Tobilize enforcement of all cable franchises within the
Court's jurisdiction and elsewhere. The County also speculated
that the decision 'can be expected to stimulate a flood of
modification requests since any cable operator can now
automatically thwart enforcement.'
Erie Telecommunications, Inc. vs. City of Erie - U.S.
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. This case
focuses upon the City of Erie's reouirement that the winnino
cable system pay a suostantial fee in exchange for its
of
franchise. After accepting the
franchise,
Erie Telecommunics-
tions, Inc., refused to pay the
required
franchis♦ fee and
filed suit against the City
of Erie -
claiming that the
franchise fee was in excess of
the maximum
fee allowed under
Section 622 of the Cable Act. Under Section 622 of the Act,
franchising authorities are given the pover to collect
franchise fees from cable operators, however, such fees may not
be in excess of SI of the cable operators' gross revenues
derived from the operation of the cable system for any 12 month
period. Erie Telecommunication's complai:it was filed on July
16, 1905. The case is currently still in the discovery phase
of litigation.
Madison Cablevision, Inc. vs. Citv of Morganton - U.S.
' District Court, Western District of North Carolina. This case
affords the Court an opportunity to apply and interpret the
Cable Act's franchise renewal procedures and buy-back
provisions. In this instance, the City of Morganton failed to
renew the franchise of Madison Cablevision, Inc., a TCI
subsidiary, after 12 years of operation. In addition, the City
of Morganton attempted to buy-back the franchise under the
existing franchise agreement. Madison Cablevisior, filed suit
against the City of Morganton on January 6, 1986. In their
complaint, Madison Cablevision, claimed that the City's a:tion
- denying renewal of their franchise - violated the renewal
procedures laid out in Section 626 of the Cable Act; violated
their First Amendment right to operate a cable system and
-5-
Should be considered a taking of private propetty without
compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In addition..
the complaint cited the City's intent tc operate the cable
system, as an attempt to monopolise the provision of ceblw
communications services within the community, in viola::on of
Anti -Trust law. A motion for summary judnment, filed by the
City of Morganton, will be considered by the court on May 16,
1986.
AR\OLD Eft PORTER
a[. �.a•Or0" .200 NEW N[MVSNIAE AVENUE. N. W.
.[co-'M Moal 11, pto WASMINGTON, O. C. 2003e
19,9. a, t)tl
4021 P2-4100
April 1986
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING FRANCHISE
ENFORCEMENT a PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
By: Norman M. Sinel, Eso.
Patrick J. Grant, Esq.
Barbara J. Delaney, Esq.
INTRODUCTION
1100 pat t•
ot"vta. W.oa.o0 60101
non ap-coo
Legislative and regulatory developments at the
federal level during the past year have tended to restrict
the ability of franchising authorities to enforce cable
operators' obligations tc serve the public interest.
In particular, the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 (hereinafter the "Cable Act") and various actions
taken by the courts and the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), both before and after passage of
the Cable Act, have diminished the scc?e of franchising
%uthorities' powers regarding rate regulation, the types
of services carriod over a cable system, the technical
performance and slgr,al quality of cable systems and
the conditions governing renewal of cable franchises.
A comprehensive discussion of the impact of the
Cable Act, and prior FCC and Judicial actions, on the
powers of franchising authorities, is contained in Cable
Franchising and Regulation -- A Local Government Guide
To The New Law (thee G�which was published by
the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference
of Mayors in March 1985. The purpose of this outline
is to provide an update on the key FCC and judicial
developments occurring since publication of the Guide.
II. RECENT FCC DEVELOFMENTS
A. Rate Regulation
In its Report 6 Ord
7F1
1 Policy Act of 1964, 58 R R.2d 1 (released April
1985) (hereinafter "R&O") the FCC responded to
- 2 -
Section 623,b) of the Cable Act which directed it to
issue regulations defining the circumstances in which
a cable system's rates can be regulated by a franchising
authority (i.e., where a cable system is not subject
to effective competition) and to establish standards
for such rate regulation.
The FCC defined "basic cable service" as "the
tier of service regularly provided to all subscribers
that includes the retransmission of all must -carry
broadcast television signals as defined in
Sections 76.55 - 76.61 of the rules, for, in the absence
of at least three must -carry signals, any unaltered
broadcast television signals( and the public, educational
and governmental channels, if required by a franchising
authority under Section 611 of the (Cable) Act." 58
R.R.2d at 32-33.
It determined that "effective competition" exists
where three or more off -the -air broadcast signals are
available; that is, where they place a predicted Grade B
contour over any portion of the cable community or are
significantly viewed within the cable community. 58
R.R. 2d at 24-29.
The FCC also provided a one-year exemption frog.
rate regulation to cable operators previously found
to be subject to effective competition, but later
determined not to be, due to changed circumstances in
the cable system community. 58 k.R.2d at 29.
Finally, the FCC allowed cable systems to pass
through to subscribers any - •dily identifiable increase
(or decrease) .n =oot which it entirely attributable
to the provision of basic service. These rate increases
may be applied automatically without franchising authority
approval, and may be taken in addition to the 5% automatic
annual increase to which most systems are entitled.
58 R.R.2d at 35. No reason other than "avoidance of
pZo forma administrative proceedings" was articulated
for this action.
In light of the decision in Quincy Cable TV
Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1985), discussed
bilow, the FCC reopened the period for filing comments i on the definition of basic =r`le service. Order Reopening the Period for Filing Comments, MM Docket No. 84-1296
(released September 10, 1985). In the comments filed,
the parties have also challenged the FCC's definition
of effective competition. As of April 4, 1986, a draft
- 3 -
Commission decision was being circulated, but it was
unclear when a proposed decision would be placed on
the Commission's agenda.
At the same time, over forty parties are now
participating in an appeal of the rate regulations (and
other regulations) contained in the RSA. Th"t "Ri1al
is pending before the United States Court of App
for the District of Columbia Circuit. American Civil
.Liberties e� Union v. FCC, No. 85-1666 (D.C. Cir. h Afiledprill0,
May 3, 1985). The Court has granted,
1986, the FCC's motion to hold the case in abeyance,
pending the agency's disposition of the related matters
before it.
B. Regulation of Technical Standards.
Section 624 of the Cable Act permits franchising
authorities to regulate
the seo ices, facilitito the es and
e
equipment provided by P
consistent with the Cable Act` `In*Sectiont624(e)s the
FCC is authorized to eatab•• ..s- nt of cable systems
' relating to the facilities and equip in a franchise.
which a franchising authority may require
Under t1'.e aegis of Section 624(e), the FCC has
decided to retain its existing signal quality levels
as "firm guidelines" and to preempt any state or local
technical regulations exceeding the federal standards.
Report and Order In the Matter of Review of Technical
and operational Requirements of Part 7yCable Television,
Rik Docket 85-38, F.C.C. 85.581 (releazed December 17,
1985) (hereinafter "R&O on Technical Standarls").
The City of New York immediately filed a Petition
for Review of the Rho on Technical Standards-. r.
filed
of New York v FCC, Docket No. 85-1841 (D.0 Ci.
Dec. 26, 1985). The National League of Cities, the
U.S. Confere:.:e of Mayors, and several loca, governments
have joined -� that appeal.
The c:ties hope to persuade the Court of Appeals
that, among ther things, the FCC's action was
inconsistent with Sections 624(b) and 626
c)(1)(B)rants +
of the Cable Act. Section 624(b) p y
franchising +uthorities the right to emeab,"ssnd their
"raquiremen': for facilities and equipment is serioualy
capacity to esponsibly exercise that rig.•
impaired if hey are unable to establish r aningful
standards g erning how such fan lit.es a: equipment
4 -
are to Pe =rm. In addition, Section 626(c)(1)(B) of
the Cable ct specifically identifies "signal quality"
as one of the service characteristics to be evaluated
in connection with a request for renewal. If franchising
authoritie,, are limited to determining just whether
an operator satisfied the FCC's outmoded standards,
it would be a rather meaningless evaluation.
The petitioner's brief is to be filed on April 10,
1986. The appeal of the R&O on Technical Standards
will probably not be concluded for many months.
In the interim, many franchising authorities,
an well as NATOA itself, are considering filing a petition
with the FCC urging it to establish state-of-the-art
technical standards. The R&O on Technical Standards
hints that the FCC would entertain such a petition.
Many commentators believe that the cable industry would
not significantly oppose such an effort, in light of
the experience in New York City and other jurisdictions
which successfully negotiated state-of-the-art performance
standards in connection with the sward of cable
franchises. Indeed, after standards were established
1n New York City, the NCTA itself published a
comprehensive set of "recommended" standards for cable
systems which, with taw exceptions, should be acceptable
for most jurisdictions.
c. Must -carry ReQulremenfs
Last summer, the United States Court of Apper.le
for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the
FCC's long-standing rules requiring cable operators
to carry the signals of all local television stations
within their area (the "must -carry rules"), declaring
that the rules as than formulated violated the First
Amendment. Quincy Cable, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434
(D.C. Cir. 1985), Qitition for cert. filed sub nom_,
National Association of Broadcasters, et al. v. inc
Cable TV, Inc., No. 85-502 (filed Oct. 23, 1985).
The Court of Appeals did not hold that all must -
carry rules would necessarily violate the Firet Amendmant.
Thus, in response to petition@ submitted by the National
Association of Broadcasters (and others), as well as
to pressure from Congress, the FCC his adopted a Notice
of Inquiry and Notice of ProDoaed Rule Making, MM Docket
No. 85-349 (reseed November 18, 1985), seeking comments
and proposals regarding the mandatory carriage of
- 5 -
television broadcast signals.' Comments were filed
on January 29, 1986, and reply comment■ were filed on
March 21, 1986.
In their reply comments, the NAE, NCTIA and other
parties submitted a compromise proposal for a new set
of must -carry rules. The compromise would exclude cable
systems with 20 or fewer activated channels from any
mandatory carriage requirements. Systems with greater
channel capacity would be required to carry a limited
number of local television ■tati�ns which are located
within 5C miles (as measured from the principal cable
headend to the reference point of the station's city
of license) and which receive a 2% share and 5% net
weekly circulation in noncable homes by county.
Duplicated stations, translators, low power and other
passive signal repeaters would not have to be carried.
If more than the required number of local stations were
available, the operator would be permitted to select
the stations to be carried, so long as all stations
carried were transmitted in their entirety on the system's
lowest -priced tier.
The FCC has allowed interested parties until
April 25, 1986 to comment on this compromise proposal.
D. Equal Employment Opportunity
As required by Section 634(d) of the Cable Act,
the FCC has established a series of federal rules
regarding the equal employment opportunity obligations
of cable operators. Report and Order In the Mattai
of Amendment of Part 76 of the Comm�ion s Ru:ee to
or the cable communications Policy Act of 1984, MM Doc)
No. 85-61 (released September 25, 1985) (hereinafter
"EEO Order"). The rules address the following matters:
(a) publicity regarding an operator's EEO program;
(b) recruiting of minority and female applicants;
(c) evaluation, -f amplc}ment patterns in light
of the availability of minorities and women
In the area;
I In addition, the NAP and other parties have petitioned
the Supreme Court for a writ of cart;orari to review
the D.C. Circuit's decision.
A
- 6 -
(d) promotion of minority and fe.msls employsae;
(a) encouragement of minority and female
entrepensurs; and
(f) ongoing evaluations o1 EEO prog:ame.
these regulations should not significantly affect
local EEO efforts, since Section 634(1)(1) of the Cable
Act efpressly preserves the authority of states and
franchising authorities to establish or enforce consistent
EEO requirements; to establish or enforce requirements
regarding the use by ■ cable operator of minority and
local businesses; and to enforce any EEO :equirement
in a franchise in effect on or before the effective
date of the Cable Act, which was December 29, 1984.
Cities should, however, consult the EEO Order to fully
understand the new federal regulations.
State Regulation of Non-Cabl,4 Services
-- the Cox Cable/Commline Order
The Nebraska Public Service Commission (hereinafter
"NPSC") ordered Co ,mline of Omaha, Inc. (hereinafter
"Commline") to cease and desist providing "institutional"
high speed digital transmission services, including
video teleconferencing, electronic mail and high-speed
facsimile, until it obtained a certificate of public
convenience and necessity from the NPSC.
Cox Cable, which wholly owns Commiine, filed
s petition with the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling
that the Commission had preempted state and local
regulation of facilities located entirely within one
state end used to originate, distribute or terminate
interstate communications, Including facilities which
also distribute intrastate communications.
The FCC first found that Commline was not a common
carrier within the meaning of the Communications Art.
It then held that state regulation of facilities like
Commline's was preempted because of the effect such
regulation would have on interstate communications and
on federal law and policy. The FCC AictinyQisned this
result from the holding in National Ass'n cf Regulatory
Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir.
1976), saying that decision should only be cited for
the proposition that the FCC's decision to preempt
exceeded its juriadictiu4 under the ancillary to broadcast
- 7 -
standard. The FCC based its decision to preempt in
the Commlins matter not upon that standard, but upon
t1s expansive ancillary fedonrthaaitfecttstatarrequlatiote
wire communications and upon a effect
Memorandum
would have on various ^federal -Pi order. In the Matter
re
Cox ;,D, .,_,�., ---
September 5, 1965).
A petition for reconsideration of this Order
vac filed with the FCC and is eil�C t�dthaconsideration.
5tatee
The decision has also been app
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
III• FRRA CHISING ANDPMENTS FRANCHISECENF
FOACEMENT
A. The Preferred Communications Case
Last year, the Ninth Circuit held that the First
limitmaccessotobats the use of an auction
given region of acit}n*oprocess asiingle
cable operator, when the public utilities in that region
are physically capable of sccommodatinq more than one
cable system. City of Loe Angeles v. Preferred
Communications Inc., 754 F.2d 1396 19 Becauselthe)matter
cart. rg anted, l06 St Ct.enBosilEeo*'a dlsmlesaI for
■Vfailure to state a c.a,m,
of law, with all material allegations in the plaintift's
complaint accepted as true. Those allegations -- which
may prove difficult to sustain in the event of •
subsequent factual development in -- included
this case
claims that:
(a) there is no physical limitation on the number
of cable systems which can attach their
facilities to the existing poles;
(b) cable is not a natural economic monopoly,
and
(c) there is no legitimate gov*rns.entAl purpose �
for awarding only one cable franchise.
Despite the lack of a factual record, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to review o e�inMgslas and scar*$
Caciei^� Briefs for the City
of other cities and organizations supporting Los AngaLes
- 8 -
were filed in January 1986. The brief of Preferred
Communications, and parties supporting the Ninth Circuit's
decision, were filed in February 1986, The argue
before the Supreme Court have been scheduled for April 29,
1986. A decision may not be randered prior to the Fall.
B. The Florida Power Case
In Florida Power Corp. v. FCC, 772 F.2d 1531
(llth Clr. 1985), the Eleventh Circuit found that a
cable wire's occupation of space on a utility polo was
a "taking" of private property because the physical
attachment of the cable to the poles made the occupation
"permanent" and because the cable company's occupation
of the space at one-third the agreed -upon rates in prior
contracts transformed the company from an "invitee"
to an "unwanted quest." The court then held that the
determination of the just compensation due under the
Fifth Amendment for this "taking" was solely a judicial
function. Because the Pole Act provided for the FCC
to sat compensation rates, the Eleventh Circuit ruled
that the Pole Act was unconstitutional.
The Eleventh Circuit did not reach the question
of proper jurisdiction over pole rates by state agencies
charged with the responsibility of regulating the power
company as a public utility. In the sixteen states
and the District of Columbia which have exercised their
preemptive right to regulate in this area, the impact
of this decision will not be immediateiy felt. The
decision could, however, affect the FCC's authority
under the 1978 Pole Act to certify whether states are
in compliance with the Act's preconditions for preemption.
C. The Cox Cable New Orleans Case
in 1984, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana held that the City
of New Orleans was neither preempted from regulating
the number or nature of signals offered on a basic service
tier, nor from enforcing tarmn in the franchise agreement
requiring that specific offerings be provided on that
basic service tier. Cox Ca'uio 14-- Orleans inc. v
City of New Orleans, 94 F. Supp. 14 2 (F.D. La. 19841. s
That decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
But in December 1985, Cox Cable and the City of Now
Orleans settled the case and filed a joint motion to
vacate the district court docisicrwithout issuing
an opinion, District Judge Veronica Nicker granted that
motion on December 16, 1985.
- 9 -
The Housatonic Cable Vision Case
The state of Connecticut historically has requlated
cable television systems like public utilities through
Its Department of PuJlic Utility Control (hereinafter
"DPUC"). Cable operators are thus required to obtain
a certificate of public convenience and necessity from
the DPUC before constructing or operating a cable system.
The DPUC has statutory authority to issue just one
certificate for each geographical area and to regulate
cable operators on an ongoing basis. Its regulatory
authority had been used to establish or alter line
extension requirements.
Housatonic Cable Vision (hereinafter "HCV") filed
a proposed tariff with DPUC in October 1980 in which
it requested a modification of the Department's line
extension requirements. DPUC denied its request, and
HCV filed suit seeking to enjoin enforcement against
it of the line extension regulation and to obtain a
declaration that the regulation was preempted by the
Cable Act.
The United States District Court held tliat the
regulation was not preempted. The court first found
that Congress had not intended in the Cable Act to
displace all state activity in this area. It then
concluded that the obligations imposed by the regulation
were not substantively inconsistent with the Cable Act,
and that enforcement of this regulatlon, which was validly
imposed upon HCV prior to the effective date of the
Cable Act and was a past of the HCV franchise at the
time the Cable Act went into effect, was not procedurally
inconsistent with the Cable Act. Based on these findings,
it rnncluded that preemption had not been intended.
Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Department of Public
Utility Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985).
This decision has not been appealed.
The Tribune -United Cablo Case
Tribune -United Cable of Montgomery County
(hereinafter "TUC") recently filed suit fpr declaratory
and injunctive relief seeking to pisvent Montgomery
County, Maryland from enforcing th• penalty provisions
Of its existing franchise agreemant pending resolution
Of TUC's request for modification :f the agreement
- 10 -
pursuant to Section b[5 of the Cable Act.' Tribune -
United Cable of Montgomery County V. Montgomery County,
No. 85-2272(L) (D. Md. filed Nov. 13, 1985).
TUC claims that Section 624(c- of the Cable
leiAct
renders enforcement of requirements for the p_
on
of services, facilities, and equipment in effect on
the effective data of the Cable Act subject to the
modification provisions found in Section 625. Parmittilig
Montgomery County to enforce the penalty provisions
of the franchise agreement would therefore be inconsistent
with the federally -created Section 625 modification
procedure. Under Section 632 of the Cable Act,
franchising authorities can enforce provisions relating
to customer service requirements, constriction schedules,
and other construction -related requirements cf the
operators only to the extent not inconsistent with the
Act.
The Fourth Circuit directed the district court
to issue a preliminary injunction for a maximum period
of 120 days, ending on March10, 1986, barring Montgomery
County from enforcing the penalty provisions
the
franch-se =y "r"-'. pending Lesolutinn of TUC's
Section 625 request for modification of the agreement.
The court held that the federally pro`eciedagreemaght to
modification of commercially imp
nts
would mean very little if local franchising authorities
were able to burden it by enforcing massiVft penalties
di.ring the pendency of the modification proceedings.
Montgomery County has filed a petlti.on f,)r
rehearing en banc by the Fourth Circuit. In the meantime,
TUC and Montgomery County have agreed to extend the
deadline for the modification procedure for the third
time to April 30, 1986. Settlement negotiations are
continuing.
If the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of
Section 624(c) is upheld, it could severely affect the
enforceability of penalty provisions contained in
franchise agreements. A cable company could theoretically
avoid liability for breach simply by filing a conti:uoue
stream of Section 625 modification request a.
' Section 625 establishes standards governing the
circumstances under which a cable operator can obtain
relief from its existing sew:u , facil" y end •i 1' 'e'�
obligations. For a detailed discussion of Section. 625,
see Guide, Chapter III.I.
Me=
F. The Erie, Pennsylvania Case
Erie Telecommunications, Inc. (hereinafter "ETI"),
the cable franchisee for the City of Erie, suspended
payment of its quarterly franchise fee and public access
payments to the City because of a dispute over
compensation for prepaid franchise fse?. When the
franchise was awarded in late 1980, ETI prepaid
$2.7 million, with the understanding that it would reccver
this sum through annual deductions from its five percent
franchise fee as long as the City received tt least
$100,000 yearly from such fees.
Although the City has complied with this
arrang.ment, ETI claims that two developments necessitate
the suspension of payments: (1) since the system's
revenues have been lower than projected, the sum prepaid
has been recovered more slowly than expected; and (2) the
Cable Act now mandates that the "time value of money"
of such prepaid fees must be considered. The company
asserts that it suspended the access payments as well
as the franchise fee payments because it was not clear
that they were being used for access.
In response, the Erie City Council voted to fine
ETI $1,000 per day, retroactive to the date the first
payment was skipped, for violating the franchise by
suspending its franchise fee and access p^,irent s.
ETI t:ien filed suit seeking declarative and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The company
alleges that Erie's "scheme of regulation" violates
Ica First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; infringes
its state constitutional rights of free speech and free
press; violates 42 U.S.C. ! 1983; and violates the scheme
for the payment of franchise fees set forth in the Cable
Act. Erie Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Erie
No. CA BS-185 Eria (w.D. Pa. filed July 16, 1985).
Erie's answer denies ETI's allegations. It
contains a counterclaim that ETI made misrepresentations
to the City which caused it to win the franchise and
requests that ETI be ordered to pay all sums owing. "
•
Discovery is proceeding. As of mia-March 1986,
the case was expected to So to trial in the summer.
However, at that time, the court granted a motion by
ETI to disqualify the lawyers for the City, one because
he could have list,; ;&-id u - .. ...��• In
inw
- 12 -
the other to avoid the appearance of impropriety. New
counsel have been selected, but it is unclear now when
or whether the case will go to trial.
IV. CHALLENGES TO A FRANCHISING AUTHORITY'S ACTION
IN CONNECTION WITH OR PRIOR TO REN'nWAL REQUEST
A. The Jefferson City Cass
Since 1978, TCI Cablevislon, Inc. (hereinafter
"TCI") has been the sole cable operator in Jefferson
City, Missouri. In late 1980, the City issued a Request
for Proposals for Cable Television Service ("RFP"),
indicating that a new franchise would be awarded effective
April 1, 1981, when TCI's franchise was scheduled to
expire. Ultimately, however, the City Council voted
to grant TCI a new franchise.
Central Telecommunications, Inc. (hereinafter
"Central") had responded to the 1980 RFP. Alleging
that TCI illegally contacted and threatened the consultant
retained by the City, warned that it would cut off cable
service to the City, withheld franchise payments fr^m
the City, instituted sham litigation, met illegally
with City officials and threatened other bidders, Central
sued both the City and TCI. Central raised three claims:
(1) that a conspiracy existed between certain City
officials and TCI to restrain and monopolize trade;
(2) that actual ronopolization existed; and 0; that
tortious interference with its business expectancy had
occurred.
The United Stater District Court for the Western
District of Missouri upheld the jury verdict in fevor
of Central against TCI on all three claims and dismissed
TCI's motion for judgment notwithstanding the -verdict.
Central Telecommunicatiors v. TCI Cablevision, Inc.,
610 F. Supp. 891 (W.D.Mo. 1985).
The court found that TCI's allegedly wrongful
conduct vas not protected under the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine, which is based on the principle that civil
liability should not be imposed on persons for exercising
their First Amendment right to petition the government.
Nor was it protected by the First Amendment. The court
Indicated that the First Amendment rights of cable
operators were probably not coextensive with those of
the print media. Noting that th& l*w rnnrarn,no rn•
franchising process was unsettled, the court hald that
where -- as here -- a natural monopoly exists, franchising ..
- 13 -
authorities may conduct a coape.itivQ bid.'.:r.Q ?rocess
and award the franchise to a Singh bidder. But where
the market would support more than one system, then
■ city's efforts to artificially limit the number of
operators would constitute ■ prior restraint in violation
of the First Amendment.
This decision was appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
oral arguments were heard on March 10, 1985, but a
decision has not yet been issued.
B. Tele-Communications of KeY-West Case
Tele-Communications of Key -West, Inc. (hereinafter
"TCI") and its predecessor - in- interest provided cable
service to Homestead Air Force Base for 10 years. In
1983, the Air Force requested bids for cable service
from other operators. It awarded an exclusive service
contract to one of these companies and ordered TCI to
remove its cables and other equipment from the base's
cable right-of-way by December 31, 1963.
TCI filed suit, requesting a preliminary
in)unctlon; an order reyuitiuy tt,e A:: :o:ce t-� - l:ct
TCI to leave its cable equipment where it was; and a
declaratory judgment that enforcement of the Air Force
order would violate TCI's First and Fifth Amendment
rights as well as the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The District Court granted the Ai: Force's motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Me United States Court of Appeals for the Disci:ic.t
of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court had
erroneously dismissed TCI's First and Fifth Amendment
claims. leg -Communications Key West v. U.S., 757 F.2d
1330 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
The Court employed public forum analysis to reach
this result, but noted the confusion in the law concerning
the appropriate First Amendment standard and emphasized
that a different First Amendment analysis might be
preferable.
Because this case involved an appeal from a i
dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court did
not have to decide if the cable right-of-way in fact
constituted a public forum. TCI alleged in its complaint
that there were no reasons -- practicz! Cr !t7ml --
why two television companies could not simultaneously
- 14 -
use the right-of-way. This allepatlon, if true, would '
mean that TCI's First Amendment rights had been lafringed
even if the property was no: a public forum, for the
government may not place unreasonable restrictions on
speech even in nonforume. On property that is a public
forum, the government may restrict speech just to serve
sigrificant (if content neutral) or compelling (if
not content - neutral) interests. Perry Education
Assn v. Ferry Local Educators' Ass n, 461 U.S 17 (1983).
The Court also held that the district court had
erroneously dismissed TCI's Fifth Amendment claim, at
least insofar as its equal protection portion, if not
the takings clause component. The Court, however,
affirmed the dismissal of TCI's antitrust claim.
case. A petition for certiorari was not sought in this
C. The Nicovill• Florida Case
In February 1980, the City Council of Nicevllle,
Florida granted Warner Amex Cable Communications, Inc.
(hereinafter "Warner Amex") ■ 15-year franchise for '
the conatruction and operation of a cable television.
system.
Last October, the Council enacted an ordinance
authorizinq the City to construct and operate a competir9
cable system. Warner Amex filed suit asking for
injunctive and declaratory relief against the enforcement
And implementation of the ordinance, and seeking, damages
(including punitive damages), attorneys' fees and coats.
Warner Nsex Cable Communications Inc. v. city of
Nicevllle, No. PCA 95-4414 RV (N.D. Fla. filed Nov. 8,
1985).
Warner Amex alleges that the ordinance infringes
its First Amendment rights; is unconstitutionally
overbroad; violates due process; would violate the Cable
Act by permitting the City to exercise editorial control
over the content of serlicas provided over the municipal
system; and violates the Florida State Constitution
and Codes in that the cable system would not serve a
municipal purpose and is not a project for which the
City is authorized to issue revenue bonds.
The City has filed an answer, and discovery is
proceeding. The dates for argument have net been set.
D. The Morganton, North Carolina Case
In October 1966, the City of Morganton grsnted
a 20-year nonexclusive franchise for the construction
and operation of a cable system to Morganton TV Cable,
Inc. The system was transferred thereafter to Suburban
Cablevieion, Inc. and then in July 1974 to Madison
Cablevlsion, Inc. (hereinafter "Madison"), a wholly -
owned subsidiary of TCI.
As the franchise was due to expire in October
1986, Madison submitted a propcoal for renewal to the
City in December 1983 About that time, the City hired
a consultant to analyze its cable needs.
In September 1984, the City issued a Request
for Proposals in which it invited proposals for the
provision of cable service. Proposals were received
from Madison, from other cable cohpanies and from the
City itself. A public hearing on the proposals was
held in November 1984
In April 1985, the City Council tentatively
concluded that Madienn'e request fnr —owal al.nuld
be denied. The Council then negotiated with the Company
about purchasing the system. In September 1985, the
Council enacted an ordinance farma:ly denying Madison's
request for renewal, denying the propceols submitted
b} other companies, and declaring its intention to
establish and operate its ovn municipal system.
Madison then filed suit for declaratory and
injunctive relief; for judicial review of the denial
of its renewal request pursuant to Section 626 of the
Cable Act; and for damages (including punitive damages),
attorneys' fees and costs. Madison Cablevision, Inc. v.
City of Morganton, No. SH-C-86-5 (N.D.N.C. filed Jan. 6,
1986).
Madison alleges that the denial of its renewal
proposal infringes its First Amendment rights; violates
its equal protection rights; constitutes a taking of
property without due process of law; violates federal
and state antitrust laws; violates 42 U.S.C. f 1983;
constitutes tortious interference with the company's
contractual rights; and lastly, violates trio provisions
of the North Carclina Constitution and statutes
stipulating the purposes for which revenue bonds may
be issued and for which public funds from taxation may
be spent.
The company also seeks a declaration that renewal
of its franchise is governed by Section 626 of the Cable
Act end that the municipal purchase option in the
franchise is void and unenforceable as an unconstitutional
condition.
Morganton has filed an answer denying Madison's
allegations and has counterclaimed for injunctive and
monetary relief for state and federal antitrust
violations, for breach of contract and for treapasa.
On April 7, 1986, the City's motion for an cyder making
TCI a party defendant to the counterclaims was granted
by the court.
The City just filed a motion for swnmery ;udgment
in the came.
The Philippi, Nest Virginia Case
In March 1968, the City of Philippi granted a
25-year franchise to erect and operate a cable system
to Telepic, Inc. The franchise was later tranaferrea
to 8ettervision Systerr, and subsequently to
Cablentertainment of Nest Virginia (hereinafter
"Cablentertainment").
In March 1985, the City Council enacted an
ordinance providing for the development and operation
of a municipal cable avatem.
Cablentertainment then filed suit for declaratory
and injunct.ve relief, damages, attorneys' fees and
costs. Cablentertainment of Nest Vir inia v. City of
Philippi, No. 85-0147-E(K) (N.D.N.Va. filed Sept. 25,
1985).
The company claims that the ordinance violates
federal snd state antitrust law because the municipal
system is being constructed for the express purpose
of driving it out of bueirazz. C.iiientertainment asserts
that the City will accomplish this in two ways:
(1) through predatory pricing, by subsidizing its cable
operations with monopoly profits from its electric power
services; and (2) by using its monopoly control of
telephone poles and rights -of -way to force
Cablente�tainment out of business either directly by
forcing it off the poles or indirectly by imposing on
it the substantial cost of relocating cables and by
conferring on the City unfair advantages resulting from
- 17 -
the unorthodox and substandard way the municipal cable
will be permitted to be strung.
Cablentertainment also alleges that the City's
ordinance violate• its First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights by authorizing the City to use its govermaental
powers and authority to silence the company'r speech.
The City has filed an answer denying the company's
allegations and has counterclaimed for injunctive and
monetary relief against Cablentertalruaert for violations
of state and federal antitrust law; for breach of
contract; for tortious interference with actual and
prospective business relationships; and for unfair
competition.
Cablentertainment's reply denies all the
allegations contained in the City's counterclaim.
V. CONCLUSION
Both the Cable Act and recent developments ■t
the FCC and in the courts have restricted the ability
of franchising authorities to enforce obligations designed
to make cable operators serve the public interest.
Moreover, far from settling the rights and obligations
of franchising authorities and cable operators, the
passage of the Cable Act coualed with •iar.ious FCC actions
seems to have sparkod a Latigaticn fever within the
cable industry. Today, more than ever, it is apparent
that franchising authorities must keep themselves abreast
of these developments and carefully structu a their
franchise enforcement and other cable -related activities.
This is particularly true with respect to actions taken
prior to or in conjunction with franchise renewal.
NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
1//W1511ARITWITURAVENIIC fAIJUNIR:liIfI5.MINNF_SOT'A55II3 • 1e1716W8171
May 9, 1986
TO: City Managers
FROM; Bootsie Anderson
Administrator
RE: Resolutions I and 11 of Group W Transfer
Enclosed you rill find n Resolution all set for your review regarding the
trnns°.r of owne*ship of Group W Cable, Inc.
Due to rl.e time constraints, you will receive an additional letter of
explanation directly from Craig Cu'.rie's Office. Additlunally, you will
receive the se`ond transfer issue vlth resolution froe Tom Crril,hron'a
Office, yet today. It is very important that both resolutions be addressed
and voted on separately but at the same meeting. After all the voting is
over, please return the signed and validated resolutions to the Cable
Commission Office as Quickly as possible.
BA: kjz
Enclosure
A, V1, I 1.4 ..Jim Wr. I.n.w , A- IuY (....L. Krbv hM)eu Knin.... K-. St MMI. Ly
ppP p.LNH[EIM[ER WOLF► 'w'w'r" anmc1%"
f•OuSTER SHCFARD bw+v N* ,sM,,. am
o.„n+^"".kmW
100 1 cc am,
.m -rurRon
a Wsea�ar
n.e.a•m.sc
0 AEI n,M •,rwm, AVM 4-00",
Va"M,�nms
W, mmum.m
,!"tom. w, a,I
NELLY Rj, man aw M."
,er. aro
Rr. as
nJA� a�r.mwm
nw
{78D
ovals"
Saint Paul
May 1, 1986
North Suburban Cable Commission
2077 W. Larpenteur Avenue
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Re: Sale of Stock of Group M Cable,
Inc.
Dear Members of the Comad ssion:
we have previously advised you by letter dated April
28, 1986, regarding your considerations in approving, or
denying approval of, the proposed sale and transfer of all
of the capital stock of Group W Cable, Inc. by Westinghouse
Broadcasting and Cable, Inc. ("Westinghouse") to a group
of five purchasing shareholders ('Buyers"). We also feel
it appropriate, in light of recent developments, to further
advise you as follows:
Your consideration and evaluation of the proposed
transaction has been based upon representations
by the interested parties that any determinations
and any approvals with respect to that transaction
do not act as or imply any determinations concerning
or approval of any other subsequent transactions
involving sales or transfers of the control or assets
of Group W Cable, Inc., or of your cable communication
franchises or system.
Certain parties to such s,bsequent transactions
have expressed positions that indicate they may
not be bound by or agree to such separate and
independent consideration of the stock transfer
transaction apart from subsequent transactions.
1•o properly protect the Commission and its
Member -Cities from potential claims or legal
proceedings asserting that approval of the proposed
stock transfer transaction does constitute approval
of, or creates interests of other parties to,
subsequent transactions, we believe that your
recommendation and approval of the transfer
transaction should be conditioned upon receipt of
indemnity from Group W Cable, Inc. end Westinghouse
in the form set forth in the Agreement attached
hereto.
very truly yours,
OPPENHEIMER WOLFF FOSTER SHEPARD AND DONNELLY
By�
Craig Furrie
CC: cad
lom-re
INDEMNITY AGREa'MBNT
This Agreement, dated May _ , 1966, by and among
North Suburban Cable Commission, a joint powers governmental
body (the "Commission"), Group M Cable, Incorporated ('Group
N') and Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable Incorporated
("Westinghouse');
WITNESSETB
Whereas, Group W has requested that the Commission, and
each of its City -Members consisting of Arden Rills, Falcon
Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Moundsview, New Brighton,
North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota
(collectively the 'Cities') approve the sale and transfer
(the 'Transfer Transaction') of all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the capital stock of Group W from
Westinghouse to a group of five purchasing shareholders
icollec',ively the 'Buyers');
Whereas, the Commission and the Cities also have been '
requested tc approve one or more corporate dissolution or
asset transfer transactions ("Subsequent Transactions")
involving the transfer to North Central Cable Communications
Company, L.Y. t'North Central') of Group W Cable of the North
Suburbs, Inc., a subsidiary orporation of Group W and/or
ownershir, of the Cities' cable communication franchises (the
'Franchises"` and cable communication system (the 'System");
Whereas, a major consideration in the Commission's review
and evaluation of its approval or denial of the Transfer
Transaction has been and continues to be the clear and definite
Reparation and independent consideration of the Transfer
Transaction apart from any Subsequent Transactions for purposes
of assuring that (1) any approval of the Transfer Transaction
has no effect to approve, and does not indicate acceptance
or approval of any Subsequent Transaction, and (i) any
determinations or findings with respect to, or any approval
of, the Transfer Transaction will not be construed, interpreted
or viewed as consideration or consent to any Subsequent
Transaction, or have the effect of binding or *stopping the
Commission and the Cities in their review, *valuation and
approval or denial of any Subsequent Transaction;
Whereas, notwi0 standing written confirmations received
from Group W, the Buyers and North Central, representatives
of the Commission have received information and had discussions
with representatives of North Central indicating that such
separation and independent consideration cf the Transfer
Transaction and any Subsequent Transactions asy not be
recognized by or considered binding upon North Central in
the event that a Subsequent Transaction is not approved by
the Commission or the Cities; and
Whereas, the Commission is willing tc approve the Transfer
Transaction only upon the condition (in addition to any other
conditions set forth in the Commission's and Cities' approval
resolutions) that Group W and Westinghouse indemnify the
Commission and the Cities as set forth herein.
Therefore, Group W and Westinghouse horeby agree to
indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, each of the Cities,
and the Directors, Council Members, officers, employees, and
agents thereof, from any and all claims, damages, liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, arising or resulting
from any judicial or administrative action or other legal
or governmental proceeding brought by any Buyer, an assignee
of any Buyer's interests with respect to Group W, North Central
or any other proposed transferee or purchaser of the System
and the Franchises pursuant to a Subsequent Transaction, if
and to the extent such claim, damage, liability or cost or
expense relates to or is based in whole or in part upon
allegations or arguments to the effect that by apvLvvifig the
Transfer Transaction the Commission or the Cities have approved
or consented to any Subsequent Transaction, or are bound by
such approval in evaluating any Subsequent Transaction or
are estopped from independently considering any aspect or
evaluation criteria related to any Subsequent Transaction,
or that any party to a Subsequent Transaction has acquired
any beneficial or equitable interest in Group W Cable of the
North Suburbs, Inc., the Franchises or the System or has acted
detrimentally in reliance upon the approval of the Transfer
Transaction.
The Commission shall give or rause to be given, notice
to Group W and Westinghouse cf any legal or governmental action
or proceeding involving matters subject to the above described
indemnity arrangements, shall permit Group W or Westinghouse
to assume the defense thereof, and shall obtain the consent
of Group W and Westinghouse regarding any settlement of such
action or proceeding not involving a final determination of
such matters on their merits.
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
-2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto havOl caused this
Agreement SWHO be duly executed by their authorized
Indemnityrepresentatives,
" effective as of the day
officers and rep
year first above written.
NORTH SUBU?BAN CAME COMMISSION
By_--
Its_
GROUP W CABLE, INCORPORATED
I t s—�—�-
WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING AND
CABiE, INCORPORATED
By�-
:ts_--�
0
-3-
NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. l.MPTl?1r FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RBCONALNUED
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF
OWNBRSBIP AND CON"ROL OF GPOUP N ('ABLE, INC.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the North Suburban Cable Commission
hereby approve and adopt the following Firdings of Fact,
Conclusions and Recommendations:
INTRODGCTION
The North Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter
'Commission') is organizea pursuant to the terms of a Joint
and Cooperative Agreement for the Admiristration of a Cable
Television Franchise (hereinafte: 'Agreement'), as authorized
by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended. The Member
Cities of the Commission include Arden Hills, Falcon Heights,
Lauderdale, Little Canada, Moundsview, New Brighton, North
Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthor; and Shoreview, Minnesota
(hereinafter 'Member Cities').
This proceeding involves the Commibsion's review, on
behalf of the Member Cities, of a request by Group N Cable,
Inc. ('Group W') sod Group N Cable of the North Central
Suburbs, Inc. to approve the transfer of Group W to a group
of five purchasers, Century Southwest Cable Television, Inc.,
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Tel e-Communications,
Inc., American Television and Communications, Inc. and Daniels
i Associates, Inc. (the 'Buyers') pursuant to a Purchase
Agreement dated as of December 23, 1985.
Notice is hereby given that the Member Cities will auk@
the final determination of this matter. Further, notice
is hereby given that •arh }t�nber City, may at its own
discretion, accept or reject the Commission's recommendation
and that said recommendation has no legal effect unless
expressly adopted by the Member Cities as their final decision.
STATEMEN`f OF ISSUE
The purpose of this proceedina is to determine whether
the Member Cities of the Commission should approve or deny
the transfer of ownership and control of Group W to the Buyers.
Based upon all the proceedings herein, the CCmmleeiOn
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about February 10, 1986, the Commission and its
Member Cities received an official notice from Group
w by and o,i behalf of its wholly -owned subsidiary Group
w Cable of the North Central Suburbs, Inc., requesting
approval of a change in control and transfer of ownership
in Group W to a group of five Buyers (the 'stock transfer
transaction').
2. on February 25, 1986, the Commission sent to Group W
a Municipal Request for Information Regarding Req^eat
For Approval and Transfer for the purpose of inquiring
into the legal, technical, financial, an-t other
qualifications of the Buyers and their agents with respect
to control and operation of the Cities' cable franchises
-2-
(the 'Franchises') and system ithe *Systam'), as
authorized and required by state law and the iranchises.
3. The Commission gave notice slid held a public hearing
on April 3, 1986 for the purpose of providing the public
with an opportunity to comment on the transaction..
/. On April 3, 1986, the Commission reviewed and dtecussed
the information it had received from Group W, deterr.,ining
that additional information was required to properly
evaluate the stock transfer transaction. The Commission
determined it necessary to continua the public hearing
to May 1, 1986, with respect to the stock transfer
transaction because of a need for additional information
about the parties and the consequences to the System
upon completion of that transaction. The public hearing
was conducted and closed on May 1, 1986.
5. Such additional information has been received and
presented to the Commission by staff and counsel.
6. The Commission has reviewed necessary documentation
regarding each of th•! Buyers sufficient to conclude
that they are duly organized and authorized to own end
operate a cable system.
7. The Commission has reviewed the technical ability of
North Central Cable Communications Company, L.P. ("North
Central") which will be engaged by Group N as System
manager upon completion of the stock transfer transaction,
for the purpose of establishing its technical expertise
and experience in opera_ing and maintaining a cable
system. Since North Central is a new organization created
-3-
for the purpose of accomplishing the transaction, the
Commission inquired into the technical ability of its
managing principals.
S. The information provided indicates that Mr. Gustave
Hauser, Mr. John D. Evans, and Hauser Communications,
Inc. have extensive cable management capability and
experience. Mr. Hauser has been involved in cable
television and other electronic communications since
the early 1960's. Mr. Evans has 13 years of management
experience in the cable television industry, including
Arlington, Virginia, Columbus, Ohio, and Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota. Hauser Communications, as a manager of cable
systems, has experience in Arlington and Brooklyn. Center.
9. Upon completion of the transaction, System management
will be provided by North Central pursuant to a management
agreement with Group W. Group W, however, will remain
ultimately responsible to the Commission and Cities
for Drover management of the System. If North Central
failed to properly discharge such management
responsibilities, Group W would be liable for any harm
or loss incurred by Systen users or the Commission or
Cities, and would be able to replace North Central with
another manager to satisfy such management obligations.
10. The information provided to the Commission indicates
that North Central, through its principals, has cable
management capability and experience that may be
sufficient to satisfy the technical ability factor as
applied to the System. Group W remains legally
responsible for proper System management and will be
abie to monitor and replace North Centtal if such
management is not adequate. Based upon the review of
the information provided, the technical ability of the
Group W and Worth Central, together their with System
management arrangements end responsibilities, is
satisfactory.
11. The Commission has reviewed the financial capability
of Group W following the transaction for the purpose
of determining whether it has the financial resources
available or committed to meet Franchise commitments
to operate the System. The Commission engaged an
independent financial communications consultant to assist
in this analysis.
11. The assets of Group W remain intact at the conclusion
' of the stock transfer transaction, causing no change
from the financial situation which exists for Group
W prior to the closing of the transaction. The assets,
resources and economy of scale advantaces of the entire
Group W organization will he available to support current
System services and costs and to partially lessen any
service or cost adjustments that may become necessary
in the future.
13. Since Group W continues to exist and guarantee performance
of the Franchises, and in light of the considerable
financial resources available to Group W for System
support at the conclusion of the stock transfer
transaction, the Commission has determined that the
financial stability of Group W is satisfactory for System
purposes.
-3-
14. The Commission is only willing to recommend to lts Member
Cities approval of the transfer of control of Group
N to Buyers subject to the actual closing of the stock
sale in June, 1986.
15. The Commission has been advised by Group N that the
approval of stock transfer transaction to Buyers shall
i.n no way be interpreted as or asserted to be an approval
of the transfer of ownership and control and ultimate
transfer of the Franchises and Systems to North Central
or any other party.
PERTINENT FRANCHISE PROVISION
The standard of review in this matter is the relevant
portion of Article %II, Section 1 of Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance, which provides in part as follows:
A. This Franchise shall not to assigned or transferred,
either in whole or ir. part, or leasr_d, sublet or
mortgaged in -iny manner, not shall title thereto,
either legal or equitable or any right, interest
or property therein, pass to or vest in any person
without the prior written consent of City, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Further
Grantee shall not sell or transfer any stock or
ownership interest so as to create a new controlling
interest except with the consent of City, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The
transfers described in this paragraph shall, in
the sole discretion of City, be considered a sale
ff-10
' or transfer of Franchise within the :Weaning and
intent in the following paragraph.
Similarly, Minnesota Statutes Section 210.083, subdivision
4 provides:
Within 30 days after the public bearing, the
franchising authority shall approve or deny in writing
the sale or transfer request. The approval must
not be unreasonably withheld.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the North
Suburban Cable Commission makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. Tho Commission, on behalf of its Member Cities, gave
proper notice of the public hearing in this matter,
has fulfilled all relevant substantive and prce�edural
requirements of law or rules and has the authority tc
make a determination as to _ransaction and to recommend
that determination to its member cities.
2. The Buyers have met the legal and character
qualifications.
3. North central and Group W, through their management
arrangements, meet the technical qualifications.
4. Group W continues to have the financial qualifications
sufficient to own and operate the System.
-7-
r
S. Any of the foregoing Findings of Fast which eight be
properly termed Conclusions are hereby adopted as such.
THIS REPORT IS NOT AN ORDER AND NO AUTHORITY IS GRANTED
HEREIN. THE MEMBER CITIES OF THE COMMISSION MUST ISSUE
A FINAL DETERMINATION WHICH MAY ADOPT OR DIFFER FROM
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS.
Accordingly, the North Suburban Cable Commission hereby
makes to its Member Cities the following:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Member Cities by resolution approve the sale
by Westinghouse of all of the issued and outstandirg
shares of the capital stock of Group W Cable, Inc. and
the transfer of control of Group W Cable, Inc. to the
Buyers, subject to an actual closing of the stock transser
transaction in June, 1986, pursuant to the terms and
conditions currently understood by the Commission as
evidenced by the Lotice of Trjnsfer, and other '.nformation
and documents, provided to said Commission and its
Member Cities.
2. That the approval of the transfer of ownership and control
of Group W Cable, Inc. to the Buyers be deemed not to
include any approval, either express or implied, as
to any subsequent transfer of ownership or control of
Group W or Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc.
or transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise
Ordinances or the System to Nortb Central Cable
Communications, L.P., or to any other entity or
individual.
VJ
-8-
3
3. That the comm: ssi or. Is recommendation and acceptance
thereof by the Member Cities stall be null, void and
of no effect should Group W on or before May 7, 1986,
fail to provide indemnity to the Commission and Cities,
in the form as set forth in Exhibit 4 attached hereto,
with such modifications as may be approved by the
Commission's counsel, against any claims alleging or
arguing that the recommendaticn or approval of the stock
transfer transaction is also as, approval, either express
or implied, as to any subsequent transfer of ownership
or control of the Cable Communications Franchise
Ordinances or the System to Worth Central Cable
Communications, L.P., or to any other entity or
individual.
' 4. That this approval is specifically conditioned upon
payment in full prior to an actual closing of the stock
transfe• transaction in June, 1986, of all expenses
incurred by the Commission related to the Request for
Approval of Transfer dated February 4, 1986, including
those related expenses incurred prior to receipt thereof,
but incurred in preparation for the recaiot of the
Request for Approval.
The above listed resolution was moved by commission
Director weyandt and duly seconded
by Com,nission Director Foley
The following Commission Directors voted in the
affirmative:
-9-
The following Commission Directors voted Jr. the negative:
None
The abov. resolution was duly adopted this 1st day
of May 1986.
Steve Schmidt, Chairman
Alan Kaeding, Vice -Chairman
Ron Eggert, Secretary
A. Cale Lineberger, Treasurer
J
-10-
h
�
.arri
��::°Tit.
!�S[b:i�e•i..
• vr+
n..r w
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(612) 343-1298
O'CONNOR 6 HANNAN
A'TORNE(S AT LAW
3800 IDS CENTER
a0 SOUTH EIGHTH STPEET
MINNEAPOLI3. MINNESOTA 55402 2254
16121 341-3800
TELEX 29 0584
TELECOPIER 1e,21 343 1256
00 P•.rYl• Y .)htb
L9 Ngh.Mr .tY. Mr..pp t rt.l. .M.l
MEMORANDUM
r.bY .•
rNI1 :•A
n:
F
n• n-u. e..,..,sr. r.
TO: City Administrators, Cihy Managers and City Clerks
of the North Suburban Cable Commission.
FROM: Thomas D. Creighton, Legal Counsel
DATE: May 7, 1986
RE: Transfer of Ownership and Control of Group W Cable, Inc.
As you are aware, Group W Cable, Inc., by and through Group
W Cable of the t'orth Suburbs, Inc., requested the Cities' consent
to the transfer of ownership and control in Group W to a group
of five Buyers and the transfer of ownership and control and
ultimate transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise ordinance
to North Central .:able Comlmlunications, L.F. Croup w is obligated
to receive the Cities' approval for both transactions under
the Franchise Ordinance.
The North Suburban Cable Commission has undertaken an extensive
analysis of the legal, technical, and financial qualifications
of the transferee in both transactions. At its meeting on May 1,
1986, the Commission unanimously adopted a resolution recommending
to its member cities the approval of the transfer of ownership
of Group W Cable, Inc. to the group of five Buyers (Transaction
No. 1). Add`.tionally, at its meeting of MAy 7, 1986 the Commission
adopted a resolution recommending to its member cities the dellial
of the transfer to North Central Cable Communications, L.P.
on this second transfer (Transaction No)r
The complexity of the two transactions end the specific
analysis which was undertaken by the Commission, on behalf of
its member cities, cannot be fully described in this memorandum.
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAM'
City Administrators, City Managers and City Clerks
of the North Suburban Cable Commission
Page Two
May 7, 1986
Generally, the first transaction involves Westinghouse Broadcasting
and Cable, Inc., the parent company of Group W Cable, Inc.,
selling and transferring 100% of its stock in Group W Cable
to a group of five Buyers. Since Group W Cable of the North
Suburbs, Inc. is a wholly -owned subsidiary of Group W Cable,
the Buyers will indirectly own and control your cable system.
It is this first transaction to which the Commission is recommending
the Cities' approval. No Ordinance amendment is required at
this step.
The second transaction involves the specific transter of
Group W of the North Suburbs, Inc. tc North Central Cable Communications,
L.P. This transaction also requires the Cities' approval, however,
the Commission is recommending the Cities denial of this transaction.
No Ordinance amendment is required for this step.
I have included a copy of a memorandum which exPlains in
detail Transaction No. 1. This memorandum was presented to
the Commission and formed the basis for their recommendation
of approval of Transaction No. 1. I have also included the
Commission's Findings of Fact and Conclusions with respect to
their recommendation for denial of Transaction No. 2. I have
enclosed these documents for your information and for the information
of your Council members.
Mr C,irrie, under separate cover, has prepared a resolution
for your City Council which will approve Transaction No. 1 consistent
with the Commission's u.ianimous recommendation. Additionally,
I have prepared a resolution for your City Council which wili
disapprove Transaction No. 2. I would ask that you place these
matters on your next Council agenda. If you would like a representative
of the Commission to be present at your Council meeting, please
contact Bootsie Anderson, Cable Administrator, at 606-8172.
Additionally, if you should have any questions concerning these
transactions, you may contact either Ms. Anderson or myself.
Following the Council's adoption of the enclosed resolutions,
I would ask that you promptly return them to me at the above
address. Note: The Buyers have requested that the attached
Resolutions be certified according to your regular procedures
for such certification. Please return a signed copy of these
resolutions and the certifications to my office as soon as possible.
Thank yc.0 for your cooperation in this matter.
MJA:abg
Enclosures
RESU LLIION wV. nwfT
OF FACT, CONCLUT!_6NS, AND RECOMMENDED
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GROUP W CABLE,
INC. AND THE TRANSFER CF THE FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE TO NORTH CENTRAL CABLE COMMUNI-
CATIONS, L.P.
INTRODUCTION
The North Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter "Com-
mission") is organized pursuant to the terms of a Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for the Administration of a Cable
Television Franchise (hereinafter "Agreement"), as autho-
rized by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended. The
Member Cities of the Commission include Arden Hills, Falcon
Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New
Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony, and Shoreview,
Minnesota (hereinafter "Member Cities").
This proceeding involves the Commission's review, on
behalf of the Member Cities, of a request by Group W Cable,
Inc. and Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc. (herein-
after collectively "Group W") to approve the transfer of
ownership and control of Group W and transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance to North Central Cable
Communications, L.P. (hereinafter "North Central").
Notice is hereby given that the Member Cities will make
the final determination of this matter. Further, notice is
hereby giver that the Member Cities, may at their own dis-
cretion, accept or reject the Commission's recommendation
and that said recommendation has no legal effect unless ex-
pressly adopted by the Member Cities as their final deci-
sion.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether
the Member Cities of the Commission should consent to the
transfer of ownership and control of Group W and the trans-
fer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance (herein-
after "Franchise") to North Central.
Based upon all the Droceedings herein, the Commission
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On February 10, 1986, the Commission and its Member
Cities received an official notice from Group W Cable,
Inc., by and on behalf of its wholly -owned subsidiary
Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc., requesting two •
forms of approval:
a) Consent to a change in control and transfer of
ownership in Group W to a group of five Buyers
(transaction one); and
b) Consent to a change in ccntrol and transfer of
ownership in Group W and transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance to North
Central Cable Communications, L.P. (trans-
action two).
On February 25, 1986, the Commission sent to Group W and
North Central a Municipal Request for Information Re-
garding Request For Approval and Transfer for the pur-
pose of inquiring into the legal, technical, financial,
and other qualifications of North Central, as authorized
and required by state law and the Franchise.
3. The Commission requested the return of the Municipal
Request For Information from Group W and North Central
by March 11, 1986 so that it would have sufficient time
to review the information. North Central filed its
response to the Municipal Request For Information on
March 24, 1986. .
I. The Commission received on April 14, 15, and 17 a
request frcm Group W, North Central, and the Buyers,
respectively to bifurcate its consideration of the two
transactions. Group W, Ner:h Central, and the Buyers
stated in effect that consent to the first transaction
would in no way be construed or viewed as consideration
or consent to the second transaction
The Commission gave notice and held a public hearing on
April 3, 1986 for the purpose of providing the public
with an opportunity to comment on the two transactions.
On April 3, 1986 the Commission reviewed and discussed
the information it had received from Group W and North
Central. The Commission determined it necessary to
continue the public hearing with respect to transaction
two because of incomplete responses to requests for
information from North Central.
The proposed transaction two involves Daniels G Associ-
ates, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Daniels -Hauser Hold-
ing Company, a Colorado general partnership; North
Central Cable Communications L.P., a Minnesota limited
partnership; and Hauser Cable Communications, inc., a '
Delaware Corporation.
2
B. The Commission hae reviewed the necessary documentation
of each of the entities identified in Finding No. 7 to
conclude that each of the entities is duly organized and
authorized to own and operate a cable system.
9. The Commission has reviewed the character qualifications
of North Central and its principals and found them to be
satisfactory.
10. The Commission has reviewed tha technical ability of
North Central fnr the purpose of establishing its tech-
nical expertise and experience in operating and main-
taining a cable system. Since North Central is a new
organization created for the purpose of accomplishing
the transaction, the Commission inquired into the tech-
nical ability of its managing principals.
11. The information provided shows that Mr. Gustave Hauser,
Mr. John D. Evans, and Hauser Communications, Inc. have
extensive cable management experience. Mr. Hauser has
been involved in cable television and other electronic
communications since the early 1960's. Mr. Evans has 13
years of management experience in the cable television
industry, including Arlington, Virginia, Columbus, Ohio,
and Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Hauser Communications,
' as a manager of cable systems, has experience in
Arlington and Brooklyn Center.
12. The technical ability of the individuals and other en-
tities related to North Central in owning, operating,
and managing cable systems is satisfactory.
13. The Cummission has atte,optad to review the financial
capability of North Central for the purpose of dete-min-
ing whether it has the financial resources available o:
committed to not only acquire the cable system, but also
to meet the franchise commitments to operate the cable
system. The Commission engaged an independent financial
communications consultant to assist in this analvsis.
14. North Central has not provided sufficient information
regarding closing costs and working capital to determine
whether the amounts are reascrable or whether such funds
are available to Nertn Central and if available, are
adequate. North Central estimates $1 million for this
factor, but has failed to provide sufficient detailed
information of the specific amounts.
15. North Central has not documented their analysis or
assumptions to support a projected household growth of 2
percent in the franchise area. The Commission deter-
- 3 -
mines this projection is unreasonable in light of the
actual household growth experienced by some of the ,
Member Cities in 1984-85. Future expansion of the sys-
tem is therefore undercapitalized.
16. North Central has not provided its assumptions regarding
the percentage price increases for basic and pay ser-
vices. The Commission is unable to deterrrd ne the rea-
sonableness of this projection.
17. North Central has not provided sufficient detailed in-
formation at this time to enable the Commission to de-
termine the reasonableness of its operating expense
assumptions, including but not limited to repairs and
maintenance, system maintenance, postage and billing,
converter maintenance, vehicle operation, light, heat,
power, and pole rental.
18. North Central has not provided sufficient detailed in-
formation at this time to enable the Commission to de-
termine the reasonableness of its administrative expense
assumptions, including but not limited to telephone,
insurance, rent, legal fees, repairs and maintenance,
consulting services, and employee benefits.
19. North Central has net provided sufficient detailed in-
formation at this time to enable the Commission to de-
termine the reasonableness of its marketing expense
assumptions, including but not limited to telephone
marketing, data processing, contract sales, direct sales
override, direct nail promotions, mass media promotions,
and subscriber maintenance.
20. For all expenses, north Central has not documented its
assumpt-ons for gereral Inflation on a line -by-line
basis.
11. North Central has not provided sufficient detailed in-
formation at this time to enable the Commission to de-
termine the reasonableness of its capital expenditure
assumptions, including but not limited to office elec-
tronics, billing computer, telephone installation and
future construction.
22. The Commission has requested from North Central the
financial information and operational assumptions to
review the items listed above for the purpose of analyz-
ing its overall financial plan and financial ability.
However, despite the request, North Central has not
adequately provided the informatiun.
- 4 -
23. North Central has not provided supporting documentation
showing the terms and conditions of its financing avail-
able to meet the franchise requirements and operational
plans. For the purpose of reviewing its overall finan-
cial plan, confirmation of the terms and conditions of
financing are necessary. Moreover, North Central has
not provided supporting documentation of the terms and
conditions of its financing for the purpose of reviewing
its impact on the operational plans of the system.
24. The cablesystem has experienced short-term operating
expense shortfdlls in the recent preceding years. Nh" e
it is assumed by the Commission that any transferee of
the system wouid attempt to remediate such shortfalls,
North Central has failed to demonstrate that it could
financially withstand such short-term deficits.
25. The information which has been supplied by North Central
represents in large part financial information for six
cable systems in Minnesota. The Commission represents
one of those six systems. The Commission finds it
impossible to analyze the financial ability of North
Central relative to this system without system specific
financial information.
26. North Central has established as its financial goals a
minimum operating margin of 40%, subscriber penetrations
from 43% to 551, and a minimum rate of return on invest-
ment of 15%. North Central lids not supplied sufficient
financial informaticn and documentation for the Commis-
sion to determine whether its fiuenciai plans will
achieve the aforementioned goals. As a result of exist-
ing experience in the system, the Commission determines
these goalF and projections are unreasonable.
27. Absent sufficient financial information from North
Central, the Commission determines that the financial
ability of Nc:th Central to meet existing and future
obligations is inadequate. The Coaumissior, also notes
for the record that the existence of sufficient finan-
cial information would not in and of itself have led to
a finding of adequate financial ability. The existence
of such information would have served only as a basis
for the Commission to perform a complete financial
analysis which may or may not have resulted in a deter-
mination that North Central was financially able to
fulfill existing and future obligations.
28. The Commission determines the financial qualifications
of North Central are unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
5 -
' 4
Pertinent Franchise Provision
The standard of review in this matter is the relevant
portion of Article XII, Section 1 of Cab1P Communications
Franchise Ordinance, which provides in part as follows:
A. This Franchise shall not be assigned or trans-
ferred, either in whole or in part, or leased,
sublet or mortgaged in any manner, not shall
title thereto, either legal or equitable or
any right, interest or property therein, pass
to or vest in any person without the prior
written consent of City, which consent shall
not be unreasonably withheld. Further Grantee
shall not sell or transfer any stock or owner-
ship interest so as to create a new controll-
ing interest except with the consent of City,
which consent shall not be unreasonably with-
held. The transfers described in this para-
graph stall, in the sole discretion of City,
be considered a sale or transfer of Franchise
within the meaning and intent in the following
paragraph.
Similarly, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083, subdivi-
sion 4 provides: '
Within 30 days after the public hearing, the fran-
chising authority shall approve or deny in writing
the sale cc transfer request. The approval must
not be unreasonably withheld.
Eased upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the North
Suburban Cable Cummissiun makes the foilowiay:
rnNrr.nS T0NS
1. The Commission, on behalf its Member Cities, gave proper
notice of the public hearing in this matter, has ful-
filled all relevant substantive and procedural require-
ments of law or rules and has the authority to make a
determination as to Transaction No. 2 and to recommend
that determination to its Member cities.
2. North Central has met the leqal and character qualifica-
tions.
3. North Central has met the technical. qualifications.
E
- 6 -
1. North Central has not met the financial qualifications
nor has North Central demonstrated it has the financial
qualifications sufficient to own and operate the cible
system.
S. Any of the foregoing Findings of Fact which might be
properly termed Conclusions are hereby adopted as such.
THIS REPORT IS NOT AN ORDER AND NO AUTHORITY IS GRANTED
HEREIN. THE MEMBER CITIES OF THF. COMMISSION MUST ISSUE
A FINAL DETERMINATION WHICH MAY ADOPT OR DIFFER FROM THE
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION.
It is the recommendation of the North Suburban Cable
Commission to its Member Citieft that it adopt the following:
RESOLUTION
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED and based upon the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of the North Suburban Cable Commission
(attached hereto and made a part hereof) that the City
denies the request to transfer the ownership of and control
of Group W Cable of the North Suburbs, Inc. and transfer of
the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance to North
Central Cable Communications L.P.
The above listed Findings of Fact, Co..clusions and
recommended resolution was moved by Commission Director
Tarr..✓ s ki _ and duly seconded by Commission Director
The following Commission Directors vote.i in the affirma-
ti:•e:—ArnswtK 9e,wv
F�e1�S'eni Wlyo�n'f , �-0 �iy, V.
The following Commission Directors voted in the nega-
tive:
IV on e
- 7 -
The above resolution was duly adopted this 2Ny of
MA 1986.
,�r5( Ctiwi r
(710A
1
J
.j
z
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT'JR_
DATE: MAY 8, 1986
SUBJECT: TELEPHONE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Enclosed please find a letter from Executone Systems of
Saint Paul along with a copy of the proposed Maintenance
.Agreement on the City's telephone system commencing May 1,
1986 which is the time the City's one year warranty for Cie
equipment expired. Unfortunately, this item was not
included in the 1986 budget, however, Staff feels that it is
of such importance that the Council should authorize this
contract with the cost, $1,116.00, coming from the
Contingency Account.
The Staff feels that having a Maintenance, Agreement on the
phone system is important due to the fact that service calls
are charged at a rate of $57.00 per hour plus travel
expenses and material. In the past six months, the City has
averaged at least one service call Per month on the
equipment with each service call beinq in excess of $80.00
' with a high of $200, In other words, should we continue to
have service calls at this rate over the next year, even
though they were at a minimum charge of $75.00, we would be
spending $900 of the $1,116 cost for a maintenance
agreement.
Staff feels that due tc tie past history on repairs of this
system, the e5solute necessity for tr.e system to be well -
maintained, and the service call charges levied by Executone
that this Maintenance Agreement is a necessity.
RECOMMENDATION: itaff would recommend that Council
authorize Clerk-Acministratot to enter into a Maintenance
Agreement with Executone Systems of Saint Paul, Inc. in the
amount of $1,116 with the funds coming from the Contingency
Account.
DFP/mjs
4
Exec
Executone Systems of ST Paul. Inc.
Dear Executone Customer:
Your Executone telephone system has been installed for almost one
year now. This means that the one year warranty is about to expire. We
would like to take this opnnrhmity to offer you r y „a in teGdiiCe a-reeuCnt
for your system.
The Executone maintenance agreement not only provides your system
with quality Executone service, it also helps you in budgeting your operating
expenses for the next year. The Executone maintenance agreement extends the
warranty of your systen, for one year or five years; this includes all parts
and labor necessary in the maintenance of your system.
Your Executone telephone system is a vital link in your function,
actually the "Life -Line" of your organization; more important than any other
office equipment. It is important to keep this system in top operating
:ondition at all times. The bast way to accomplish this is with an Executone
maintendnce agreement.
We have attached an Executone ,raintenance agreement for yocr system.
This agreement outlines all the terms and conditions or the Executone maintenance
agreement. the maintenance agreement is payable quarterly and all that is
required is to sign the attached agreement, make a copy for yourself and return
the original to us with your payment for the first quarter.
Thank you for your business in the past and we look forward to
serving you in the future. If we can be of any further assistance with your
communication needs, please feel free to contact us.
Attachments
30 W Water Street
Sincerely,
EXEC TONE SYSTEMS OF 5T. PAUL, INC.
St Paul. MN 55107 (612) 292-0102
•
0
Rochester. MN Eou Cioxe. Wi Winona. MN Albert L!4 WA
(507) 282-7556 (715) 834.9310 (507) 454-2511 (507) 377.1300
Execuntone
Anintmanrr Agrermrnt
BETWEEN: CUSTOMER:
Executone Systems of City of Mounds View
St. Paul, inc. ?anl highway In
30 Nest Water Street Mounds View. Minnesota 55112
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 c/o Don Pauley
Sxecutone Systems of St. Paul, inc. agrees to furnish and Customer agrees
to accept maintenance agreement.
Subject to the following terms and conditions.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TERMS
1.1 'his agreement is effective from the commencei.ent date and shall
continue for a term of ore (1) year.
1.2 Executone Systems of St. Paul inc. may withdraw irdividual items)
from this agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice
from Executone if the equipment cannot be properly or economically
re,aircd to excessive wear or deterioration.
2. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Executone Systems of St. Paul, Inc. agrees to provide maintenance
services during the period specifieu in this agreement to maintain
the equipment in good operating condition.
2.2 Maintenance wi'.1 include replace^snt of parts.deemed necessary
by Executone. All parts will be furnished on an exchange basis
and will be standard parts. Repiac_ement parts remove) `-= t6e
system become the property of Executone Systems of it. Paul, inc.
3. PERIOD OF SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND CHARGES
3 1 The maintenance agreement charge entities the customer to maintenance
service during the period of 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluling holidays.
3.2 if the customer requests maintenance service to be performed out-
side of normal working hours, the service will be performed and
billed at Executone's current rates in effect at the time. After
hours calls are billed at time -and -a -half. Calls on holidays are
billed at double-time. The current labor rate Is $57 per hour.
4. ENEMPTIONS
4.1 Maintenance agreement is contingent upon proper use of all equipment
and does not cover equipment which has been modified or serviced
by other than Executone personnel.
4.2 Equipment that has been subject to misuse, abuse, vandalism, accident,
neglect, lightning damage or other acts of God are not covered.
Customer is responsible for obtaining business insurance for fire,
theft, lightning, vandalism, etc.
4.3 Maintenance service also does not include the relocation, changes
and/or additions to your Executone system.
5. MAINTENANCE CHARGE AND COMMENCEMENT DATE
S.i The cost of maintenance for your system is S 93.00 per mnnth,
payable quarterly. The annual cost id this maintenancc agreement
I! S 1116.00 Quarter..v payment. S 2'P.00
5.2 Commencement date of this agrees-nt is May 1, 1986.
ACCEPTANCE:
EXECUTONE SYSTEMS OF ST. PAUL, INC.
By
Executo�aT_presentative
Titl
Date
M
�cecutone
Anintenunre Agrerment
BET'.EEN: CUSTOMER:
Executone Systems of City of Mounds View
St. Paul, inc. 2401 Highway 10
30 West Water Street Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 c/o Don Pauley
Executone Systems of St. Paul, inc. agrees to furnish and Customer agrees
to accept maintenance agreement.
Subject to the following terms and conditions:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TERMS
1.1 This agreement is effective frum tie commencement date and shall
continue fcr a term of five (5) vears.
1.2 Executone Systems of St. Paul, inc. may withdraw individual item(,)
from this agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice
from Executone if the equipment cannot be properly or economically
repaired due to excessive wear or deterioration.
2. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Executone Systems of St. Paul, Inc. agrees to provide maintenance
services during the period specified in this agreement to maintain
the equipment in good operating condition.
2.2 Maintenance will include replacement of parts.deemed necessary
by Executone. All parts will be furnished on an exchange basis
and will be standard parts. Replacement parts removed from the
system become the orooerty of Executone Svstems of St. Paul, Inc.
I
3. PERIOD OF SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND CHARGES
3.1 The maintenance agreement charge entitles the customer to maintenance
service during the perioJ of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
3.2 If the customer requests maintenance service to be performed out-
side of normal working hours, the service will be perforated and
billed at Evecutone's current rates in effect at the time. After
hours calls are billed at time -and -a -half. Calls on holidays are
billed at double-time. The current labor rate 1s $57 per hour.
4. EXEMPiIONS
4.1 Maintenance agreement is contingent upon proper use of all equipment
And nnoc nor rnver equipment which has been modified or serviced
by other than Executone personnel.
4.2 Equipment that has been subject to misuse, abuse, vandalism, accident,
neglect, lightning damage or other acts of God are not covered.
Customer is responsible for obtaining business insurance for fire,
theft, lightning, vandalism, etc.
4.3 Maintenance service also does not include the relocation, changes i
and/or additions to your Executone system.
5. MAINTENANCE CHARGE AND COMMF.NCEN.ENT DATE
5.1 The cost of maintenance for your system is S 148.8U per month,
payable quarterly. The annual cost of this mainterance agreement
is S i785.60 Quarterly payment: S 446.40
5.2 Commencement date of this agreement is May 1, 1936.
ACCEPTANCE:
EXECUTONE SYSTEMS OF ST. PAUL, INC.
i
By
xecutone presentat ve
Title
Date
J-1> L,
Mr Mkj n,I MAYOR i CITi CiONCIL
FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Rrager (Ills—
DATE: May 6, !986
RE: INI'ERFUND LOAN FOR WARMING 110USF.S
During the presentation of the Auditor's 1985 Management Report
and Recommendations, at the May Sth Agenda Session, an interfund
loan for warming houses was discussed. This loan was made for an
unbudgeted 1982 purchase of three used portable classroom
buildings which were subsequently modified and installed as
warming houses in City parks. A copy of the motion approving the
purchase and the loan is attached for your re%iew.
The only objection that the Auditor's have had is that the motion
Approving the loan did not specify any terms for the loan (i.e.
interest and/or a repayment schedule). Each Management Report
and Recommendations written since 1982 has suggested that the
City take action to approve a payment schedule. At the May 5th
Agenda Session i suq'leeled that C, ncil approve a reEoluti^n
authorising a partial repayment ofV$10,000. If council wishes to
do so a proposed resolution is attached for your consideration.
While I was drafting that resolution I was thinking of other
issues affecting Parks 6 Recreation. I recalled that
Cnuncilmember Ouick augqPated during one of our recent goal
setting sessions that a Park Maintenance 6 improvement Plan be
developed similiar to the 1983 Water c Sewer S;•stem Maintenance
and Capital Improvements Program. I ther thought that the
Council has an opportunity now to provide :,ome funding for Park
Improvements on a one time basis. Two actions could be
undertaken:
1) Make the inan a gift or donstior by rana..11ing it and
considering the funds which were used purchase the portable
classrooms a permanent interfund transfer.
2) Transfer the $10,000 of the Recreation Activity Fund which
would have been used to partially repay the interfund loan to the
Park Improvement Fund. The City code specifies that any monies
in the Park Improvement Fund are to be used only for capital
improvements to City Parks. A proposed-e-olution undertaking
that action is attached for your consideration.
Staff requests Council direction as to how to proceed in this
matter: beq,n to repay the interfund loan and specify it's terms
or cancel the loan and make a permanent transfer to the Park
Improvement Fund.
DR/ds
Attachment
DATE APPROVED: 9/27/82
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MUUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
September 20, 1982
Mounds View City Hall
2401 ilwy. 10, Mounds View City Hall
--------------------------------------------------------- ------
The Mounds View City Council was called 1. CALL TO ORDER
to order at 7:07 p.m. on September 20,
1982 by Mayor McCarty.
Members resent: McCarty, Blanchard, Doty, 2. ROLL CALL
Fore un , Hodges
Others present: Clerk;Administrator Pauley,
Finance Director Brayer, and Director of
Public Works/Community Development Johnson.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley presented reports 3.
prepared by staff regarding the availability
of funds for the purchase of used portable
classroom buildings which could be converted
by the City into park shelter buildings and
other information relating to the purchase
price for these buildings, the cost of site
preparation for the installation of the
buildings, and the heating systems contained
in those Buildings. Staff also idvised the
Council that it w:s the opinion of City
Attorney Richard Meyers that the purchase of
these buildings did not come under the require-
ments of Minnesota Law reaaruing the letting
of bids for purchases exceeding $10,000.
:i,u Cuuucil discussed the advisability of
the purchase of these buildings, the present
problems the City is experiencing with vandalism
of municipal buildings, and the impacts this
purchase would have upon the status of the City's
Special Capital Projects Fund.
Motion/Second: Doty/Hodges to authorize the
purchase andinstallationof three park shelter
buildings not to exceed $24,000,with the funds
coming from the Special Capital Projects Fund,
and that the Recreation Activities Fund repay
the Special Capital Projects Fund from its year
end balances the amount expended by the Special
Capital Projects Fund for this item.
PURCHASE OF USED
CLASSROOM BUILDINGS
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION CANCELLING AN IN'fF,RFUND LOAN FOR THE, PURCHASE
AND INSTALLATION OF PARK SHFLPEP. BIJ!LDINGS AND AIITHORIZIMG A
TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND FROM THE
RECREATION ACTIVITY FUND
WHEREAS, the Council, by motion on September 20, 1982,
authorized an interfund loan from Lhe Special Capital Projects
Fund (now known as the Silver Fake Woods Improvement Project
Fund) to the Recreation Activity Fund for the purchase and
installation of Li,ree park,, shelter buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes the need and supports
further improvements to the City's Park System;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council that the
above referenced interfund loan is hereby cancelled and that
the funds transferred for the interfund loan are to be a
permanent transfer of funds to the Recreation Activity Fund
from the Silver Lake Woods Improvement Project Fund;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that a permanent
transfer of $10,000 from the Recreation Activity Fund to the
Park Improvement Fund is herehv authorized.
Adopted this day of
ATTES'r:
(SEAL)
yor
erk-Administrator
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOIA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE
RECREATION ACTIVITY FUND TO THE SILVER LAKF WOODS IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FUND FOR PARTIAL REPAYMENT OF AN INTERFUND LOAN
WHEREAS, the Council, Dy motion on September 20, 1982,
authorized an interfund loan from the Special Capital Projects
Fund (now known a� the Silver Lake Woods Improvement Project
Fund) tc the Recreation Activity Fund for the purchase and
installation of three park shelter buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Recreation Activity Fund now has sufficient
funds on hand to repay $10,000 of that loan;
NOW, THEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED by the Council that
$10,000 be transfered from the Recreation Activity Fund to the
Silver Lake Woods Improvement Project Fund as partial
repayment of the above referenced interfund loan.
Adopted this day of ,
ATTEST:
(SFAL)
Fiayu, _--_ -
Clerk -Administrator
J
A-4-'i .5
MEMO 117: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: May 15, 1986
SUBJECT: ESTIMATED STORM SEWER IMPROVF,MF.NT COST PER TYPICAL
HOUSE IN NORTH ARDAN AND ARDAN DRAINAGE BASINS
Per a request by Councilmemhers Hankner and Ouick, I have
prepared and placed on this Agenda an estimated cost for
improvements to the storm sewer system in the North Ardan and
Ardan drainage basins. Attached please find the cost estimate
dared May 6, 1986 and a map of the rlty indicating the storm
water drainage basins.
If you have any questions, please freel free to contact me.
SWT/bac
Attachments
ESTIMATED S'roRM SEWER IMPROVEMENT COST
NORTH ARLAN AND ARLAN DRAINAGE BASINS
MAY 6, 1986
Estimated Construction Cost $ 442,000.00
Legal and Administrative 6,630.00
Basic Engineering 42,200.00
inspection and Staking 22,100.00
Contingency 44,200.00
Bond Sale Costs 15,000.00
Interim Financing 13,260.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $ 585,190.00
USE $ 585,000.00
Assuming bonds are sold with a term of 15 years and the p wjrut
cost is assessed at 8.59 interest, the estimated annual
cost is as foiiows:
Estimated ancua'_ cost - (estimatel total cost) x lrapital
recovery factor) _ $585,000 x 0.12042
$70,445.70,'year
Estimated annual cos'_ _ $70,445.70/year
Estimated monthly cost = $5,870.48/month
F.Stimated drainage area - 340 acres 14,810,400 sq. ft.
Estimated monthly cost per sq. ft. - $0.000,3964/sq. ft.%munt)i
Estimated cost for typical home
20,000 sq. ft. x $0.000,3964/sq
4
100 ft. x 200 ft.
ft. _ $7.93/month
or $95.14/year
il�ii _ ^ � II IG •� - L i
•� _i- . �,� dII11F Lli'Itltri� Ir•I�I.L,,.i ---- --
gut
to
Sp
L /y Itllll
Lil;lllll d
.'. -•�!� � L { IY�-) 1�1�� L_ I 1 �-ten:'
f�•.. 117-OYMi /llr+; .l f� i i -� ..s'.7-'i E'_S',"d� 1
I���- -:;t�� �.I ..%1' '�• s; � .II��'4` Fit
Uri ' !
I '
• I i �� i YID r�J1 k , i� - 'r PA06A.I/y I.
�1I
' 1
r
CITY Of
1
*lld� via)
•�� RAMSEY COUNIY MINNESOTA '
-.. .I STORM WHTI'R
:'TRF_FT pRNINlILf dH51N5 I � t s,'
•cz, �4 Nrrr•.NPTX e'
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and Citv Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/C,mmunity ncvelopment
DATE: May Jr,, 1986
SUBJECT: M.S.A. PROJECT 1986
Bids were opened on the subject project on May 14, 1986. Six
contractors submitted bids.
Attached please find a copy of the bid abstract of the 3 low
bidders. The total bid for the 3 low bidders are as follows:
Midwest Asphalt $334,162.40
valley Paving 5343,821.75
4 e S Asphalt Company $347,971.75
Midwest Asphalt's Sid is not out of line and very close to the
Engineer's Estimate of $337,836.40 dated April 14, 1986
(attached).
Also attached is a cost estimate for the subject project dated
May 15, 1986. The cost estimate takes Midwest Asphalt's bid and
divides it into 2 catagories. The catagory labeled State Aid
Project (S.A.P.) 146-234-02 is the Municipal State Aid Project on
county Road M-2. The catagory labeled non -participating is the
city's 1986 Street Maintenance Project. Midwest Asphalt will
construct both projects under one contract.
The estimate total cost of the M.S.A. Project is $240,000.00.
The budget for this project is $240,000.00.
The estimated construction cost of the City's 1986 Street
Maintenance Project is $146,6-2.23 (Use $147,000.00). The budget
for this project is as follows:
Street Maintenance Account 1100-270-4705 $120,000.00
Spring Lake Park Account per Bruce Anderson $ 3,000.00
TOTAL 1986 BUDGET $123,000.00
The M.S.A. portion of the project is within the budget. The City
portion of the project is over budget by $24,000.00 ($147,000
minus $123,000). The City will not obtain better prices by
rebidding the project.
The City may reduce the amount of work to be done or allocate
additional funds. Each alternate is discussed below.
Alternate tl - Reduce the Amount of Work - Peconstruction of
' Pinewood Court was added to the project at the request of the
residents and City Council with the understanding that if the
project is overbudget, we would not reconstruct the court. By
not reconstructing Pinewood Court we save $2,000.00.
Clerk -Administrator and iity Coun.:il
Page Two
May 15, 1986 is
The City could not reconstruct Pinewood Court and not reconstruct
County Road 11-2 east of Montclair Avenue and save $ 7,000.00. If
this alternative is chosen, I recommend installing concrete curb
and gutter east of Montclair Avenue to eliminate soil erosion.
Alternate i2 - Allocate Additional Funds - Last year's Street
Maintenance Project was ,on,L,octeo underbudge[ by $31,000.00.
The City could allocate $24,000.00 from last year's savings. The
Silver Lake Woods fund would contribute the money.
Also attached please find the abstract of the 3 low bidders for
last year's project (City Project No. 85-1).
RbLUMMENDATION: I recommend awarding the rontract to Midwest
Asphalt contingent upon approval from the State of Minnesota and
from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
SWT/bar
Attachments
CITY OF MMWS VIEW, MINNESOTA
CITY PROACT SS-1
APRIL 15, 1985
VBSIRACT FOR T,gfF LOW RIOOERS
RITIWI, K RfIPJ)WAY< ALEXANDER CONST.
ITEM
ID, DESCRIPTION
JM11
TITY
r^
^LPIT
PRICE
y. ^•
TOTAL
_
LINIT
PRICk
TOTAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1,
_
2021.501 MOBIL IZAT1001
LOW
SlP 1
10.000.00
IG,000.00
21,735.00
21,755.00
8,500.00
e, MO. 00
2.
7104.501 RfMOVE EXISTING
15" RCP STORM
SEWER
L.F.
570
I 7,So
4,275.00
7,00
3,990,00
7.59
4,212.30
3.
21G4.501 REMOVE EXISTING
IB" RCP STORM
SEWER
L.F.
50
7.50
I
371.00
7, OC
350.00
7.39
369.501
M.
2104.501 REMOVE EXISTING
24^ RLP STORM
SEWER
i.F.
100
I 8.00
am. 00
7,50
750.00
7.90
790.00
5.
21 A. 509 REMOVE EXISTING
42" APRON
EACH
1
100.00
I00. 00
50.W
50.00
52. 75
52.75
6,
2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION
C.Y.
5,500
1.90
10,450.D0
3,0
18,975.00
3.64
20.020.00
7,
2105.535 SALVAGED lOP 5011
FRIAR :TOCVPILE
C.Y.
250
4.50
1,125.00
2.00
500. 00
2.00
SOO.00
6.
2111.501 TEST KILLING
R.S.
26.5
IO.DO
265.00
15.00
397.50
20.UU
530.00
9.
2112,501 SLOGRADE
PREPARATION
R.S.
26.5
80.00
2,120.00
80.00
2,120.00
7:.DO
I, 9B7. 50
10.
2211.501 AGONEGATE BASE
CLASS 5
TON
700
5.50
51850.00
5.95
4,165.00
8,15
5,915.00
I1.
2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
FOR MIXTURE
TON
171
205.00
35,815.00
200.00
35, ODO. DO
205.00
35,875.00
-2,
2331.514 BASE COLPSE MIX,
TON
3.850
10.35
39,84'.50
10.52
40,502.00
10.90
41,965,50
15.
234I,50A BITLPIMOUS MATERIAL
IS8
2C5,00
32.390.00
200.00
31, 600. 00
205.00
32,590.00
fpt MI X%QF
TON
I
2541. We WEARING COURSE MIX.
TON
2, 600 I
11.75
31), 550. DO
12.10
33,020.00
12.90
33,540.00
(14,
15.
2357. 502 81 TIN IN0.IS MATERIAL
FOR TACK COAT
GAL,
2.110 I
1.10
2.321.00
I.05
2.215.50
.95
2, OGA, 50
UM, >• S. SO
195, 370.00
PAGE SIFTOIAL
M.S.A. STREET PROJECT 1905
PAGE TWO OF THREE
II E S ASPHALT CO, BITUMI
�ITEM
UIIIT UNIT
. DESCRIPTION
UNIT OUANTITYI PRICE TOTAL PRIC
16. 2503. NI 12" RC PIPE SEWER
I
1
CLASSY
L.F.
160
27.00
5.520, 00
10.00 3,200.00
21.10 3, S'6.0
17. 2503. 541 IS- RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS r
L.F.
60
25.00
!, SOL. DO
23.50
1,410.00
24,80
I,488.0
18. 2505.5A1 21- RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS r
L.F.
260
50.00
0,400.00
27.50
7,700.00
29.00
8, 120. LY
19. 2503. 541 50^ RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS r
L.F.
180
55.00
91900. OD
50.00
9,000.00
52.75
9,495.0(
20. 2503. 54I Q+ RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS Y
L.F.
IL
90.00
11 pWU, V)
07,00
1,044.00
91.80
1,101,6C
21. 2506. 509 CONSTRUCT LATLM
BASINS, DESIGN K
EACH
3
660.00
1,980.00
650.00
1,950.00
685.75
2,057.25
22. 2506.," CONSTRUCT CATCH
BASINS, DESIGN Y
EACH
2
750.00
;, MO. 00
700.00
1,400.00
736.50
1,477.00
23. 2506.509 CONSTRUCT CATLH
I
BASINS, DESIGN Z
EACH
2 (
21,00.00
41600.00
2, 100.00
1,200,00
2,215.50
A,A31.00
24. 0506.602 RELOCATE CATCH
EACH
2 +
150. DO
I, 500.00
700.00
;,400.00
738.50
I,477,
BASIN
25. 2506.516 CASTINI, ASSEMBLIES
EACH
10
180.00
1,600.00I
I30.CD
I, 30U. 00
179.35
1,793.50
26. '506.522 ADJUST FR44E AND
R,NG CASTING
EACH
13 I
85.00
',955.001
100,00
2,300.00
110.00
2,530.00
21. 0504.602 ADJUST WATER
VALVE BO%
EACH
11
60.00
720,00
7C.00
840.00
80.00
%0.00
28. 2521.501 A^ CONCRETE WALK
S.F.
IA, 800
T,25 13,500.00
1.15
17.020.00
1.15
17,020,00
29. 2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK
S.F.
4.430
1.63
:,309,50
1.50
6,645.00
1.50
6,645.00
130. 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND
GUTTER DESIGN
B-618
L.F.
6,200
4.50 27,900.00
4.30 26,660.00
4,30 26, 660. 00
31, 2531. 501 CONCRETE CROSS CURB
AND GUTTER
L.F.
160
7.80 I,
148. DO'
7.50
1,200.00
7.50
1.200.00
N. 2535.501 BITIMINOUS CURB
L.F.
200
3.03
50
700.00
3.00
600.00
PAGE SUBTOTAL
94,012.50
07,969.00
-
91,431.35
,r
C057 LSTIMATE FOR M.S.A. PROAct 19115
CITY pROS&:t 85-1
PAui tHWF OF TIME
-_--_.-
... :.. SAP I46-229-04 NUR-PART161PATING TOTAL
I Tin L
ITin Of SIN IPT ION —IfiI1T 1 PM ICE af` TTL TOTAL QMNTI. --DIAL QWNTITI TOTAL
36. 250E.509 STORK SEVER C(XrWL 1
STRUCTURE EACH s tA000,0U 1 S _1�000 :d! 0 s _ Oy00 I f _1i oc
!7, 2101.502 CLEARING 6' D1A.
TO 10' OIA. TNFFS EACH f 40.00 2 f 180 :00 10 s 900.00 12 f ti080,00
38. 2101.5D7 CAILFAIW. 6- PIA,
10 t0' UTA. TREES EACH f 100.00
10 f 900.00 17 f 600.00
Sq. 2556, 5T75 NItUMIWUS MATEPIAI.
FOR SEAL COAT GAL, s.9t U f _0.00 35.700 S. 52y881.00 35.100 S 32,467.00
40. 2356.507 SEAL COAT A"FCAI,
(FA-21 TOM S_ I4,91 0 1 0.00 1,900 1 28,329.00 1.900 i 28,)29,00
AI, 2341,518 EXCAVATE F. AN) 1.
)- THICK PATCHING S.). YD. f6,50 J f 0.00 3,000 f 19,500.00 5.000 $ _19,500.00
42. 25O3,-AI I50 R.C. PIPE SfNER 0 1 0.00 10 1 150_;00
CLASS V L.F, f 25,0) 10 1 z5000
PAGE SUBTOTAL I_I'Ls.00 s 8I,716,00 S�46_._00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION _OST SIS7,3)U _SO f12._4,901,90 SXS7,7)2.00
COST ESTINSTE SV Cltr OF HAMS VIFV
PUBLIC 111WL DEPARTIENI
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MST SAP I46-229-N
ESTIMATED PRFLLMINMV ENGINEEAIM;
ESTIMATEO INY',,_tloh AND SIAAING
MNT I W..E7C V
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST SAP I46-229-04
OSE
123%330. 50
1 23.700.00
1 18.900.00
f 2Sy.00
1305,630,50
f50A,000.00
(IV(.wffIP13
COST ESTIMATE
M.S.A. STRFET PROJECT 19K,
r,,I;T OF MOUNDS VIEW. MINNESOTA
CITY PROTECT 56-2
APRIL 14, 1986
_ SAP I46-231-02
NON-'ARTICIPATING I TOTAL
ITEM UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRIf,E CTANTI'rI TOTAL
QUAMTIT7 TOTAL WANTITr TOTAL
I. 2021.501 MOBILIZATION IIM SW 10,UC0.00 0.6 y .00
0.41 4,000.00 1 s 10.000.DO
2.
2104.501 RFMOVE EXISTING
IS- CM STORM
SEWER
L.F.
3,
2105.501 COW" EXCAVATION
C.Y.
1,
2103.555 SALVAGFD T(T SOIL
FROM STILE
C.Y.
5.
2111.501 TEST ROLIING
R,<,
6.
7112.501 SUF7O7AOE
PREPARATION
R.S.
2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE
CLASS 5
TOM
S,
2331.504 BITIIMIN(A3S MATERIAL
FOR MIXTURE
TON
9.
2331.514 BASE COURSE MIX,
TON
10.
2311,50A BITWINOUS MATERIAL
FOR MIX .URf
TON
11.
2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIX,
TON
12.
2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
FOR TACT( COAT
GAL.
13.
2501.515 INSTALL IB" RC AT"
WITH TRASH GUAPD
EACH
14.
2503.541 IS" RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS V
L.F.
15.
2503.541 13-1/2" M 22' P,
ARCH PIPE SEWER
CLASS V
L.F.
S 1.50
3,5
s, 4,012.50
0
s 0.00
535
1
4,012.50
s 1.90
615W
S 11,970.00
3,400
S6,460.00
9,700
S
18,430.00
3 A,sn
MO
s 900_00
0
f 0.00
200
S
900.00
f 10.09
20.3E
203.00
:1.51
115.00
32
f
120.00
s 50.00
20.5$
1,610.GC
11.31
920.00
32
S
2,560.00
s 5.50
SOO
s 1 Uy50.00
0
3 0_00
300
E
1,650.00
S 105.00
153
s 3y5.OG
35
s 7,175.30
190
S SBA950.M
5 10.35
3 37C
s 34 .679_SO
20
S 7,452.00
4,090
E 42.31.50
S 205.00
53
$ 11,275.00
25
s 51125.00
SO
s
16,400
S 11.75
920
s 10,810.00
450
S 5,052.50
1,350
f
IS.SA i.30
s 1.10 1,100 S 1,216.00 250 S 275.00 1,350 S I.485.DC
1 72.00 7 $ 11_00 0 s 0_00 2 S 11,00
I 25.DO ISO s 4,500.00 0 s 0_00 ISO S 1,500,DO
1 30.00 39G 1 11,100.00
0 s 0.00 390 S 11 70700,00
PAGE SUBTOTAL S 51511,00 Sk,571,50 $169,145.50
COST ESTIMATE FOR M.S.A. PROJECT 1986
CITY PROJECT 66-2
PAGE TWO OF THREE
SAP I46-254 02 NON -PARTICIPATING TOTAL
_�-
ITEM I UNIT ANTI TY TOTAL
NC.
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE OUANTITT TOTAL WANTITr TOTAL W
16. 2501.515 INSTALL 15-1/2" • 12"
Rl, ARCH ArRGN WIT:,
,
f 55.00
0
S 0_00
1
S 55.00
TRASH GUARD
EACH
S
55_00
17.
2503.541 12- RC PIrE SEWER
A
S
0
S 0.00
6
II160,00
CLASS V
L.F,
S
20.00
�60y00
-
16.
25D6.509 CONSTPUCT CATCH
A
1 1,6AO,OG
0
f n_pp
A
S 2,640.00
BASINS, DESIGN K
EArH
S
666.00.
19.
/506.50; T C.•.T^'
i
f 750__00
U
1 0yw
3 7af1, 60
BASINS, DESIGN Y
EACH
1
150.00
f
IBO.OJ
5
S 900.00
O
S 0.00
5
S 900.00
20.
7506.5I6 CASTING ASSEMBLIES
EACH
21
,an6 a)7 AO.I+I$T FPAME AND
n
t 0_._DO
7
t 59f.00'
• RING CASTING
EACH
S
65.00
r
i ;i5.00
22.
O504.602 ADJUST WATER
t 2A0.00
0
f Oy00
A
S 240.00
VALVE BOX
EACH
S
60.U0
S
1.25
450
1 50
0
$ 0_00
450
f 562.50
23.
7521.501 A" C)IaE,E WALK
5.F.
_)62-
24,
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB ANO
A,SLNS
1 19.350.00
2,500
S10,350.00
6,600
f 79,100.00
GUTTER DESIGN (8616)
L.F.
f
4.50
'
25.
2531.501 CONCRETE CROSS CJIB
A20
f 3 276.00
1B0
f 1,A0A.;A
600
S A,600.00
AND GUTTER
L.F.
1-
7
f__
3_00
100
y 300,00
0
f OyDO
100
S MOD
26.
2555.501 BITUMINOUS CURB
L.F.
S
1.10
4,600
S 5.060.00
2.500
S 2,750,00
7,100
S 7,010.DO
27,
1515.505 SW
SO.+D•
20.
2105.525 BLACK DIRT FROM
5B0
S 7,280.00
220
S 1,320.00
600
f 3,600.
OFF SITE
CU.YO.
.t
6.000
29.
2556.505 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
S O.DO
37,300
1 33.9A3.00
37,500
S 33,9A3.
FOR SEAL COAT
GAL.
S
_ .91
0
30.
235A.507 SEAL COAT AGGREGATE
1 0_00
1,9A0
f 26.925.A0
1,9A0
S I8,925.A0
(FA-2)
TCH
1
14,91
0
31,
2341.518 EXCAVATE F. A1(1 I,
0
S 0_00
4,600
S 19%000
..
A600
,
S 29,9OC.-
3" THICK PATCHING
SO.'10.
S_
6.50
y v ,+6A.5'1 SIOA,597,10 SIA_A ,760,90
rAGF SIIRTOTAL -=- _
i.✓4COS
1riiA1
C.T EST; MATE FuR N. 1. A. PRUJELI IVM6
CITY PIW7JFCT 86-2
'F 7HRF[ M 116IFF
—" —
TEM
N0. DESCRIPTION --� UNIT
SAP N6-231-02 NON{'ART IC IPATING TOTAL
UNIT
-PRICF WAMTIT'. TOTAL 1 r QUANTITY TOTAL
IQUAN ITT TOTAL
32. 2531.501 CONCRETE MEDIAN L.F. 1
11,00 150 _1.6'0.00
0 S 0yy00
ISO S 11650.00
33. 05f5.601 REVISED FILL TRAFFIC
ACTUATED TRAFFIC
SIGNAL SYSTEM L.S. $17,000.00 1 S T7,000.00
0 1 0_00
1 S_17y000,00
34. EXCAVATE, F. AND 1. ?-
THICK INSULATION nVER
EXISTING WATERMAIN L.F. 1
15.00 0 S 0_00
280 $ 4,200.00
280 S 4,200.00
35. REMOVE EXISTING 6- DIA.
CIP WATERNAIN MITI F. AM 1.
6' DIA. CLASS 52 DIP WITH
RESTRAINFD JOINTS AND FITTINGS
7-1/2" BELOW PROPOSED STREET
ELEVATION
L.F. 1
18." 0 S O.oO
60 S 11080.00
60 S 1,080,00
PAGE SUBTUTAL
S 18,650.DO
S 5,280.00
S 23,930.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
1167,369.50
$1 0.116, 90
S337,836.10
COST r•-_i MNlt BY CITY OF FX)UM)5 MIEN
+PUBLIC WORKS CEPARTMF.NT
ESTIMATEO CONSTRUCTION COST SAP t12-231-02
6187,389.50
ESTIN.TED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
S 18,700.00
ESTIMATED INSPECTION AND STAKING
S 11.900.DO
CONTINGENCY
S 18,700.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST SAP 146-214-02
$239,609.50
USE
S210,000.00
M.S.A. STRrEt PRU)fCT 19A6
CITY nF MOIRUS 91TW. MINwsoA
!]IIY PMOIECT 86-7
MIT ,r 15d6
..------ _-------- __-------- - -------- ___._-. SAP IA6-77A-0-- -NON-PART ICIPAT IMG iOfAl
ITEM
II0. DFgCRIPTION _ UNIT 1_PRICE QIIANT 111 TOTAL QUANTITY TOTAL OUAMTit, tOTAI
1. 2021.501 MORILIZATION LISP S'M 8,500.00 'm 11-2,100.00 0.41 3,400.00 1 1 6.500.00
47. 2104.501 REMOVE EXISTING
IB• CMP STOFM
SEVER I.F. S 2.70 555 S f,AAi,50 0 S 0.00 SS5 S 1,444.50
3. 2105.501 COW" EXCAVAT Inn C.Y. S 1.75 E.W. S It,025.00 3,00 S 5,950.00 9,700 f 16,975.DO
A. 2105.535 SALVArFO TOP SOIL
FRUM STOMP-1E L.Y. $A.50 20C S 900.D0 0 f 0.00 200 S 900.00
5. 2111.501 TEST ROLLING R.S. S IO.00 70.53 205.00 11.51 115.00 32 $ 320.00
6. 2112.501 SURGRADE
PREPARATION R.S. S 65.00 20.4 1,532.50 11.51 747.50 32 S 2,000.00
7. 220.501 AGCAEGATF BASF.
CLASS 5 TIN $ 6_75 300 S 2.025.00 0 S 0.00 500 S 2,025.00
A. 2331.504 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
FUN MIX7LORE TOM S 150.UO 155 S 23.250.W 35 S 5,250.00 19U S 1W,500.00
9. 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIX, TON S_ I2_16 3.370 f AO,S79.20 720 S B 71 55.20 4,090 f 49,734.40
10. 234 1.50A BITWINOIS MATERIAL
FOR M,XIURE TOLL S 150.00 55 S 8,250.00 25 S 3,750.W BO S 1=,000.00
11. 234 1.50R WSARING COASL MIX. TOIL f 12.91 910 1 11,877.20 A50 S 5,SS1.30 !,350 S I7,426.50
12. 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
FOR TACK COAT GAL, S_ 1.20 1.100 S _L520.00 250 S 300.00 ',350 S 162� 0.00
15. 2501.515 INSTALL IB" RC APRON
WITH TRASH GUARD EACH f 510.00 2 S 1,C20.00 0 1 O.W 2 f 1,020.00
IA. 2503.541 TO- RC PIPE SEWER
CLASS V L.F. 1 26.65 ISO S 5,157.00 0 S 0.00 '60 S 5,157.00
015. 2503.541 13-1/2" A 22" RC
A" PIPE SEWER
CLASS V L.F. S 35_00 380 f_17i500_00 0 S 0_00 380 13,300_00
PAGE SUBTOTAL
S 127,105_40 t 33,619.00 _161,0,A.40
�jr,.,� .„fir•
COST ESTIMATE FOR M.S.A. PROIECI 1986
CITY PROJECT 86-2
PAGE 100 OF THREE
-----
-- __-___ --. SAP 146.234-02 NON-PARtICIPATING TOTAL
ITEM I I UNIT
10,II DWRIPTION UNIT I PRICE QIiANTITY�TOTAL OUAIJT ITT TOTAL OUANTI TY TOTAL
•16. 2S01,515 INSTALL 13-112- * 22"
RC ARCH APRON WITI'
TRASH GUARD EACH s 610.00 1 E 610.00 0 $ 0.00 1 f 610.00
*17. 2503.541 12- RC PIPE SEVER
CLASS Y L.F. E 43.DO 8 s 344,00 0 f 0.00 B s 344.00
9I8, 250A,509 CONSTPUCT CATCH
BASINS, DESIGN X EACH f 375_00 a 1 1,500.00 0 s 0.00 A s 11500.00
•19. 2506.509 CONSTRUCT CATCH
BASINS, DESIGN Y EACH f 425.00 1 s 425.GO 0 s U_lu I S 423.00
•20. 2506.516 CASTING ASSEUBu ES EACH s 215.00 5 f 1,075.00 0 f 0_00 5 f 1,075.00
21. 2506.512 ADJUST FRAPPE AND
RING CASTING EACH s 175.00 7 s 675.00 0 s 0.00 7 f 875.00
22. 0".602 ADJUST WATER
VALVE BOX EACH s_ 50.00 A f 700.00 0 1 0_00 A s TOT
10
23. 2521.501 A" CONCRETE WALK S.F, s I.48 450 1 666.00 0 s 0.00 450 s 666.00
241, 2551.501 COMRETE CUkB AND
GUTTER CESIGN 186161 L.F. S 4.50 4,307 s 19_350.00 2,300 110 350.00 6.6DO f 29,70C_00
25. 2531.501 CON(AETF CROSS CURB
AND GUTTER '_.F. s 7,93 4:0 f 3,359.OU ISO s 11431,0C 6EA S 4,770.00
26. 2535.501 8ITL0411"S CURB L.F. s MID 100 s 300.00 0 s 0_00 100 s 300.00
27. 2575.505 SOO SO.YD. f1_50 4,600 f 51980.00 2,500 S 3,250.00 7,100 s 9,230.00
28. 2105.525 BLACK DIRT FROM
OFF SITE CU.YD. .i 6.75 380 S 2,565.00 220 S 1,485.00 600 s 4,050.00
29. 2356.105 SITUXIMMS MATERIAL
FOR SEAL COAT GAL. f 0.96 0 f 0.00 31,300 6 32,076.00 37,500 s 32,078.00
30. 2356.507 SEAL COAT AGGREGATE
(FA-2) TON f_17.00 0 $ 0.00 1,940 S 32,960.00 1,940 S 3I,960.00
31. 2341.518 EXCAVATE F. AND 1.
3" THICK PATCHING SO.YD. S _ 5_20 0 S 0.00 4,600 s 23,920.00 4,600 S 23,9205,&
PAGE SUBTOTAL S_ 37,279.00 105,494.00 142,723.00
Ind f ,,, 'vfI'/
COST ESTIMATE FOR M.S.A. PROJFi7 1966
Llll 1'IP 11t Ll W-J
PAGE THREE UE THREE
_.__.___._..._.—.»_--------------
- __----»—»..--_. ___..—--------- --.--__- SAP 146-234-02 NON -PARTICIPATING TOTAL
ITEM I RRIIT...... — - —
N0. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL ODANTITY TOTAL 00AMTITI' TOTAL
-- -- - -- - �- --------L------ --L - -1-
52. 2531.501 COWC7M'TF MEO,AM L.F. 119.90 i50 2j365._00 0 S 0_00 150 1 2,385.00
33. 0%5.604 REVISFO FULL TPAFYIC
ACTUATED TRAFFIC
SIGNAL SYSTEM L.S. 2/,SOO.DG
34. EXCAVATE, F. AND I. 7-
THICK INSULATION OVER
EXISTING WATETRMAI9 L.F. t 7.25
55. REMOVE EFISTIING 6" DU.
CIP WATERMAIN AND F. AIEI 1,
6" DIA. CIASS 52 DIP WITH
RESTRAINED JOINTS AND FIITINGS
7-1/2• IIFLOW PROPOSED STREET
ELEVATION
L.F. f 35.00
PAGE SUBTOTAL
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST BEFORE
STORM SEINER ADJUSTMENT
STORM SEWER 4JUSIMENT 116,72A.A , 1100 - 7t%11
ESTIMATED CONSTRU^7I014 COST
I 1 21500.00 0 s 0_00 1 S 24, 500.00
0 1 0.00 280 s 1,450.00 280 s 1,450.00
t 0.00 60 1 2,100.00 60 1 _2,100_00
1 26 ,665.00 S 3,530.00 s 30,435.00
s191,299.40 5182,863.00 334,162.E0
- 3,009.23
1187,49C.17
LUST ESTIMATE BY CITY CF MOLLOS VIEW
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST SAP 146-234-02
£STIM13TE0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
ESTIMATED INSPECTION AND STAKING
CONY INGEIA:Y
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST SAP 146-234-02
USE
MI,S.A. PAYS T9.10 OF THE COST OF TIRSE ITEMS
3,809.25
1146,672.23 S334,162.40
S 187 ,tl0.00
s 16.700.00
s 14,900.00
t 18,700.00
1239,790.00
12E0,000.00
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
I. 2021.501 NMI I ZAT ION
2. 2104.501 REMDVF EX I STIAG
16" OW STORM
SEWER
3. 2105,501 000" EXCAVAT'ON
A. 2105.535 SALVAGEO TOP SOIL
FROM STOCKPILE
5, 2111.501 TEST ROLLING
6. 2112.501 SUBGRADE
PREPARAT-ON
+. 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE
CLASS 5
S. 2331.504 BITUMINOUS 7AATFR!AL
FOR MIXTURE
9. 235!.SI4 BASE LY1196F MIX,
I". 2341,50/ dITUMINOUS AIATERIAI
FOR MIXTURE
II. 2341.508 WEARING COURSE M,X.
12. 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
FOR TACK COAT
13. 2501.515 INSTALL IB' RC APRON
W/TRASH GUARD
IA. 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER
CUSS V
15. 2503.541 13-1/2- v 22" ALCW
PIPE SEWER -CLASS V
N.S.A. MIFFT PROJECT 1986
CITY OF MUNOS VIEW. NINIIESOIA
CITY PROJECT 06-2
MAY IA, 1986
ABSTRACT FOR THREE LOW BIOUERS
M10WFSF ASPHALT CO. VALLEY PAVING N 6 S ASPHALT
poT KkMTI TT
LINT
PRICE TOTAL
pJIT
PRICE _ TOTAL
UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
LUMP
1
8. 500.Oc
8, 500.Oo
6,600.00
6.800.0C
10,000.00
10,000.00
s;rL
L.P.
535
1.70
I,944.50
2.75
1,471.25
2.65
1,417.75
C.Y.
9,700
I 1.15
16,975.00
2.85
27,645.00
2.00
19,400.00
C.T.
200
4.50
9%.00
3.00
600.00
4.50
900.D0
R.S.
32
10.00.
5217.00
10.00
32n.00
13.00
416.00
R.S.
32
65.001
1
2,080.00
105.00
31360.00
160.00
51120.00
TON
500
6.75
2,025.00
7.00
2,100.00
6.00
1,000.00
1
TON
I 190
I50.00
26,%0.00
165.00
31.350.00
165.00
31,350.00
Tlw
I 4,0"
12.15
49,734.40
10.10
A1, 5O9.00
9.20
3/,626-%
T(w I
BU
150.00
12,000.00
165.00
13.200.00I
165.00
13,100.00
TON
1,350
12.91
17,4:8.50
12.25
16,537.50
10.00
13.500.00
;AL.
1135C
1.20
1,620.00
1.15
1, 552.50
1.00
11350.00
'ACH
2
510.00
11020.00
485.00
970.00
500.00
1,000.00
F.
ISO
28.65
5,157.00
29.00
5,220.00
28.00
51040.00
.F.
380
35.00
13,500.00
35.00
13,500.00
34.00
Ii,920.00
PACE SUBTOTAL S 161,004.40 1 165,735.25 1 ISS,OA L15
N.S.A. STREET PROJECT 1986
PAGE
100 OF TWEE
I TEN
N0.
------DESOIIVEION ------UNIT
IT
16.
2501.575 INSTALL IS-122' • 22•
RC wtCM AMROH WITH
TRASH iAJAPO
EAJx
1
17.
2503,541 12• RC PIPE SEVER
CLASS V
L.F.
8
16.
2506.509 CONSTRUCT r'ATCH
BASINS, Or,-GN K
EACH
A
19.
2500;.509 CONSTRUCT CAT01
BASINS, DESIGN Y
EA04
1
20.
2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES
EACH
5
21.
2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND
RING CASTING
EACH
7
22.
0504.602 ADJUST HATER
VALVE BOX
EACH
A
23.
2521.501 A" CONCRETE BALK
S.F.
450
24.
2551.501 CONCRETE CURB AND
GUTTER DESIGN
B-618
L.E.
6,600
2'i.
2531. bT CONCRETE CROSS :UIIB
AND 'UTTER
L.R.
600
26.
2535."1 BITUMINOUS JFIP
L.E.
100
27.
2575.50 SM
SO.7J.
7,I(,0
28.
1105.525 BLACK DIRT MHON
OFF SITE
CU.YD.I
600
29.
BITUMINOUS
2356.5115 MATERIAL
FOP SEAL COAT
GAL.
I37,30ri
30.
2556.507 SEAL COAT AGGREGATE
IFA-2)
TON
1,940
31.
2341.518 EXCAVATE AND F.
A7D 1. 3" THICK
PATCONG
SD.YD'1
A,00 6
32,
2531.501 CONCRETE MEDIAN
L.E.
150
1. 0A.1r: H A S ASPINLT
UNIT
PRIG
6'O.UO
-_-_T-UNIT
TOTAL
61C.00
PRICE
TOTAL
OMIT
PRICE
- TOTAL
60C.00
60U.00
600.00
600.00
43.00
I
344.00
45.00
360.00
42.00
336.00
375.00
1. SOO.00
400,00
11600.00
560.00
1,440.00
425.00
425.00
450.00
450.00
410.00
410.00
215.00I
11075.00
210.00
1.050.00
220.00
I1100.00
125.001
875.00
115.00
805.00
100.00
700.00
50.00
200.00
95.00
360.00
75.00
300.00
1.48
666.00
1.55
697.50
1.50
675.00
4150
29,700.00
4.43
29,255.00
5.90
38,940.00
7.951
4.77C.00
8.10
41860.00
6.50
3.900.00
5.00
300.00
3.40
340.170
2.501
250.00
1.30
9,250.00
1,30
9, 230.DO
1.05
7,455.00
6.75
4,050.00
6.75
4,05C.00
6.00
3,600.00
0.86
32,078.00
0.84
31,332.00
0.82
30,586.DO
17.00
32,980.00
16.60
32,204.00
16.70I
32,398.00
5.20
I3,920.00
6.75
31,050.00
9.00
4,400.00
15.90
2, M5.00
16.00
2.400.00
16.00
2.400-D
PAGE SUBTOTAL 145,106.00 150,646.50
166,490.00
M.S.A. STREET PROJECT 1986
PAGE TWEE �F THREE
MIDLIPST AS A17 m_ KAIIF• PAVING M A S At 17
A
MD. DESCRIPTION UNIT QLANTI IT
I UNIT -_
PRICE TOTAL
- TWIT
PRICE TOTAL
INIIT
PRICE TOTAL
_
33. OMS.604 REVISED FULL TRAFFIC
ACTUATED TRAFFIC
S14/1AL S7STEM L.S.
I
24,SM.00
24,500.00
24,000.00
24,000.00
23,000.00
23,000.00
34. EXCAVATE, F. AND 1, 7'
THICK INSULATION OVER
EXISTING WAfERNLAIN L.F.
200
7.2%
7.DC
7.D0
1,400.0C
11400,00
I,400.00
35. REMOVE EXISTING 6• UTA.
CIP WATERMAIN AND F. AND
1. 6- 0!A. CLASS 52 0!P
WATETMAIN M/RESTRAINED
JOINTS AND FITTINGS 7-I/"
BELOW PROPOSED STREET
ELEVATION L.F.
60 I
I
35.00
34.00
34.00
2,040.DO
2,040.00
2,040.00
PAGE SLNTOTAL
TOTAL BID CITY PROJECT N0. 86-2
28,050.00
S 33A,'62.40
27,440.00
S 343.821.75
26,AAO.M
S 347,971.75
:l,G 11 N.-- 7
MFHu Tu: Clerk -Administrator and City Council y-
FROM : Director of Public Works/Community Developmen t /
DATE: May 15, 1986
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SETTING POLICY FOR ASSESSING CORNER
LOTS THAT ARE SUBDIVIDED
As you may recall, the City's auditor recommended Lhat the City
adopt a resolution stating how we assess corner lots that are
subdivided. The attached resolution puts into writing the
procedure that staff uses to assess corner lots that ace
subdivided.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend appro0 n.q this resolution.
SWT/bac
DRAFT
RESOLUTION 140. AAA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COONTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION SETTING POLICY FOR ASSESSING CORNER LOTS
WHEREAS, some corner lots :n the City can be subdivided;
and
WHEREAS, existing assessments on corner lots have been
based on the length of the .Ahortesr. Int line; and
WHEREAS, if a corner lot is subdivided, the new lot will
have access to utilities without having paid for them;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that if a corner lot is
subdivided, the new lot shall pay an assessment for utilities
prior to approval of the subdivisicr.;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assessment shall be the
product of the new lot's shortest length times the unit prices
used to assess the original lot when the utilities were
installed.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this eay of , 1986.
Mayor
Clerk-AdminIstrator
1
4)
�tln� ►r
APP�-t� D
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RA.MSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 28, 1986
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City rouncil wes called to order by 1. Call to Order
Mayor Linke at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 28, 1986.
The Pledge of Allegiance was saia. 2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Hankner, Blanchard, 3. Roll Call
Quick, Haake and Mayor Linke.
ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Karney, Clerk/Administrator
Pauley anJ—Public works/Community Development Di.ector
Thatcher.
' Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to approve the April 4. Approval of
14, 1986 m tes as presented. Minutes:
April 14, 1986
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pa::ley read a proclamation from 5. Residents
t`e City of M-v�'s ,iew supportina buddy poppy sales Rccucsts and
Inv Comments .`rum the
rioor
Mayor Linke presented the proclamation to Lorna Holm
of the VFW, and she preserted Mayor Links wit: buddy
poppies to promote their sales.
Councilmember Haake questioned whether anything had 6. Approval of
been resolved yet on the insurance coverage, and Consent Agenda
whether Item B should be removed.
Clerk/Admir.istratur Pauiey reported there are more
than adequate funds to cover the overage, and that
the issue would be discussed further during the
meeting.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve the
'=onsent agenda, as presented, and waive tha reading
if the resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council April 28, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Two
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Linke closed ttc regular meeting and opened the 7. Public heari I
public hearing at 7:05 PM. Stanley Fishl,
Addition
Councilmember Quick advised that he and his wife have
put earnest money down on a lot in this proposed
development.
Robert ;mitt., the attorney for the applicant, reviewed
their proposal to develop this area into 9 lots. lie
stated they are requesting the park dedication fee be
waived, as they will be donating a portion of land to
the City. He added t1,ey have purchase agreements on
8 of the 9 lets, and they would like to move as
quickly as possible.
Director Thatcher reported the Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal for the wetland redelinea-
tion and they have recommended it be approved, as the
actual wetland is smaller than what is shown on the
wetland map. They also recommend approval of the
wetland aiteration permit, as tha area is presently
1.1 acres in size, and they would be filling
approximately .04 acres. Di.rectoi Thatcher also
advised that Steff recommends they be given credit
for the park dedication fee , which is allowable '
by code.
Mayor Linke stated he would like the Park Board to
review this request, and he noted they would be
meeting soon.
Councilmember Haake stated ?he also would like the
Park Board to reeview the request.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:17 PM.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked that the insurance 8. Insurance
renewals be reviewed at this time, as they hod Renewals
inadvertently been left off the agenda.
Finance Director Brager reported the City is facing
a 62.5% increase in insurance premiums over the
past year, but they had budgeted a large increase
in anticipation of this, so they will actually be
only $450 over budget.
Brian Colway, of Corporate Risk Managers, Inc.
reviewed the proposals received and the process
that was followed in soliciting bids for the City's
insurance coverage. He advised the Council to 1*4d
secure additional public official coverage, and
reviewed the payment options that were available
on the proposals received.
Mounds View City Council April 28, 1986
Regular Meetiny Page Three
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C-lerk/AdministraLor Pauley advised he had discussed the
issue of umbrella coverage with the City Attorney, and
it was felt they needed the additional public official
coverage, to include the Police Department.
Motion/Second: Haake/Quack to accept the recommendation
o —Corporate Managers, Inc. as presented tonight,
with the additional policy extension coverage, to be
in effect from May 1, 1986, as referred to in Mr. Colway's
memo to the Council dated April 28, 1986.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to have the first 9• 1st Reading of
rea i�`ng—_oT_0rdinance No. 407, amending the Municipal Ord. Nc. 407
Code of the City of Mounds View oy amending Chapter
48 entitled, "Wetland Zoning Ordinance", and waive
the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve Reso- 10. Consideration
'lutio— n No. 2604 regarding Planning Case No. 186-86, of Resolution
for Marcella Rybak, for the Stanley Fisher Addition No. 2004
Major Subdivision, at Groveland Road and Ardan
Avenue, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmembar Haake stated she wanted to make sure
the park dedication issue is resolved, as it is
not covered in the resolution.
Mayor Linke replied it would go to the Park Board
for their action.
Jerry Skelly, of the Cable Commission, reviewed
the progress cable tv has made since it was first
proposed. He added he would like to see Mounds
View become more active in programming and go out
and seek volunteers in the community who would
participate.
Bootsie Anderson, administrator with the cable tv-
program, reviewed what was know,. of the upcoming
sale of Troup W and how it would affect Mounds
View and other surrounding communities. She
stated they nave been assured it will be "business
as usual" with the sale. She advised the Council
of what the City should be concerned with, and
what their options are. Ms. Anderson stated
she would keep the City appraised of what is occuring.
Motion Carried
11. Discussion of
Future of Cable
TV Franchise
Mounds View City Council April 28, 1906
Regular Meetiny Page Four
------------------------------- ------
Councilmember Haake stated she woulu like to pursue
having the Council meetings broadcast live.
Director Thatcher recorraiended chic application be 12. Consideration
tabled until the issue of ownership of the property of Application
by Rosewood
and the right to build is resolved.
Corporation
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchare to table this item
until the issue of ownership of the property and
the right to build is resolved.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hanknerihaake to authorize the 13. Consideration.
Police Department to purchase a Motorola Syntorx of Staff Memo
radio from Motorola Inc. in the amount of Regarding Pur-
chase of Mobile
$1,379.55. Radio
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the existing
radio would most likely be put into one of the
unimarhed cars.
Park Director Anderson requested Council's authori- 14. Consiueration
zation to hira Mr. Pete Rechtziqel as the Acquatics of staff Memo
Supervisor, as a shared position between the cities Regarding Firing
of Mounds View and New Brighton. of Aquatic:,
Supervisor
Motion/Second: H3ake/Quick to authorize the hiring
of Pete Rechtziqel at 519,000 per year, to be shared
on a 50 percent basis with the City of New Brighton
as per the approved joint powers agreement.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Hankner advised Mr. Anderson of the
condition or .,r^enfield Park, which had experienced
a great deal of flooding with the recent rains.
She stated also that she had observed youngsters
riding their motor bikes and tearing up the sod,
and also jumping off the bridge and pushing one
another.
Director Thatcher explained the Public Works depart-
ment had just unclogged the inlet for the area, which
has hel_Ded considerably in getting the water to run
off.
Mounds View City Council April 28, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Five
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Director Anderson explained that Ramsey County
Watershed District is responsible for cleaning the
ditch, which they have not dz)ne.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated this has been an
on -going problem and they have not cleaned the ditch
in quite some time.
Attorney Karney advised the City send them another
letter, asking that they clean the ditch and keep it
clean, as the c:.tty could be held liable for an
injury, if they know there is a problem.
Motion./Second: flankner/flaake to have the City send a
letter to Rice Creek Watershed District as soon as
possible, requesting they clean up the ditch.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Councilmember Haake stated she would be interested
in seeing Croup W come in to the Park and Pec
Departmenr and instructing people on the use of
the cable tv equipment which the Citv has.
Park Director Anderson explained such classes are
offered every quarter through community education,
and he has taken three so far himself.
Clerk/Administrator Pauiey stated that Staff will be
trained to operate the equipment.
Director Thatcher reported sc. erai calls had been 15. Report of Public
received regarding the heavy rains and water Works/Community
problems the residents were experiencing. Development
Director
Attorney Karney reviewed some of the recent cable 16. Report of
litigation and how it might affect the City, Attorney
depending on the final outcome determined by the
Courts.
Councilmember Hankner advised the Council of a 17. Reports of
recent experience she had had with parking in Councilmembers:
the City of Minneapolis, and the portion of fees
which go for administrative offenses in that city. counrilmenter
Hankner
Councilmember Blanchard had no report. Councilmember
Blanchard
Councilmember Quick had no report. Councilmember
Quick
April 28, 19B6
mminds View City Council Page clx
Regular Meeting ------
---------------------
----------------
Councilmember Haake reported the Festivities Commission
had spent $7,521.64 la^t year and received revenue of
$4,037.98, with a net cost to the City of $3,483.66.
She stated They are crying to keep the costs down this
year and have changed some of the activities over
last year.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated he would be talking
to Commissioner McCarty and would discuss the cost of
the Ramsey County showmobile with him.
Mayor Linke had no report.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that last year
the City ..ad repairod a nick -up with a box on it
that was rusting. The box is now surplus property
and there is someone who would like to take it.
He explained there would be a cost to the City if
they were to take it somewhere to dispose of it.
Motion/Second: Quick/HAnkner to declare the
pick-up box as surpl,is property and authorize Staff
to dispose of it properly.
110
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayo: Links adjourned the meeting at 6�54 PM.
19
kn
fully a L
i
C!l ! PauleyJ►dministra or
Councilmembe
Haake
Mayor Linke
Report of
Clerk/
Administrator
Motion Carri
Adjournment
1
4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE. CITY COUNCIL
L i f Y OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
May 5, 1986
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Mounds View City Council was called 1. Call to order
to order by Mayor Linke at 8:55 P.M.
Motion Second: Linke/Quick moved to adopt 2
Resolution No. 2005 Relating to Parking
Restrictions on S.A.P. 146-234-02 from State
Highway lU to Quincy Street in the City of
Mounds View
5 ayes 0 nayes
Motion Second: Hankner/Blanchard to
a 3ourn et i3 56 P.M.
5 ayes 0 nayes
ly submi
n i Pau /ey
Clerk dministra
DFF/mjs
Adopt Resolu-
tion No. 2005
Relating to
Parking
Restrictions
on S.A.P.
146-234-02
from State
Highway 10 to
Ouincy Street
in the City
of Mounds
View
Motion
Carried
4. Adjournmert
Motion
Carried