The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006.04.17 EDA Packet AGENDA CITY OF HUGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MONDAY, April 17, 2006 - 8:30 AM HUGO CITY HALL 8:30 am 1. Call to Order 8:31 am 2. Roll Call 8:32 am 3. Approval of Minutes • EDA meeting of March 20,2006 8:35 am A. Presentation of Multifeeder Concept Plan Neal Nordling- President and CEO 8:45 am 4. Update on Downtown Redevelopment: Egg Lake Project • Purchase of Glyph Printing • Hancock Property • Bill Barrett • Darrel and Marsha Bunge • and Remaining owners 9:10 am 5. Update of TIF Subcommittee and Set Date for Meeting 9:20 am 6. Eminent Domain Legislative Update 9:35 am 7. Washington County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 9:50 am 8. Update on Hugo Kidz n' Biz Fest April 30th, 2006 10:00 am 9. Update on North Highway 61 Commercial Property Owners Meeting on May 3rd at 9 am in the Oneka Room 10:20 am 10. Update on City Wide Tour with Council and Commissions on May 4th at 3:30 pm 10:25 am 11. Review Proposal for Consulting Services from Kristin Barsness 10:30 am 12. Adjournment BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE EDA MEETING OF Monday, April 17, 2006 3. March 20, 2006 EDA Meeting Minutes City staff recommends that the EDA approve the minutes for the March 20, 2006 EDA meeting as presented. A. Presentation of Multifeeder Concept Plan-Neal Nordling City staff has met with representatives from Multi-Feeder, Inc., for the past months for construction of a building in the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. The applicant is requesting a concept plan review for the development that would consist of three buildings totaling 55,400 square feet including associated parking lots on Fenway Boulevard in the BEIP.Neal Nordling,the president and CEO of Multifeeder Technology, is planning on purchasing the property legally described as Lot 3 Block 1 of Bald Eagle Industrial Park 4th addition. The property is currently vacant and is located immediately north of the old Minnesota Union Builders building. The applicant is proposing to divide the property into 3 lots. A public road way is planned to allow for buildings 1 and 2 to be constructed with frontage along the new roadway. Building 3 will be the Multifeeder Technology facility that will employ 40-50 workers and involves high tech design and manufacturing of processing equipment. The other 2 buildings are part of the future site build out. Neal Nordling will be present at the meeing to discuss the construction of the new business. 4.Update on Downtown Redevelopment: Egg Lake Project On Tuesday, March 28th, City Administrator Mike Ericson, CD Director Bryan Bear, and CD Intern Rachel Simone met with Charles and Mark Nosie who own the building across from city hall at 14667 Forest Street to talk about property acquisition. The Building currently consists of Glyph Printing and a barber shop. Charles and Mark were willing to listen and were very interested in the City acquiring their property. We met with them again on April 4th at the property in question to talk over the details of the acquisition. Staff, and Charles and Mark signed a drafted purchase agreement to sell the property for$195,000. We are working on the final purchase agreement and are looking forward to meeting with them again to finalize the purchase. The Hancock property at 5583 147th Street was on the agenda at our last City Council meeting on April 3rd. The EDA requested direction from the Council on whether the acquisition of the property should move forward. The Council declined the consideration of the offer from the Hancocks and directed staff to notify the Hancocks and the EDA as soon as possible. The Coucnil's reasoning behind declining the offer was that the city has not budgeted for the acquisition of the property and the parcels across from City Hall are more of a priority. Staff has also met with Bill Barrett who owns the building at 5673 147th Street about property acquisition. He did not say whether or not he was interested but,he was willing to listen. He wanted some time to think about what he was going to do with his property in the future. Staff plans on keeping in touch with Mr. Barrett. Darrel and Marsha Bunge also met with staff to talk about property acquisition. Again they did not say whether or not they were interested but,were willing to listen. They currently do not have plans to move but, can see the advantage the city would have if their property was included in the acquisition, and they are excited about the redevelopment plans. Staff plans on keeping in touch with the Bunge's. We have sent letters to the remaining property owners Gary Holmgren at 14663 Forest Boulevard and Chareen Gamboni at 14715 Forest Boulevard to set up a meeting to talk about property acquisition. We have not received any correspondence from them about whether or not they would like to meet. We will also be calling them if no response is received. 5. Update of TIF Subcommittee and Set Date for Meeting The EDA directed staff to set up a TIF Subcommittee meeting to discuss the downtown development plans, whether or not senior housing is what should be downtown, and to discuss what direction should be taken with the plans and the developers. The meeting did not end up happening because we needed to set up a time that everyone could make. The Staff is recommending that the EDA set up a date and time for the meeting. 6.Eminent Domain Legislative Update Staff has attached an update from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities of the current legislation on eminent domain. The Staff will present this issue to the EDA and discuss impacts to downtown redevelopment. 7. Update on Washington County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Last summer several EDA members attended the East Metro Economic Development Forum. At the forum, questions were raised about Washington County's Economic Development Strategy. Administrators from Oakdale and Woodbury prepared a draft strategy that is attached to this packet. Staff recommends the EDA review the strategy and provide comments. 8.Update on Hugo Kidz n' Biz Fest April 30th, 2006 The Hugo Kidz n' Biz Fest will be held at the Public Works facility on April 30, 2006 at 1 pm. Staff would like to get an RSVP of the people attending and what their role with be there. 9.Update on North Highway 61 Commercial Property Owners Meeting on May 3rd at 9 am in the Oneka Room At the March 20, 2006 EDA meeting, the EDA listened to local business owner Rick Burr's desire to expand his business. The Council accepted the EDA's recommendation to set up a meeting with the commercial property owners adjacent to Rick Burr's property, Gusset Design. The meeting will be on Wednesday, May 3rd at 9 am in the Oneka Room. At the meeting the property owners will discuss their plans for their property in the future and how they feel about the possible rezoning of the commercial area. 10. Update on City Wide Tour with Council and Commissions on May 4th at 3:30 pm The Staff has set up a City Tour for the Council and Commission members on May 4th, starting at the New Oneka Elementary School from 3:30 to 4:30. The tour of the City will start at 5 pm, EDA members can catch the bus at the school, and the tour will conclude at approximately 9 pm. The tour will cover new and built developments,parks, and industrial areas. Staff will have a tour route map and background information available at the time of the tour. Staff is inviting the EDA members to join the tour and RSVP today if possible. 11. Review Proposal for Consulting Services from Kristin Barsness Staff has been in contact with EDA consultant Kristin Barsness who has drafted a proposal to assist the City with the downtown redevelopment plans. For the Egg Lake project, Kristen's expenses can be reimbursed through the TIF District, or can be added to the cost of the land. Staff recommends that the EDA review the proposal and provide direction to staff about whether to invite her to the next EDA meeting to formally present her proposal. MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF March 20,2006 EDA President Fran Miron called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. PRESENT: Jan Arcand, Mike Granger, Fran Miron,Jim Bever, Phil Klein, and Tom Denaway City Administrator Mike Ericson, CD Director Bryan Bear, CD Intern Rachel Simone ABSENT: Nick Skarich APPROVAL OF MINUTES Arcand made motion, Granger seconded, to approve the minutes for the EDA meeting of February 21,2006 as presented. All aye. Motion Carried. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERN RACHEL SIMONE Bryan introduced the new CD Intern Rachel Simone to the EDA commissioners. TERRY AND ANGELA HANCOCK- 5583 147TH STREET N Bryan Bear and Community Development Intern Rachel Simone meet with Terry and Angela Hancock on March 8, 2006, to discuss the city possibly buying their property for the proposed library site for downtown redevelopment. Bryan gave an overview to the EDA of property location and information of proposed library site. Terry Hancock attended the EDA meeting. The owners are ready to sell the property and are in the process of moving to the location were Terry works. They came to the city first to buy the property because they are aware of the redevelopment plans of the city. The house as they say inside is in good shape, and is planned to be inspected, so is it possible that it could be rented out by the city until the proposed plans for the library take shape. City staff asked for recommendation from the EDA about whether the city should buy the property and insight on if staff should look at the whole area as a development opportunity and talk to the other property owners in the area. The EDA discussed the matter and decided to have City Staff evaluate the issue and take it to the next level. There was a motion by Mike Granger, and seconded by Phil Klein to recommend that City Staff evaluate financing, property acquisition priorities, and to contact property owners across from City Hall for about acquisition of their properties. The motion was also to report to the City Council and EDA with findings. All aye. Motion carried. RICK BURR- GUSSET DESIGN INC Rick Burr has sent the City a letter stating that he would like to expand his existing business, Gusset Design Inc. at 15587 Forest Blvd. The property is zoned Commercial but the building use is Industrial. The structure was built before the zoning change to Commercial District so it is allowed to stay. According to the City Municipal Code, it states he is not allowed to expand because the use is nonconforming to the current zoning. Bryan gave an overview of the actions that Rick Burr was requesting and gave some possible solutions to the issue. Rick meet with the EDA to discuss this issue. The property is surrounded by residential zoning and there is a possibility the area could be redeveloped. There are some recommended solutions in the staff report provided. The City Staff would like the EDA review this matter, and provide direction to Mr. Burr. The EDA discussed the possible solutions and decided that they could not do much unless the City Staff talked to the other property owners in the area. There was a motion by Fran Miron, seconded by Jim Bever to make a recommendation to the City Council and Planning Commission to meet with the other adjacent property owners to see how they feel about the zoning changes and their future plans for the area. The meeting would include two EDA members, two Planning Commission members, and two City Council members. All aye. Motion carried. REPORT ON SUBSTANDARD BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR PROPOSED TIF DISTRICT Bryan gave an update on the TIF District property inspections being done and stated that we are working towards getting all the inspections completed. The City staff has inspected two city owned properties across from City Hall at 14625 & 14687 Forest Blvd. Rachel sent out TIF District building inspection notices on Friday,March 10, 2006 to the property owners. The letter gives a background on what a TIF District is, why we are doing the inspections, and asked for a return card to inspect the property. City staff and Paul Steinman of Springsted,met on March 9, 2006 to discuss the building inspections for the proposed TIF District. The two City owned properties were discussed and guidelines were set on how each house was going to be inspected so we keep the process consistent. The Staff will present on this to the EDA. The EDA was glad to hear that the City Staff was staying on track with this matter. DOWNTOWN EGG LAKE PROJECT Bryan gave an update on the Egg Lake redevelopment project. Barbara Dacy from the Washington County HRA also attended the EDA meeting and gave some insight on how they define senior housing. The Washington County HRA does mostly independent senior housing. The City has now assembled a critical amount of property along Egg Lake. The City has received some plans from developers interested in developing along Egg Lake. The Staff presented several of these plans to the EDA. At the last meeting the EDA discussed whether senior housing should be developed in the area. The staff seeks input on the strategy for the development of the property, for instance, should it be mixed development and how much of housing, retail, senior housing, and park area should the development have and to suggest to the potential developers. The staff also recommends that the EDA discuss a plan for acquisition of the remaining parcels. The EDA reviewed the redevelopment plans from several development companies. They discussed that mixed uses would be the best for the area,but does not know if the senior housing is the best fit, and want to set up a subcommittee meeting to review plans more closely and to see if they want to get more ideas from other developers. There was a motion by Fran Miron, seconded by Mike Granger to recommend to staff to see how the other property owners feel about selling and to set up a subcommittee meeting. All aye. Motion carried. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN Mike Ericson gave a review of the possible new legislation that could affect the City. There has been recent proposed legislation that will restrict the use of eminent domain by cities. The legislation will ban the use of eminent domain for economic development, and prohibits the use of this tool for redevelopment. The bill does this by making unattainable standards for determining"blighted area"and"environmentally contaminated area"reducing the ability to assemble parcels for redevelopment. The League of MN Cities would like the City to create a resolution on the issue and has sent the City a draft that they would like the City to approve. During the City Council meeting on Monday, March 6, 2006 the Council discussed the proposed legislation relating to eminent domain. The Council in their discussion directed the EDA to provide feedback to the Council about the proposed legislation and the drafted resolution. WASHINGTON COUNTY 2006 CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Bryan gave an overview on the 2006 Washington County Annual Action Plan. The Washington County Board approved the draft of the 2006 Annual Action Plan for public comment. The public comment period is from February 21, 2006 to April 15, 2006. The Annual Action Plan includes information on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership(HOME) programs. The plan also describes the resources the county will use and activities to be undertaken in 2006 to address the priority needs for the area. The County has sent the City a draft of the plan for comment. The EDA should review the plan and determine whether the City should send comments on the plan to the County. The EDA provided no comments on the plan. ADJOURNMENT Granger made motion, Denaway seconded, to adjourn at 11:00 am. All aye. Motion Carried. Multifeeder Technology Site Map N AY ' i 13 _ / Multifeeder Technology . -- -- N - llr w �► E ..1 - ' - S I 30TH 1 / f � i I i r , _ .__ _'d 14 M� Ifi• 4xwn Wr' c �..?-`i r` "�,I r'� ••ice, � n i ERV! - -- - j - `Vii• , HUGOrN CD U ! r"e a A. aY W r 0 1 NO UKES�� Nr BtItDINO S£ (yJ .' `. {— ` LINE �'• r \� r 1 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE W r f LJ— 1 ® O ! y o ARCHITECTURAL: { 12 \t Bruce R. Schwartzman, AiA 7 Btl C 1 i ZZ2 2095 DOTTE DRIVE, No. 201 Waite Bear Lake, MN 55110 Td: 651.485.7687 i IL '- r w Yewrwe serYYo aro, / siaw<w n�icM t LtdO ! \ Vcr i AWA LMDWYt; 1 LDING S£1BACK AREA £ SITE DATA: scale: u WTO dro.a br arts LDT AREA(VI BUILOM AREA PAMM STALLS WVtwOUS AREA clxckad LOT 1 63.635� 14.000 SF41 38,604 SF fit � �'�� 1 1 W. ORS . 1 „. date: MARCH M 2006 LOT 2 67.553 s 15.ow sc s, 4zz15 si 63x 8Ut0lNG SETBACK `'1—`��`�—�� i LOT 3 1x.412 sr 26soD sr ss 71,291 sr LINE ` _J aroject no: 02006.1 Q L M)SCAPE AREA PROPOSED °P" AREA PROPOSED SITE PLAN SITE PLAN �TM sheet nemw 7.05 ACRES IN BALD EAGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK Al - Y M. ta'-0• MOeA7aS ilp YAfID LUYOef7E •1eA16 7fP. 6"enuc/T M. JT U Li nFl. 0 0 ur a arruac �„_'� � a ref- k�"t '`��,•i' �4�Y'� .,$��r1y ��. .'*' t'��-�...,. ,: .�,eu a"4�3' t k z awry ceNdir Newsroom SMM aae110 Cava" SrAfM MOW CVWX W wmr z Amor t wEST ELEVATION 1�8. ,._a. 1 i+�rs/aA+oerr Pest dperw aoor M. LiJ +�c' � sEato aA�crr eoacvs M. e•A[xa tt Q nr LLI W LL- -U70- -0- r Ar," r ur or ow Tr' ARCHITECTURAL: Bruce R. Schwartzman, AIA OMANraa�° £ 2035 DOTTE DRIVE, No- 201 EAST ELEVATION f''te Bear Lake, MN 55110 p'-0• A€GISt a?1CW7F PMrl Sfr(tD NrC%E1EJf.rE/Ll'M1WN3 T1P n r � Td: 651.485.7687 Ll Ll scary azaav m.uxg 0010?r 7K Qr *raw: AS WTIM dra—by MS r,-,\N OR TH ELEVATION chaiedOY ens 1/8. = 1'_0- date. M+CH M 2006 project m: 02006.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS . '..e. A2 I PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2006, between CHARLES J. NOSIE, a single person, and MARK S. NOSIE,1i single person (collectively, "Seller"), and THE CITY OF HUGO, a Minnesota municipal corporation("Buyer"). In consideration of this Agreement, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: 1. Sale of Property. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy from Seller, the following property(collectively, "Property"): 1.1 Real Property. The real property located in Washington County, Minnesota described on the attached Exhibit A ("Land"), together with (1) all buildings and improvements constructed or located on the Land (collectively, the "Buildings") and (2) all easements and rights benefiting or appurtenant to the Land (collectively the"Real Property"). 2. Purchase Price and Manner of Payment. The total purchase price ("Purchase Price") to be paid for the Property shall be $ 115A.0 V-?. The Purchase Price shall be payable as follows: 2.1 $ 5,000.00 as earnest money ("Earnest Money"), which Earnest Money shall be held in trust by Eckberg Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling, P.L.L.P. ("Buyer's Agent"). 2.2 $ in cash or by wire transfer of immediately available funds on the Closing Date. 3. Contingencies. The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are contingent upon each of the following: 3.1 Approval by the Hugo City Council. All representations made by Buyer contained in this Agreement are subject to approval and/or modification by the Hugo City Council. The Hugo City Council will consider approval of the agreement on April 17, 2006. 3.2 Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of Seller contained in this Agreement must be true now and on the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) as if made on the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) and Seller shall have delivered to Buyer on the Closing Date a certificate dated the Closing Date, signed by an authorized representative of Seller, certifying that such representations and warranties are true as of the Closing Date. 3.3 Title. Title shall have been found acceptable, or been made acceptable, in accordance with the requirements and terms of Section 6 below. 3.4 Access and Inspection. Seller shall have allowed Buyer, and Buyer's agents, access to the Real Property without charge and at all reasonable times for the purpose of Buyer's investigation and testing the same. Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such investigation and testing, shall restore the Real Property, and shall hold Seller and the Real Property harmless from all costs and liabilities relating to Buyer's activities. Buyer shall have been satisfied with the results of all such tests and investigations performed by it or on its behalf on or before the Closing Date(as hereinafter defined). This Agreement shall automatically terminate on the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined), unless Buyer has given Seller notice on or before the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) that the contingencies described in this Section required to be satisfied by the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) are either satisfied or waived by Buyer. If this Agreement terminates pursuant to this Section, then the Earnest Money shall be returned promptly to Buyer, and Buyer will execute and deliver to Seller a cancellation of purchase agreement, and Seller and Buyer shall have no further liability or obligations with respect to this Agreement or the Property. If Buyer gives Seller notice on or before the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) that the contingencies described in this Section required to be satisfied by the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) are either satisfied or waived by Buyer, then the parties will proceed to close the transaction contemplated hereby and, except as specifically set forth herein, the Earnest Money will be non-refundable to Buyer but applicable to the Purchase Price. 4. Closing. The closing of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement (the"Closing") shall occur on (the"Closing Date"), but Buyer may close on any business day prior to the Closing Date by giving Seller at least five days' notice of such earlier date for the Closing. The Closing shall take place at the office of Attorney's Title of Stillwater("Title Company") in Stillwater, Minnesota. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Property to Buyer on the Closing Date, except as provided in Section 13 of this Agreement. Any party hereto may close via an escrow arrangement with the Title Company. 4.1 Seller's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and deliver to Buyer the following(collectively, "Seller's Closing Documents"), all in form and content reasonably satisfactory to Buyer: I 4.1.1 Deed. A Warranty Deed conveying the Real Property to Buyer, free and clear of all encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances (as hereafter defined). 4.1.2 IRS Forms. A Designation Agreement designating the "reporting person" for purposes of completing Internal Revenue Form 1099 and, if applicable, Internal Revenue Form 8594. 4.1.3 Well Certificate. A Certificate signed by Seller warranting that there are no "Wells" on the Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 1031 or, if there are"Wells", a Well Certificate in the form required by law. I -2- 4.1.4 Storage Tanks. If the Property contains or contained a storage tank, an affidavit with respect thereto, as required by Minn. Stat. § 116.48. 4.1.5 Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by Buyer or the Title Company to be necessary to transfer the Property to Buyer free and clear of all encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances. 4.2 Buyer's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Buyer will execute and deliver to Seller the following(collectively, "Buyer's Closing Documents"): 4.2.1 Purchase Price. Funds representing the Purchase Price,by cash or by wire transfer of immediately available funds. 4.2.2 IRS Form. A Designation Agreement designating the "reporting person" for purposes of completing Internal Revenue Form 1099 and, if applicable, Internal Revenue Form 8594. 5. Prorations. Seller and Buyer agree to the following pro-rations and allocation of costs regarding this Agreement: 5.1 Title Insurance and Closing Fee. Seller will pay all costs of the Title Evidence. Seller will pay the premium required for the issuance of the Title Policy, if an updated abstract of title is not provided. If Seller provides Buyer an updated abstract of title, Buyer shall pay the premium for issuance of the Title Policy. Seller and Buyer will each pay one-half of any closing fee or charge imposed by the Title Company. 5.2 Deed Tax. Seller shall pay all State Deed Tax payable in connection with this transaction. 5.3 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real Estate Taxes payable in the year in which Closing occurs shall be pro-rated based upon the Closing Date. On or before the Closing Date, Seller will pay all special assessments levied or pending against the Property. 5.4 Other Costs. All other operating costs of the Property shall be allocated between Seller and Buyer as of the Closing Date, so that Seller pays that part of operating costs payable before the Closing Date, and Buyer pays that part of operating costs payable from and after the Closing Date. 5.5 Attorneys' Fees. Each of the parties will pay its own attorneys' fees, except that a party defaulting under this Agreement or any Closing Document will pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the nondefaulting party to enforce its rights hereunder. -3- 6. Title Examination. Title Examination will be conducted as follows: 6.1 Seller's Title Evidence. Seller shall, within 10 days after the date of this Agreement, furnish the following (collectively, "Title Evidence") to Buyer: (a) a commitment("Title Commitment") for an ALTA Form B 1990 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance insuring title to the Real Property, in the amount of the Purchase Price, issued by the Title Company; (b)if the Property is abstract property, Seller shall also deliver to the Title Company or to Buyer any Abstract of Title in Seller's possession, to the Real Property certified to a current date to include all appropriate judgment and bankruptcy searches; (c)UCC searches against Seller. 6.2 Buyer's Objections. Within 15 days after receiving the last of the Title Evidence, Buyer will make written objections ("Objections") to the form and/or contents of the Title Evidence. Any matter shown on such Title Evidence and not objected to by Buyer within the foregoing 15-day period, shall be a"Permitted Encumbrance" hereunder. Seller will have 60 days after receipt of the Objections to cure the Objections, during which period the Closing will be postponed, if necessary. Seller shall use its best efforts to correct any Objections. To the extent an Objection can be satisfied by the payment of money only, Buyer shall have the right to apply a portion of the cash payable to Seller at the Closing to the satisfaction of such Objection, and the amount so applied shall reduce the amount of cash payable to Seller at the Closing. If the Objections are not cured within such 60-day period, Buyer will have the option to do any of the following: 6.2.1 Terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Earnest Money and the interest accrued and unpaid on the Earnest Money, if any; or 6.2.2 Withhold from the Purchase Price an amount which, in the reasonable judgment of the Title Company, is sufficient to assure cure of the Objections. Any amount so withheld will be placed in escrow with the Title Company, pending such cure. If Seller does not cure such Objections within 60 days after such escrow is established, Buyer may then cure such Objections and charge the costs against the escrowed amount. The parties agree to execute and deliver such documents as may be reasonably required by the Title Company; or 6.2.3 Waive the Objections and proceed to close. I 6.3 Title Policy. Buyer shall receive at Closing the title policy ("Title Policy") issued by Title pursuant to the Title Commitment, or a suitably marked Title Commitment initialed by Title obligating Title to issue such a Title Policy in the form required by the Title Commitment as approved by Buyer. 7. Operation Prior to Closing. During the period from the date of Seller's �I acceptance of this Agreement to the Closing Date (the "Executory Period"), Seller shall operate and maintain the Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with prudent, reasonable business standards, including the maintenance of adequate liability insurance and -4- I insurance against loss by fire, windstorm and other hazards, casualties and contingencies, including vandalism and malicious mischief. Seller shall execute no contracts, leases or other agreements regarding the Property during the Executory Period that are not terminable on or before the Closing Date, without the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent may be withheld by Buyer at its sole discretion. 8. Representations and Warranties by Seller. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: 8.1 Existence; Authority. Seller (Charles J. and Mark S. Nosie) has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and Seller's Closing Documents; such documents are valid and binding obligations of Seller, and are enforceable in accordance with their terms. 8.2 Operations. Seller has received no notice of actual or threatened cancellation or suspension of any utility services or certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Property. 8.3 Environmental Laws. No toxic or hazardous substances or wastes, pollutants or contaminants (including, without limitation, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and various constituents of such products, and any hazardous substance as defined in any Environmental Law (collectively, "Hazardous Substances") have been generated, treated, stored, transferred from, released or disposed of, or otherwise placed, deposited in or located on the Property in violation of any Environmental Law, nor has any activity been undertaken on the Property that would cause or contribute to the Property becoming a treatment, storage or disposal facility within the meaning of any Environmental Law. The term "Environmental Law" shall mean any and all federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, policies, consent decrees, judicial orders, administrative orders or other requirements relating to the environment or to human health or safety associated with the environment, all as amended or modified from time to time. There has been no discharge, release or threatened release of Hazardous Substances from the Property, and there are no Hazardous Substances or conditions in or on the Property that may support a claim or cause of action under any Environmental Law. The Property is not now, and to the best of Seller's knowledge never has been, listed on any list of sites contaminated with Hazardous Substances, nor used as landfill, dump, disposal or storage site for Hazardous Substances. Seller has maintained all records required to be kept concerning the presence, location and quantity of asbestos containing materials, and presumed asbestos containing materials, in the Property and will deliver the same to Buyer on or before Closing. 8.4 Seller's Defaults. Seller is not in default concerning any of its obligations or liabilities regarding the Property. -5- 8.5 FIRPTA. Seller is not a"foreign person", "foreign partnership", "foreign trust" or"foreign estate", as those terms are defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. 8.6 Proceedings. There is no action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or proceeding of any kind pending or threatened against Seller or any portion of the Property. 8.7 Condition. The buildings, structures and improvements included within the Property are structurally sound and in good repair and condition, and all mechanical, electrical, heating, air conditioning,drainage, sewer,water and plumbing systems are in proper working order. All fixtures, equipment and appliances included in the Property are in proper working order. 8.8 Wells. The Seller certifies and warrants that the Seller does not know of any "Wells"on the described Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 103I. This representation is intended to satisfy the requirements of that statute. 8.9 Sewage Treatment System Disclosure. For the purposes of satisfying any applicable requirements of Minn. Stat. § 115.55, Seller discloses and certifies that: a) Seller has no knowledge of the existence of an abandoned individual sewage treatment system on the Property. b) Sewage generated on the Property goes to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Seller will indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Buyer, its successors and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, that Buyer incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or after Closing. Except as herein expressly stated, Buyer is purchasing the Property based upon its own investigation and inquiry and is not relying on any representation of Seller or other person and is agreeing to accept and purchase the Property "AS IS, WHERE IS" subject to the conditions of examination herein set forth and the express warranties herein contained. Consummation of this Agreement by Buyer with knowledge of any such breach by Seller will not constitute a waiver or release by Buyer of any claims due to such breach. 9. Casualty. If all or any part of the Property is substantially damaged by fire, casualty, the elements or any other cause, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer, and Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and receive back all Earnest Money by giving notice within 30 days after Seller's notice. If Buyer shall fail to give the notice, then the parties shall proceed to Closing, and Seller shall assign to Buyer all rights to insurance proceeds resulting from such event and shall pay to Buyer the amount of any deductible or co-insurance. 10. Broker's Commission. Seller and Buyer represent to each other that they I have dealt with no brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction, and agree to -6- indemnify and hold each other harmless from all claims, damages, costs or expenses of or for any other such fees or commissions resulting from their actions or agreements regarding the execution or performance of this Agreement, and will pay all costs of defending any action or lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or commissions incurred by the other party, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 11. Assignment. Neither party may assign its rights under this Agreement before or after the Closing. 12. Survival. All of the terms of this Agreement and warranties and representations herein contained shall survive and be enforceable after the Closing. 13. Relocation Benefits. Seller hereby voluntarily waives any and all relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.521 pursuant to the Waiver of Relocation Benefits attached hereto as Exhibit B. 14. Notices. Any notice required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and given by personal delivery upon an authorized representative of a party hereto; or if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, properly addressed as follows: If to Seller: CHARLES J.AND MARK S.NOSIE 31 Maryknoll Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 With Copy to: If to Buyer: THE CITY OF HUGO 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Attn: Mike Ericson With Copy to: ECKBERG LAW FIRM 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 Attn: Balers C. Heeren Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit, as aforesaid; provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving notice of such change 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 15. Miscellaneous. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in interpreting this Agreement. This written Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the -7- parties regarding the Property. There are no verbal agreements that change this Agreement, and no waiver of any of its terms will be effective unless in a writing executed by the parties. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their successors and assigns. This Agreement has been made under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and such laws will control its interpretation. 4 Remedies. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with the applicable Minnesota statutes. If Buyer fails to cure such default within the statutory cure period, this Agreement will terminate, and upon such termination Seller will retain the Earnest Money as liquidated damages, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement and retention of the Earnest Money will be the sole remedy available to Seller for such default by Buyer, and Buyer will not be liable for damages or specific performance. If Seller defaults under this Agreement, Buyer, as the sole remedy available to Buyer for such default by Seller, may seek specific performance of this Agreement. Seller and Buyer have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Date of Signature SELLER ' 2006 By oles . sie Date of Signature , 2006 By Mark S. Noise Date of Signature BUYER THE CITY OF HUGO,a of municipal corporatio 2006 -8- EXHIBIT A Land PID # 2003121240033 Part of Lot 8, County Auditors plat#7... A-1 EXHIBIT B Waiver of Relocation Benefits B-1 WAIVER OF RELOCATION BENEFITS THIS WAV ,ER OF RELOCATION BENEFITS ("Waiver") is made this day of 2006 by CHARLES J.NOSIE AND MARK S.NOSIE RECITALS WHEREAS, Seller has indicated that they desire to sell and THE CITY OF HUGO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Hugo") desires to buy real property located in the City of Hugo, Washington County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto (the"Property"). WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 117.521 provides that an owner of real property, regardless of the owners intention to sell, who is entitled to relocation benefits may waive any benefits for which they are eligible under Chapter 117 of Minnesota Statutes and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, United States Code, title 42, sections 4601 to 4655, as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Statutes at Large, volume 101, pages 246 to 256(1987), as amended("URA")(collectively, "Relocation Benefits"). WHEREAS,Hugo is only willing to purchase the Property if Seller agrees to waive any Relocation Benefits for which they may be eligible. WHEREAS, Seller has agreed to waive any Relocation Benefits which they may be eligible for. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, Seller states as follows: WAIVER: 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein. 2. Acknowledgment. Seller acknowledges that they have been advised that if Hugo acquires a parcel of land, Seller may have been eligible for relocation payment and other payments under the URA. 3. Benefits. Seller understands that the URA provides for advisory assistance, including referral to comparable (affordable, decent, safe and sanitary) replacement housing; for payment of actual, reasonable moving and related expenses or for a fixed expense or dislocation allowance, at Seller(s)' election; and in addition, for a replacement housing payment which may be up to $22,500 to purchase or $5,250 in rent assistance to assist Seller(s) in buying or renting a replacement business location. 4. Sale Contingent Upon Waiver. Seller has been advised that the Hugo will only acquire the Property if Seller(s) agree to waive their rights to relocation under C-1 the URA and hereby release the Hugo from all obligations and liability regarding any such payment. 5. Voluntary. Seller(s) acknowledge that this waiver is made voluntarily and that this waiver is not made under any threat of acquisition by eminent domain by the Hugo. 6. Waiver. Seller hereby voluntarily waives any and all Relocation Benefits, assistance, services and payments pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.521. 7. No Coercion. Seller further acknowledges that they are under no duress or coercion by the Hugo and make this decision without reservation or qualification. 8. Miscellaneous. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Waiver are for convenience only, are not a part of this Waiver, and are not to be considered in interpreting this Waiver. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller has set their hands as of the date first written above. Date of Signature SELLER l ' 2006 By Charles . Nosie Date of Signature p , 2006 By Mark S. osie C-1 �u Downtown Redevelopment Property Owners P DUANE E REIL& DUANE E REIL& WASHINGTON CO G RAILAU H RD GE WILLIAM E BARRETT JOHN&KIM ROBERT& GRANGER GEORGETTE JEFFREY WILLIAM RICCI RICHARD GUERTIN BARRET BILLINGS DENESEN H AN CHAREEN GAMBONI P LORIE& CITY OF HUGO MICHAEL CROWLEY CITY OF HUGO MARSHA RBUNGE MICHEA & PATRICIA SHEA CHARLES & RICHARD& MARK BARBARA NOSIE RODRIGUEZ MARSHABUNGE GARY C HOLMGREN CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO TON COR G RAILAUTH CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO CATHERINE EANDERSON CATHERINE E ANDERSON CATHERINE E ANDERSON SWANY OF HUGO INC AMM News April 7, 2006 Archives Eminent Domain Update Rep. Jeff Johnson's eminent domain bill was heard on the house Floor on Thursday and passed 115 to 17. There were a number of amendments added to the bill but its over all appearance did not change that much. Both sides are now awaiting conference committee. It is anticipated that the Senate will take the bill up on the Floor on Monday, refuse to concur with the House version and request a conference committee. At that point the Senate will name conferees and send the bill back to the House, where they too will name conferees. We anticipate this all being done on Monday, with conference committee meeting as early as Tuesday. Below is a more detail listing of the amendments that passed and failed on the House Floor . • Rep. Simon offered an amendment to remove the nonconforming use portion in the bill but it failed • Rep. Olson offered an amendment to his original language prohibiting condemning authorities from condemning property for a public road if the land was not land locked. The amendment stated...and was adopted. A road authority must not acquire property by eminent domain to establish a local road or street, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration's Functional Classification Guidelines, for access to property of less than five acres that will serve projected traffic of less than 100 average daily trips, unless the property is landlocked or the road authority can show that the local road or street is necessary to cost effectively mitigate on going safety concerns. • Rep. Thissen offered an amendment dealing with inverse condemnation. The amendment stated...and was adopted. Definition. As used in this section, political subdivision means a statutory or home rule charter city or town. Person to bring action. A person may bring an action in district court to compel a political subdivision of the state to commence condemnation proceedings if. • The political subdivision of the state determines to provide, directly or indirectly, mixed municipal solid waste collection services previously provided by private persons. This is the reincarnation of a garbage haulers bill that has been introduced and defeated in previous sessions. • Rep. Koenen offered an amendment to exempt utilities from the extraterritorial piece which passed. • Rep. Abrams offered two amendments, one that grandfathered in certain TIF districts and one that provided for an Administrative Law Hearing in the event damages were sought. Both amendments passed. • Rep. Wagenius offered an amendment on riparian rights that was ruled non-germane. • Rep. Krinkie offered an amendment to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot prohibiting eminent domain for economic development and increase tax base. • Rep. Goodwin and Rep. Severson both had amendments to Rep. Abrams TIF language that would have grandfathered in specific projects within their districts. Both failed. • Rep. Lanning offered an amendment that clarified a road leading to a development site could not be considered. The amendment passed. • Rep. Vandeveer offered an amendment dealing with nonconforming uses that passed. • Rep. Mullery offered an amendment that would have created a moratorium on certain takings coupled with a blue ribbon task force on eminent domain. The amendment failed. • Rep. Zellers offered an amendment dealing with increase notice and hearing requirements which passed. DRAFT PROPOSAL Proposal for the Formulation of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Washington County and Its Communities Background: It is being suggested that Washington County and its respective cities move forward with a new strategic, economic development plan. Washington County, in cooperation with its local cities, needs to consider expanding its strategic role in economic development. Competition from northwest Wisconsin, other Minnesota cities and even internationally makes it critical that Washington County work cooperatively with its cities to be able to attract the best job creators for our citizens. Currently, cities in the County pursue various levels of economic development without an appropriate, supportive County program to assist the cities with their respective efforts. This can lead to sub-optimal effort when a comprehensive economic approach is not implemented; which in turn, produces mixed results for different areas in Washington County. Thus, due to ongoing direct and indirect financial involvement, the County should identify economic development as part of its mission and the means to support its critical services. Clearly, the future level of Washington County's role in economic development needs to be examined in order to ensure long-term tax base and job growth in its respective communities. We are suggesting that such a strategy be pursued in which the County decides to work more actively with its respective cities to facilitate economic development. This perspective would provide for a partnership in which the City and County work together to facilitate the appropriate growth within the County. Oftentimes, the County does not necessarily function as a true partner with its respective communities, even though the development that occurs in the cities is what builds the County tax base. Therefore, we are proposing: that the organizational structure and the economic capacity of Washington County be studied and a subsequent economic development strategy be developed to ensure County partnership with its respective cities. Economic Development Resources within the County Include: • Washington County cities—industrial parks, TIF, revolving funds, SBA • Washington County—public works, social services, abatements, etc. • Washington County WIB—workforce employment and training. • Washington County HRA—affordable housing, HUD programs, redevelopment • Chambers and Business Organizations • Utility Companies—Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Connexus Energy Strategic Plan Purpose: It would be the purpose of this plan to encourage the County to develop an economic development partnership program with its communities. This plan would, hopefully, move the County toward including economic development as part of its mission to help maintain its fiscal health and retain its low tax rate while meeting its growing service obligations. A General Scope of Analysis Could Include the Following: Several areas within Washington County should be examined to produce a strategy that can address the concerns of all interested groups. The proposed economic development strategy plan could address the following items for Washington County: 1. Profile the local economy, including key economic segments and employers, employment history and forecasts, and Washington County's context within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 2. Profile available resources to current and future businesses, including land, infrastructure, employees and transportation. 3. Profile existing business financing resources, including loan funds, tax incentives, development and redevelopment programs, etc. 4. Profile all Washington County departments and other local government jurisdiction's roles/responsibilities within the county related to economic development, including existing regional organizations that impact the county and its cities. 5. Provide examples from other counties and/or county agencies (e.g. HRA, EDA) in the United States that may demonstrate partnership "best practices" in their role with economic development. 6. Provide options for a broad strategy for Washington County's increased involvement in economic development that will result in a visible and effective program. 7. Provide options for an operational strategy for Washington County (including the HRA and WIB) based on an analysis of the profiles identified above (#1-#5), and including those provided through the private sector and various public sectors. 8. Provide options for an implementation plan that incorporates all elements into an operational economic development strategic plan for Washington County. This should include short/long term action steps, strategic outcomes, and responsibilities of various departments within Washington County government, including the HRA and the WIB. 9. Identify measurable outcomes related to the County's role in economic development and define value to stakeholder communities. Summary: Washington County enjoys an excellent and positive working relationship with its cities. Addressing these important aspects of the county's role in economic development will help facilitate a strong strategy and partnership between the County and its communities to ensure long-term tax base and job growth. 2 Agenda — April 10 Kidz & Biz Fest I. Opening Joke Il. Businesses—Update a. Games&Pairings b. Bouncy Castles Confirmed c. Old Country IIl. Vending Companies a. Cotton Candy is Confirmed-LOUIS b. Roaster(KATIE) c. Mini Donuts Machine(Katie) IV. Publicity—Confirm Creative a. Posters b. Press Release—Send out this week c. North Country Autobody d. Granger Sign Confirmed? Is it flashing? O V. Costumed Characters a. Dairy Princess—CONFIRMED b. Smokey The Bear—??? c. Old Country Buffet Bee? d. Subway Costume—Louis/Tim e. DQ Costume-Phil Vl. Timing Issues a. 9 am—Arrive to set up b. 1:00 pm—Open Doors c. 3:00 pm—Announce Winners Of: i. Chocolate Chip Cookie Contest ii. Pizza Boxing Contest iii. Jump Roping Contest d. Wireless Speakers e. Judges(Mayor,Theresa Charpentier&Kid?) i VII. To Do List(SEE ATTACHED) a. Raffle Prizes—KT b. Carnival Prizes—Louis/Phil c. Bonus Big Prizes—HBA d. Food Shopping—KT/Debi e. Decorations—Pam f. Business Literature—Pam/Debi g. Food Shelf—Call Margo??? h. PTA Volunteer Coordinator—Pam i. PR Outside Papers—Mike/Pam j. Junk Bags—Call Fairview k. Who will wear Smokey the Bear 1. Assign Greeters—Mike E./Louis m. Pick up PTA Games—Pam/KT n. Extra Tables—Mike/Jim C. o. Electronic Sign(Grangers)—Mike E. p. Put up posters VIII. Responsibilities day of the event(SEE ATTACHED) IX. Crowd Control a. Hugo Fire Department—MIKE E. I Agenda — April 3 Kidz & Biz Fest #2 0� X Opening Magic Trick / d� Businesses-Update a. Games&Pairings-Debi III Highlights a. Bouncy Castles b. Jump rope contest-Fairvie 'lA.vti� Vending Companies a. Cotton Candy?-LOUIS b. Hot Dog Wagon-Roaster(KATIE) c. Mini Donuts-(Debi?) d. Dominos Pizza-Kian Publicity a, Posters clone this week X Granger Sign Confirmed on Nadeaus Property?(PHIIJKT) _VI: Costumed Characters ,a- Dairy Princess-Mike be.- Sn"ey The Bear-Mike y r x""DQ Costume-Phil Chocolate Chip Cookie Contest-Deb Barnes ,,K- Timing: Announce at 3:30 pm b�Judges(Mayor,Barbara Rodriguez&Kid?) VIII. To Do List a. Order Raffle Prizes-KT b. Order Carni val Games-Loui slS hgnnon c. Order Carnival Game Prizes k} d. Food Shopping-KT/Debi/Louis e. Decorations - Pcvx� f. Business Literature Table i g. Szt-up-Night befog �i? 'd 0�`"'� `SL' �Q h. Mana Food Shelf DonationsyrU� i. PTA Volunteer CoordiTtor,-PC,— j. CEO Carnival Prizes +1 1 k. PR in outside papers �Qwi 1. Junk bags provided by Fairview M. Clean-up IX. Crowd Control a. Hugo Fre Department-MIKE E. L • ►//1111 .,x. pg Awl mMb p �► • Bamess Consulting Services, Inc. Memorandum To: Mike Ericson, Brian Bear From: Kirstin Barsness Date: 4/17/06 Re: Consulting Services BCS can assist in the Economic Development Authority in the coordination and evaluation of the next step in the redevelopment process. Examples of services: • Assist the EDA with evaluation of new market conditions and the City's current Downtown Vision,to ensure that the project market place and city objectives still meet. • Prepare a Development Plan for the Downtown • Work with EDA and City Council to identify redevelopment priorities. • Coordinate and manage communications of project progress both internally and externally. • Work with staff to create a timeline that represents key benchmarks in the projects development. • Market development opportunities in Hugo to specific developers that can meet Vision • If desired,prepare Request for Proposal. Manage selection process including coordination of interviews, reference and financial checks. • Work with existing and new businesses interested in a Downtown location. • Draft criteria for financial assistance based on EDA input. Generate application and evaluation tools. • Develop and manage District Budget. Work with city staff to maintain files. • Complete document and proforma analysis for projects requesting TIF assistance. • Evaluate other funding sources: local and county revolving loan funds,Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization,Livable Communities and Local Housing Initiative funds, Minnesota Investment Funds,DEED redevelopment and contamination funding,Minnesota Housing Finance funds and Federal Environmental Protection Agency grant and loans. • Assist in negotiation of Letters of Intent,Pre-Development and Development Agreements,and Tax Increment Agreements. x "ace 1 4/17/2006 April 17, 2006 All consulting time billed will have prior authorization from the City of Hugo. Ms. Barsness' bill rate is $120.00 per hour. Portions of the project may be sub- contracted or completed by another BCS employee with approval from the City of Hugo. Hourly rates for sub-contracted work will be negotiated at the time of engagement. Expenses such as printing, postage, long-distance telephone, etc. are billed at cost. All invoices are payable within fifteen (15) days of receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the direct costs for expenses. The services provided by BCS are considered a development expense and can be recovered through the land sale process or TIF administration dollars. Page 2 Mar 31 Z006 18:80:05 Via Fax -> Administrator Page 801 Of 885 Lmc -Fred a a F x- A weekly legislative update from the League ofMinnesota Cities March 31, 2006 Pagel Joint powers liability bill up next The House companion bill, I-IF 3079 authored week by Rep. Ron Abrams(R-Minnetonka), has been approved by the House Local Government Next Tuesdav, the Senate Judiciary Committee Committee and the House Civil Law is scheduled to consider SF 2648, the Joint Committee and is now on the House floor. Powers Liability bill supported by the League Questions? Contact Gary Carlson 651-281- of Minnesota Cities. Tuesday is the second committee deadline and the bill must be 1255 or by email at_cEar!.Von di hnnc.c�rg. reported out of the Judiciary Committee or it will be dead for the session. Unfortunately, the Senate passes bill restricting eminent bill will likely be considered after the domain authority; House vote controversial constitutional amendment expected next week proposal to define marriage. On Mondav, the Minnesota Senate approved The bill clarifies the application of the state tort SF 2750, legislation restricting eminent domain caps to joint powers arrangements_ The bill, authority authored by Sen. Tom Bakk(DFL- which is authored by Sen. Ann Rest(DFL-New Cook) and supported by the Institute for Justice Hope), specifies that the tort caps apply as if a and the Minnesota Automobile Dealers joint powers entity or, arrangement is a separate Association. government entity, regardless of the number of participating local units of government. The Legislators offered several amendments to the legislation was introduced in response to an bill, including one proposed by Sen- Steve Eighth U.S. Circuit Court decision involving a Murphy(DFL-Red Wing) and supported by joint powers entity created by the Crookston local governments, which exempts strip takings School district and the city of Crookston. valued under$25,000 from the attorney fees provision in the bill. Another amendment The bill is jointly supported by the League of proposed by Sen- Julianne Ortman(R- Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Chanhassen)would have stricken the blight Counties, the Minnesota School Boards provisions in the bill and only allowed for the Association and the Minnesota Association of acquisition of private property to remove a Townships. public nuisance or environmental contamination. The Murphy amendment was In the Crookston case, a maintenance worker adopted while the C7tman amendment was was injured in a boiler mishap at a swimming defeated on a 33-33 vote. pool jointly run by the school and the city. Although the school district had assumed SF 2750 passed, as amended, on a 64-2 vote responsibility for any mishaps under the joint with Seri. Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul) and powers arrangement, the court found that the T Sen- Wes Skoglund (DFL-Minneapolis) voting school and the city were each liable up to the against the bill. A summary of the major state tort caps of$300,000 per individual and components of the Senate bill was published in $1 million per event. this week's Cities'Bulletin. For more information on city legislative issues,contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Mar 31 Z006 10:00:49 Via Fax —> Administrator Page OOZ Of 005 L -Frl x-aFa d ,�,,,,w„� A weekly legislative update from the League ofiVinnesota Cities March 31, 2006 Page 2 .t=p. Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) is sponsoring is to get the bill out of committee by the end of the House companion bill, HF 2846. The last the week. As of this Fridav afternoon, tax stop for HF 2846 is the House Wa--s and Means committee staff said they planned to consider Committee, which will hear the bill on property tax provisions on Monday and Monday, April 3 at 12:30 p.m. The House bill Thursdav, veteran's bills on Tuesday, contains an even more restrictive blight miscellaneous tax provisions on Wednesday, standard than the Senate bill, and the League is and add the income tax article during the concerned that these limits will further Thursday meeting. undermine community redevelopment projects. The bill also includes several compensation At this point it is still unclear whether the provisions that will significantly increase the House will even have a tax bill. The House cost to taxpayers for many public projects, Tax Committee, chaired by Ren. Phil Krulkie including roads and parks. (R-Shoreview), has only met a few times and rumors abound that the House will not even Local officials are encouraged to contact adopt a tax bill this year. At the League's members of the Ways and Means Committee to Legislative Conference yesterday, House express concerns about HF 2846 and Speaker Rep. Steve Svi2gurri(R-Kenyon) emphasize the need for responsible eminent suggested that legislature might finish its work domain reform that balances the needs of this year without an omnibus tax bill. individual property owners with the economic health and livability of Minnesota cities. The Senate has been winning the race to get the Contact information for the House Ways and major bills to the floor for a vote. The eminent Means Committee is available at: domain, and the bonding bill have both been www.leg.state.mn.us. Suggested talking points approved by the full Senate and it is not for local officials are available on the LMC surprising to hear that the Senate intends to website at: quickly complete action on their tax bill. http:.'.'v«ti-w lninc.org,!pdfs,!SOT'C06Conflvlateri Capitol-watchers can expect to see a vote on alsiEminentDomainBackaround_nclf. the tax omnibus bill likely before the spring break starts on April 12. We expect the full House to take-up the eminent domain bill on Wednesdav or Questions? Contact Jenn O'Rourke, Thursday of next week_ 651.281.1261 or by email at jorourke@lmnc.org. Questions? ContactLaura Harris at 651.281.1260 ofl1aarris;altrtnc.org• Efforts to clarify MUST amendment intensify Senate tax bill soon Legislators this week continued to grapple with The Senate Tax Committee will meet every day the constitutional amendment passed by the next week to mark up their version of the 2006 2005 legislature that would phase in dedication omnibus tax bill. Chair, Sen. Lai7z- Pogemiller of one hundred percent of the motor vehicle (DFL-Minneapolis)has indicated that his goal sales tax(MVST) for transportation. Although For more information on city legislative issues,contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Mar 31 Z006 10:01:35 Via Fax -> Administrator Page 003 Of 885 L -Freda Fax J.,o,14,, A weekly legislative update from the League ofIfinnesota Cities March 31, 2006 Page 3 no committees took actions aimed at changing Minnesotans for Better Roads and Transit the language that will appear on the 2006 (MBRT), a coalition formed to support the general election ballot, there was plenty of 2005 constitutional amendment, last week behind-the-scenes discussion about the best announced support for passage of a bill that way to resolve concerns about the language. would change the ballot question to a simpler, more direct question and would clarify in state Legislators from both sides of the aisle have statute that the 60 percent of the money would expressed frustration at the wording in the be dedicated to roads and 40 percent to transit. amendment, which was a piece of the omnibus The initiative would also require that the transportation bill vetoed by the governor in MVST amendment be placed first among 2005. The amendment survived because the constitutional amendments on the November governor does not have the authority to veto ballot. The group has apparently identified proposed constitutional amendments put forth authors for this bill, but the legislation has not by the legislature- The language as passed been introduced. provides that"no less than" 40 percent of the MVST proceeds will be dedicated to transit and Neither proposal resolves the tension between "no more than" 60 percent to roads. Those road and transit advocates. While the proposal who want to limit transit investments worry the to dedicate 40 percent of the MVST funds to legislature can--and v<rill--use a majority of the transit and 60 percent to roads satisfies the dollars for transit. Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities' demand that road funding be guaranteed, transit At this week's League-sponsored State of the advocates oppose changing the language to Cities Conference, Senate Majority Leader constitutionally place a 40 percent cap on Dean Johnson(DFL-Willmar)and House transit spending from the dedicated funds. Speaker Steve Svig um (R-Kenvon) said transportation committee chairs in their The MBRT proposal is acceptable to a number respective bodies had agreed to change the of stakeholders who believe voter approval of language in the constitutional amendment to the amendment depends on two things: 1) explicitly dedicate 60 percent of MVST clarification of how the legislature intends to proceeds to roads and 40 percent to transit. spend the money, and 2)improvements to the One bill that would accomplish this change the wording of the question so that voters language already passed easily out of the understand the amendment would not Senate Transportation Budget Division. The implement a new tax. Transit advocates like bill, SF 24445koe DFL-Clearbrook), is in the the MBRT because the MVST proceeds are form of a joint legislative resolution. statutorily distributed and give the legislature Resolutions do not require the governor's the discretion to increase transit funding above signature. A similar bill, HF 3048 (Lanning, R- 40 percent. However,the initiative doesn't go Moorhead) will be heard in the House far enough to alleviate road funding Transportation Finance Committee next proponents' fears that the legislature will Thursday. ultimately spend the majority of the dollars on metropolitan transit projects. For more information on city legislative issues,cordact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities&dergmwnrnental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Mar 31 Z996 18:9Z:Z1 Via Fax -> Administrator Page 094 Of 995 -Freday Fax- L ,0"VA � A weekly legislative updatefrom the League ofMinnesota Cities March 31, 2006 Page 4 The League will be monitoring the progress of April 8 in Plymouth(Hennepin Co. Plymouth both initiatives. Look for updates in future Library, 15700 36th Avenue North, 10:30am) editions of the Friday Fax and Cities Bulletin. with Sen. Gen Olson, Sen. Ann Rest, and Sen. Terri Bonoff Questions? Contact Anne Finn at 651.281.1263 or by email at afnn ctlmnc:.one. April 8-23 is the congressional district work period. Members of Congress will be in Legislators on spring break Minnesota meeting with constituents. Citv officials who have a city-story to share with our The Senate and House are expected to take Federal elected officials should take advantage their traditional Easter-Passover break starting of this time to schedule a meeting! at 3 pm on Wednesday, April 12, coming back at noon on Tuesday April 18. This is usually a Check your local newspaper or radio station for great time to catch legislators back in the additional dates. To receive e-mail notice of district on issues that are important to you. To upcoming town hall meetings near you, schedule an appointment, contact legislators subscribe online at through their legislative assistants. Often these lrttp: •www.h.ouse.leo.state.m.n.us%mai.11ist/maili staff coordinate the schedules for legislators, nglist.asp and even when thev are home in the districts. Go to htty:i'. ww.senate-leg.state.mn.us'schedule;lists 3 ww.leg..state.mn.us for all those contact en-.htm numbers. Staying Informed Questions? Contact Brian Strub at One of the best ways to keep in the know is by 651.281.1256 or by email at bstru.b;d%bnnc.orp, subscribing to Session Weekly, the award- winning, nonpartisan newsmagazine of the Town hall meetings Minnesota House of Representatives. To subscribe, call (651) 296-2146 or(800) 657- Town hall meetings are a great chance to meet 3550, or go online at with your legislators and tell your city-story wvvi -.house-nimbinfiz'subscribesw.asp and for close to home.Upcoming meetings in a city daily electronic news updates, not only during near you include: session but throughout the year when news warrants, subscribe to Session Daily at April 1 in Minnetonka (Minnetonka City Hall, Ar�Niv.house..leg.state.nin.us/list'ioin.asp'listna 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, 10:30am) with me=sessiondaily Sen. David Hann, Sen. Terri Bonoff, and Rep. Questions? Contact Brian Strub at Maria Ruud 651.281.1256 or by email at bstrub_c lmnc.orQ. April 1 in Hopkins (the Depot Coffee House, 9451 Excelsior Boulevard, 10:30am) with Rep. Steve Simon For mace information on city legislative issues,contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intetgovermnental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Mar 31 Z0B6 18:03:BZ Via Fax -> Administrator Paye B05 Of OHS L -Freda Fax-y�,o"'Z A weekly legislative update from the League of1finnesota Cities March 31, 2006 Page 5 Selected meeting notices. HF 3925 (Olson)Municipal boundary adjustment provisions modified,task force established and House and Senate schedules may change with money appropriated. little notice. A full and updated list can be found HF 2833 (Seifert) Omnibus state government at wvvw.le Q.slate.mn.us finance bill. MONDAY 12:30 PM Committee: House Transportation Finance 12:30 PM Room: 10 State Office Building Committee: House Civil Law and Elections Chair: Rep. Mary Liz Holberg Room: Basement State Office Building Agenda: HF3657 (Holberg)Highway funding Chair: Rep. Jeff Johnson provided,trunk highway motor vehicle sales tax Agenda: collection account established,proceeds HF 923 (Holberg)Transportation Department allocated,bonds issued and money appropriated. property transaction provisions modified, and HF 3696(Abrams)International economic clarifying changes provided. development zone final designation and zone HF 1845 (Kohls)Attorney fee awards duration delayed, corresponding tax incentive reasonableness factor provided. dates modified,foreign trade powers application authorized and grants extended. 12:30 PM HF3682(Abrams)Metropolitan area transit and Committee: House Local Government paratransit additional financing provided. Room: 10 State Office Building HF 2086(Beard)Metropolitan Airports Chair: Rep. Mark Olson Commission membership provisions and Agenda: SF 3007/I3F 3265 (Ellison)Cities of the reporting requirement modified. first class authorized to allow advertising on trash and recycling receptacles placed in rights-of-way THURSDAY of streets and highways. 12:30 PM TUESDAY Committee: House Transportation Finance Room: 10 State Office Building 8:15 AM Chair: Rep. Mary Liz Holberg Committee: House State Government Finance Agenda: HF 3048 (Lanning)Motor vehicle sales Room: Basement State Office Building tax revenue dedicated to transportation and Chair: Rep. Marty Seifert allocated between public transit assistance and B111(s)Added highway user tax distribution fund, and Agenda: HF1909(Hackbarth)Heritage constitutional amendment proposed. enhancement, clean water and arts funds and HF 2915 (Gunther)Motor vehicle tax councils established, sales tax increased; motor apportionment specified through constitutional vehicle tax revenues dedicated to transportation; amendment and referendum. marriage recognized as one man and one woman; and constitutional amendments proposed. HF 3380, (Buesgens)Postemployment benefit account establishment by political subdivisions for officers and employees authorized. For more infermatim on city legislative issues,contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergmef=ental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 s I Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of ) the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No. 05-311 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer ) Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES AND THE MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATORS These reply comments are submitted on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities ("LMC") and the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators ("MACTA") in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") on November 18, 2005, in the above-referenced proceeding. The LMC is a statewide cooperative association representing 829 cities, 12 townships and 48 special districts. There are only 24 cities in Minnesota that are not LMC members (each of which has a population of less than 120). The LMC was established in 1913 within the school of public affairs at the University of Minnesota. It became an independent association representing and serving cities in 1974. It is governed by a board of directors who are elected by the LMC membership. f Z , MACTA is a non-profit association representing 105 cities and 9 townships in Minnesota. MACTA was formed in 1982 as a trade association supporting its member cities by providing educational, networking, and legislative/regulatory assistance in areas relating to cable television and telecommunications. MACTA members include cities, cable commissions, community cable TV facilities, and advisors working with these organizations. INTRODUCTION The Minnesota local franchising authorities represented by the LMC and the MACTA (hereinafter collectively, "LFAs") wish to reply to initial comments submitted by the Minnesota Telecom Alliance ("MTA") and Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest"). As set forth in our initial comments, LFAs in Minnesota have been managing communications competition for many years and are excited to embrace competition in the video arena. LFAs are not barriers to entry, but rather simply following the policies set forth in state and federal law. These policies encourage competition but also seek to ensure that no provider is given an unfair competitive advantage over the other. LFAs are uniquely positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs and interests in a fair and equitable manner. LFAs are also in the best position to ensure that provider obligations are enforced. The Commission should promote policies and regulations which protect LFAs' authority to supervise rights-of- way, require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee as compensation for the use of such rights-of-way and require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate institutional network obligations. 2 Statistical information regarding cable franchising in Minnesota The initial comments submitted by the MTA suggest that there are only four (4) new entrants which provide competitive video services in Minnesota franchise areas. See MTA Initial Comments at page 4. Moreover, the MTA argues that "cumulatively a total of 1,078 companies are listed as being "active" cable service providers in various areas throughout the state." Id. The MTA goes on to argue that only "26 communities have two or more providers listed. However, of that 126 [sic], 72 companies are listed as inactive." Id. Despite the fact that there appear to be typographical errors which render confusing exactly which statistics MTA is seeking to emphasize, the LFAs have surveyed their membership and found strikingly different results. In particular, the LFA information listed in Exhibit B of these reply comments identify 19 different companies or"new entrants"which provide competitive video services to Minnesota communities. Moreover, at least 43 communities' have two or more cable service providers. See Exhibit B. It is worth noting that the communities in which the competitive services exist are spread throughout the state of Minnesota, as demonstrated in the map set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Interestingly, it is the largest jurisdictions in the state such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud and many of the Twin Cities metro area suburbs which do not enjoy competition. Rather, many of the smaller, more rural communities in the state have benefited from competition, often from companies affiliated with local telephone providers, many of which are members of the MTA. Qwest is not directly providing video services to any Minnesota cities or towns. See Exhibit C attached hereto. 3 Are potential competitors obtaining from LFAs the authority to offer video programming to consumers in a timely manner? The MTA argues that new entrants have no "upfront assurances that a franchise will be awarded within a time frame that satisfies their business plan."MTA Initial Comments at page 5. Exhibit B of these reply comments sets forth the exact time frame that was required to process competitive franchises in Minnesota cities where two or more cable providers are currently operating. Exhibit B provides precisely the type of empirical evidence which the Commission requested of commenters rather than anecdotal information which is not verifiable. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that Minnesota Statutes at Section 238.081 outlines a specific franchise procedure and timeframe which must be followed prior to the award of a franchise. Section 238.081 limits how quickly an LFA can process a franchise request. While there are occasions where franchise negotiations may extend beyond the minimum statutory time frame specified in Minn. Stat. § 238.081, LFAs are not opposed to expediting the franchising process to ensure timely entry for new competitive providers. The LFAs maintain that any policies promoted by the Commission should promote competition in video services, but not at the expense of LFA authority. LFAs agree that unnecessary procedural delays should be eliminated and procedural time tables can be established to ensure a decision by an LFA within a date-certain period. However, the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, LFAs must ensure that similar (though not necessarily identical) responsibilities apply to new competitors so that consumers can enjoy the benefits of such service on a non-discriminatory basis. 4 f Are certain cable service requirements no longer needed in light of competition in the MVPD marketplace? The MTA asserts that "the application of a `franchise fee' as a condition for maintenance of the public right-of-way is obsolete." MTA Initial Comments at page 7. The LFAs strongly disagree with this position. A franchise fee is consideration paid by a cable operator to an LFA for the privilege of using the public streets or to compensate for the costs of necessary regulation and supervision.2 Compensation for the use of public right-of-ways for a service which is not classified as a utility is appropriate and reasonable in light of the valuable public property being made available. While the FCC formerly limited franchise fees, those limits were superseded by the Cable Act of 1984 and the 1992 Cable Act, which provide authority for LFAs to collect franchise fees but limit such fees to five percent (5%) of a cable operator's gross revenues.3 Moreover, the LFAs note that 47 U.S.C. § 542(i) provides that "any federal agency may not regulate the amount of the franchise fees paid by a cable operator, or regulate the use of funds derived from such fees, except as provided in 47 U.S.C. § 542. LFAs are charged with responsibility to oversee and maintain public rights-of-way and their ability to obtain fair compensation for such use should, not in any way, be limited simply because a private entity desires unfettered access to public property for its own financial gain. What problems have cable incumbents encountered with LFAs? Several commentators including Qwest have raised the City of Otsego and its franchising procedure as an example of a case where a telephone company was forced to "walk away from onerous build-out requirements." See Qwest Initial Comments at page 10 and footnote 15. In z See Cable Television Report and Order,36 F.C.C.2D 143,209-10(1972). s 47 U.S.C. § 542(a),(b). 5 particular, Qwest cites the testimony of U.S. Telecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick, Jr. on October 19, 2005 before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, where Mr. McCormick argues that Otsego residents were deprived of a choice between video services because of the city's insistence on build-out promises. Id. As noted in the LFA's initial comments at page 11,the issues regarding the city of Otsego, Minnesota ("City"), were ultimately resolved by the State Court of Appeals which upheld the city of Otsego's decision. See WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. App. 2003, cert. den'd). Due to Qwest's comments, a full description of the case is set forth below. In 2001, WH Link, LLC ("WHL") filed an application with the Commission for certification to operate an open-video system ("OVS"). After the FCC approved the application WHL filed with the Commission a Notice of Intent to Establish an OVS in the City. After filing its Notice of Intent, WHL met with City officials regarding its plans to provide video programming in the City. The City took the position that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 required WHL to obtain a cable franchise in order to use the public rights-of-way. WHL disagreed contending that the state law franchise requirement was pre-empted by federal law. After further negotiations WHL submitted a franchise application but asserted that it was exempt from the state law service area requirements arguing that WHL had authorization to provide cable services over its OVS in its telephone service area without being obligated to go beyond that service area through the imposition of any specific build-out or line extension obligations imposed by the City. The City approved WHL's application conditioned upon WHL's acceptance of a service area requirement. WHL rejected the service area requirement 6 and informed the City that it viewed the imposition of the requirement as effectively denying its franchise application. WHL then appealed the City's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals for certiorari review. The Court of Appeals concluded that the City was correct in its interpretation that Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238 required WHL to obtain a cable franchise for its OVS. The court further held that Minnesota's cable franchise requirement as applied to OVS does not conflict with federal law and that the state level playing field statute, in particular the service area requirement, is not preempted by federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the City's decision to require WHL to obtain a cable franchise which included a service area requirement as a condition of the grant of a franchise.4 The City of Otsego simply followed state law in processing WHL's franchise request. To suggest that Otsego was a barrier to entry is false and the State Court of Appeals decision supports the City's action. CONCLUSION LFAs in Minnesota are enthusiastic about the benefits that competing cable operators may offer to our constituents. Policies which the Commission may set forth should insure a regulatory regime that is the same for providers of video services where the cable operator, and not the consumer, control the video content offering. The LFAs encourage the Commission to promote fairness for consumers in local communities by insuring that the playing field remains level for cable providers regardless of the particular technology utilized to provide video content. The LFAs embrace the concept that franchise terms and conditions should be fair and reasonable for all cable providers so that no one provider is given an unfair competitive advantage. The 4 WH Link,LLC v. City of Otsego,664 N.W.2d 390(Minn.App.2003,cert.den'd). 7 LFAs will continue to work aggressively toward the goal of promoting competition and granting competitive franchises in an efficient, fair and competitively neutral manner. Respectfully submitted, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES By: _ Thomas Grundhoefer, General Counsel MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATORS By: Jeff Lueders, President Dated: March 28, 2006 cc: NATOA, info@natoa.org John Norton,john.norton@fcc.gov Natalie Roisman,natalie.roisman@fcc.gov 8 EXHIBIT A MINNESOTA COMMUNITIES WITH COMPETITIVE CABLE OPERATORS 'Bemidji Nashwauk ' 'Keewatin "Grand Rapids 'Park Rapids *Wadena Staples• *Fergus Falls 'Brainerd/Baxter *Little Falls Melrose ' .Zimmerman 'Becker Paynesville' 'Big Lake 'Otsego 'Hu Albertville* "Chokio 'Morris Litchfield' 'Montrose Willmar' "Rosemount Redwood Falls' New Prague *Marshall 'New Ulm ' ' • "St.Peter • abasha Tracy Springfield Sleepy Eye Goodview' ' 'Slayton Winona Pipestone 'St.JamesWaseca' 'SL Charles 'Luverne *Worthington Caledonia' A-1 EXHIBIT B DEMOGRAPHIC AND GENERAL DATA REGARDING MINNESOTA CITIES WITH COMPETITIVE CABLE OPERATORS B-t Demographic and General Data for Minnesota Cities with Competitive Cable Operators Population and household data: 2004 data from state demographer All other data:U.S.Census(2000) City County 2004 2004 2000 2000 Competitive Franchise Competitive Competitive Incumbent Incumbent Name Pop. Households Median Pop. Franchise Award Date Cable Operator Franchise Operator Franchise Household Application Expiration Expiration Income Date 1 Albertville Wright 5,368 1,972 $58,260 3,621 Unknown Unknown FTTH Unknown Charter Unknown Communications 2 Baxter Crow Wing 6,887 2,465 $52,289 5,555 See Brainerd 3 Becker Sherburne 3,749 1,306 $50,714 2,673 9/18/01 11/7/01 Connections,Inc. 2018 US Cable 2016 4 Bemidji Beltrami 12,962 5,096 $28,072 11,917 approx. 5/6/2002 Paul Bunyan TV 5/6/2017 Charter 12/31/2013 10/l/O1 5 Big Lake Sherburne 8,303 2,901 $50,658 6,063 mid 2003 mid 2003 Connections,Etc. 2/1/2021 Charter 1/1/2020 temp. permit 6 Brainerd Crow Wing 13,798 5,894 $26,901 13,178 Mid-2004 1/1/2005 Consolidated 3/1/2020 Charter 3/1/2020 Telecom Co.and Nextera Comm. 7 Caledonia Houston 2,953 1,242 $32,455 2,965 6/1/03 11/21/2003 HBC-Ace Cable 10/10/2014 Mediacom 10/10/2014 8 Chokio Stevens 421 194 $34,107 443 8/31/00 10/16/00 Federated 10/16/2010 Mediacom 4/14/2008 Telephone 9 Fergus Falls Otter Tail 13,780 5,837 $31,454 13,471 9/1/00 12/19/2000 Otter Com 3/1/2015 Charter 3/1/2015 10 Goodview Winona 3,301 1,409 $43,654 3,373 approx. 8/97 10/13/97 Hiawatha 10/13/2012 Charter 1/31/2015 11 Grand Rapids Itasca 8,478 3,813 $28,991 7,764 3/11/04 12/6/2004 Paul Bunyan 12/6/2019 Mediacom Unsure of Rural Telephone date,but Coop has a 15 year term 12 Hugo Washington 8,760 3,196 $63,450 6,363 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 13 Keewatin Itasca 1,159 527 $28,795 1,164 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 1 14 Litchfield Meeker 6,801 2,760 $36,021 6,562 6/1/1999 11/1/1999 Hutchinson 8/20/2011 Mediacom 8/20/2011 Telecom 15 Little Falls Morrison 8,304 3,497 $30,547 7,179 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 16 Luveme Rock 4,588 1,986 $36,271 4,617 1998 7/13/1998 PrairieWave 2013 Mediacom 2016 17 Marshall Lyon 12,874 5,104 $37,950 12,735 3/13/1998 4/27/1998 PrairieWave 6/17/2013 Charter 8/13/2013 18 Melrose Stearns 3,256 1,235 $34,432 3,091 Not available 11/3/2005 diversiCOM 11/3/2020 Charter 1/16/2018 19 Montrose Wright 421 194 $34,107 443 5/9/2005 8/22/2005 Lakedale 8/13/2013 Time 8/13/2013 Telephone Warner 20 Morris Stevens 1,892 776 $39,583 1,143 7/28/2000 10/4/2000 Home Town 2/15/2006 Mediacom 2/14/2011 Solutions, LLC 21 Nashwauk Itasca 951 455 $26,146 935 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 22 New Prague Scott 6,046 1,552 $41,750 4,559 2/1/2004 6/1/2004 BevComm,Inc. 5/1/2015 Time 4/1/2015 Warner 23 New Ulm Brown 13,936 5,673 $40,044 13,594 6/9/2000 8/22/2000 New Ulm 8/22/2015 Time 2/2/2014 Telecom Warner 24 Otsego Wright 9,893 3,271 $57,422 6,389 5/6/2002 10/28/2002 WH Link 10/28/2017 Charter 10/28/2017 25 Paynesville Stearns 2,282 973 $34,000 2,267 Not available Not Lakedale Not Mediacom 8/19/2017 available available 26 Park Rapids Hubbard 3,432 1,571 $23,628 3,276 11/98 5/11/99 Arvig 5/21/2009 Charter 3/10/2006 Communications S stems 27 Pipestone Pipestone 4,369 1,922 $30,412 4,280 6/1/1998 1/13/1999 PrairieWave 8/15/2015 Mediacom 8/15/2015 28 Redwood Redwood 5,348 Not $38,812 5,459 10/31/2001 5/7/2002 NU Telecom 5/22/2017 Mediacom 2/7/2012 Falls available 29 Rosemount Dakota 17,740 6,004 $65,916 14,619 1/1/2002 7/2/2002 FTTH 7/2/2017 Charter 6/1/2014 Communications 30 St.Charles Winona 3,502 1,339 $42,813 3,295 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 31 St.James Watonwan 4,630 1,849 $33,196 4,695 6/1/1998 11/16/1998 PrairieWave 12/1/2013 Mediacom 9/1/2013 32 St.Peter Nicollet 10,401 3,262 $40,344 9,747 2/1/2003 Not Nu-Telecom Not Mediacom Not available available available 33 Slayton Murray 2,054 920 $36,500 2,072 10/16/1998 3/23/1999 PrairieWave 12/1/2014 Mediacom 12/1/2014 34 Sleepy Eye Brown 3,610 1,489 $37,123 3,515 1/1/2003 4/1/2003 Sleepy Eye 6/1/2010 Mediacom 6/1/2010 Digital TV 2 35 Springfield Brown 2,191 905 $34,643 2,215 4/15/2003 5/20/2003 Nu-Telecom 9/2/2018 Mediacom 9/2/2018 36 Staples Todd 3,137 1,108 $25,208 3,104 6/1/2004 4/15/2005 Arvig 4/15/2020 Charter 12/27/2020 37 Tracy Lyon 2,185 905 $31,356 2,268 6/1/1999 Not PrairieWave Not Charter Not available available available 38 Wabasha Wabasha 2,655 1,093 $35,291 2,599 5/05 6/7/05 Hiawatha 5/2011 US Cable 5/2011 39 Wadena Wadena 4,248 1,875 $26,947 4,294 1/1/2004 5/11/2004 Arvig 9/21/2009 Charter 9/21/2009 40 Waseca Waseca 9,691 3,480 $39,554 8,493 3/15/2004 7/6/2004 Hickory Tech 7/1/2019 Mediacom 7/1/2019 41 Willmar Kandiyohi 18,659 7,472 $33,455 18,351 11/15/2000 11/21/2001 En-Tel 11/21/2016 Charter 11/21/2016 42 Winona Winona 27,221 10,440 $32,845 27,069 4/28/1997 7/28/1997 Hiawatha 12/31/2015 Charter 12/31/2015 43 Worthington Nobles 11,307 4,335 $36,250 11,283 4/16/1998 8/1/1998 PrairieWave 8/1/2013 Mediacom 6/1/2012 44 Zimmerman Sherburne 4,098 1,422 $49,332 2,851 Not available Not Not available Not Not Not available available available available 3 EXHIBIT C MINNESOTA COMMUNITIES WITH COMPETITIVE CABLE SERVICES 1. Albertville 15. Luverne 29. St. Charles 2. Baxter/Brainerd 16. Marshall 30. St. James 3. Becker 17. Melrose 31. St. Peter 4. Bemidji 18. Montrose 32. Slayton 5. Big Lake 19. Morris 33. Sleepy Eye 6. Caledonia 20. Nashwauk 34. Springfield 7. Chokio 21. New Prague 35. Staples 8. Fergus Falls 22. New Ulm 36. Tracy 9. Goodview 23. Otsego 37. Wabasha 10. Grand Rapids 24. Paynesville 38. Wadena 11. Hugo 25. Park Rapids 39. Waseca 12. Keewatin 26. Pipestone 40. Willmar 13. Litchfield 27. Redwood Falls 41. Winona 14. Little Falls 28. Rosemount 42. Worthington 43. Zimmerman 5 There are currently at least 43 communities in Minnesota with two or more competitive providers. In late 2005 six LFAs approved the transfer of their competitive franchises to the incumbent cable operator. C-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the attached comments were sent this 28th day of March,2006, via first-class mail, postage prepaid thereon to the following: Contact Address City State Zip Title Larry Kruse 5975 Main Ave NE Albertville MN 55301-0009 Admin Dennis Coryell 13190 Memorywood Dr Baxter MN 56425-2626 Admin Nancy Fiereck 12060 Sherburne Ave Becker MN 55308 Clerk David Minke 317 4th St NW Bemidji MN 56601-3116 Mgr Patrick Wussow 160 Lake St N Big Lake MN 55309-9254 Admin Daniel Vogt 501 Laurel St Brainerd MN 56401-3595 Admin/Clk/Treas Robert L.Nelson 231 East Main Street Caledonia MN 55921 Clerk/Admin Geraldine Ritter 221 Main Street Chokio MN 56221-0036 Clk/Treas Mark Sievert 112 W Washington Fergus Falls MN 56538-0868 Admin Daryl Zimmer 4140 W 5th St Goodview MN 55987-1599 Admin Edward Treska 420 N Pokegama Ave Grand Rapids MN 55744-2662 Admin Michael Ericson 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N Hugo MN 55038-9301 Admin Julie Bardine PO Box 190 Keewatin MN 55753-0190 Clerk Bruce Miller 126 N Marshall Ave Litchfield MN 55355-2110 Admin Richard Carlson 100 NE 7th Ave Little Falls MN 56345-0244 Admin John Call 203 E Main St Luverne MN 56156-0659 Admin Michael Johnson 344 W Main St Marshall MN 56258-1313 Admin Patti Haase 225 E First Street North Melrose MN 56352 Clerk Barbara Swanson 311 Buffalo Ave. S. Montrose MN 55363-0025 Admin/Clk/Treas Edward Larson 609 Oregon Ave Morris MN 56267-0438 Mgr Edward Bolf 301 Central Ave Nashwauk MN 55769-1131 Clerk Jerome Bohnsack 118 Central Ave N New Prague MN 56071-1534 Admin Brian Gramentz 100 N Broadway New Ulm MN 56073-0636 Mgr Michael Robertson 8899 Nashua Ave NE Otsego MN 55330-7314 Admin Steve Helget 221 Washburne Ave Paynesville MN 56362-1642 Admin Margie Vik 212 2nd Street West Park Rapids MN 56470-1507 Clerk Jeffrey Jones 119 2nd Ave SW Pipestone MN 56164-1683 Admin Keith Muetzel 333 S Washington St Redwood Falls MN 56283-0010 Admin James Verbrugge 2875 145th St W Rosemount MN 55068-4941 Admin Cathy Magnus 2424 26th St Slayton MN 56172-1244 Admin/Clk Mark Kober 200 Main St.E Sleepy Eye MN 56085-1638 Mgr Malcolm Tilberg 2 East Central Street Springfield MN 56087-1608 Mgr Crystal Prentice 830 Whitewater Ave Saint Charles MN 55972-1298 Admin Michael Williams 400 2nd Street South Saint Cloud MN 56301-3699 Admin LeeAnn Nibbe 124 Armstrong Blvd S Saint James MN 56081-0070 Clk/Treas Judy Weyrens 25 College Avenue North St.Joseph MN 56374 Admin Todd Prafke 227 S Front St Saint Peter MN 56082-2513 Admin 1 Contact Address City State Zip Title Patti Gartland 125 Pinecone Road N. Sartell MN 56377-0140 Admin RoseAnn Inderrieden 320 Oak St S Sauk Centre MN 56378-1225 Admin Ross Olson 115 2nd Ave N Sauk Rapids MN 56379-1605 Admin Gerald Brever 611 Iowa Avenue East Staples MN 56479-2224 Admin Audrey Koopman 336 Morgan St Tracy MN 56175-1230 Admin David Schmidt 900 Hiawatha Dr Wabasha MN 55981-0268 Admin Shaunna Johnson 19 13th Ave N Waite Park MN 56387-1066 Admin/Clk/Treas Bradley Swenson 222 2nd St SE Wadena MN 56482-0030 Admin Kris Busse 508 S State St Waseca MN 56093-3097 Mgr Kevin Halliday 333 SW 6th Street Willmar MN 56201-0755 Clerk Eric Sorensen 207 Lafayette Winona MN 55987-0378 Mgr Robert Filson 303 9th St Worthington MN 56187-0279 Admin Greg Lafond 12980 Fremont Ave Zimmerman MN 55398-9414 Admin 2 I-68 Columbus STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS --------------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) NOTICE OF INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF COLUMBUS ) RECONVENED HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) --------------------------------------------------- A public hearing concerning this Petition will be held on Monday, April 24, 2006, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Columbus Town Hall, 16319 Kettle River Boulevard, Forest Lake, Minnesota. The hearing will be before Administrative Law Judge Beverly Jones Heydinger. This is a continuation of a hearing originally held on October 5, 2005. It is not necessary that a person have attended that hearing in order to participate in this hearing. The only formal parties to this proceeding is Columbus Township, Attorneys for Columbus Township; William Griffith and John Steffenhagen, the City of Forest Lake, Attorney for the City of Forest Lake; Christopher Hood. The Township has petitioned the State for authority to incorporate certain land. Any person interested in this matter will be given an opportunity to present oral statements and to submit written data, statements or arguments at the April 24th hearing. Persons appearing at the hearing should bring ail evidence, including any records or other documents,which they would like to have considered. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedure set out in Minn. Rules, Chapter 6000. A copy of the Rules may be purchased from the Minnesota Bookstore, telephone: 651/297-3000. The Rules are also located on the Internet at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us. Persons seeking more information about the hearing procedure should contact Judge Heydinger at 612/341-7600. The property proposed for incorporation is all of the Town of Columbus, Anoka County, Minnesota. Following the close of the hearing,the Administrative Law Judge will issue a written i -2- final decision pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 414 and the October 18, 2005 referral from the Director of Municipal Boundary Adjustments. Information concerning the proposed incorporation may be reviewed by contacting the Administrative Law Judge or Barb Masteller, Township Clerk, Town of Columbus, telephone: 651/464-3120. If you need an accommodation for a disability in order to participate in this hearing process,please contact the Administrative Law Judge at 612/341-7600 (voice), 612/341-7346 (TDD), or by e-mail addressed to: Beverly.Heydinger(c�state.mn.us. Dated this 27`h day of March, 2006. For the Director 658 Cedar Street-Room 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 "t.!�'SLm_'t Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director Municipal Boundary Adjustments A-7371 Forest Lake STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS --------------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY ) NOTICE OF OF FOREST LAKE PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) RECONVENED HEARING STATUTES 414 ) --------------------------------------------------- A public hearing concerning this Petition will be held on Monday,April 24, 2006, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Columbus Town Hall, 16319 Kettle River Boulevard, Forest Lake, Minnesota. The hearing will be before Administrative Law Judge Beverly Jones Heydinger. This is a continuation of a hearing originally held on December 5, 2005. It is not necessary that a person have attended that hearing in order to participate in this hearing. The only formal parties to this proceeding are the Petitioners the City of Forest Lake, Attorneys for Petitioners the City of Forest Lake; David Hebert and Christopher Hood,the Township of Columbus, Attorneys for Columbus Township; William Griffith and John Steffenhagen. The City has petitioned the State for authority to annex certain land. Any person interested in this matter will be given an opportunity to present oral statements and to submit written data, statements or arguments at the April 24`x'hearing. Persons appearing at the hearing should bring all evidence, including any records or other documents,which they would like to have considered. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedure set out in Minn. Rules, Chapter 6000. A copy of the Rules may be purchased from the Minnesota Bookstore, telephone: 651/297-3000. The Rules are also located on the Internet at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us. Persons seeking more information about the hearing procedure should contact Judge Heydinger at 612/341-7600. The property proposed for annexation is described as follows: All that part of Sections 13, 24, 25 and 36 in the Township of Columbus, Anoka -2- County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the right of way of Interstate Highway 35 E and Interstate Highway 35. Following the close of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will issue a written final decision pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 414 and the November 10, 2005 referral from the Director of Municipal Boundary Adjustments. Information concerning the proposed annexation may be reviewed by contacting the Administrative Law Judge or Charles Robinson, City Administrator, City of Forest Lake, telephone: 651/464-3550. If you need an accommodation for a disability in order to participate in this hearing process, please contact the Administrative Law Judge at 612/341-7600 (voice), 612/341-7346 (TDD), or by e-mail addressed to: Beverly.HeydingerPstate.mn.us. Dated this 27`h day of March, 2006. For the Director 658 Cedar Street-Room 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 �ht�c Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director Municipal Boundary Adjustments