Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 31 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS W ,a(o DECEMBER 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-4) D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (5-8) 2) Issuance of Airport Exempt Facility Bonds for Airborne Express (9-10) 3) New Lease Agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense Commission (11-12) 4) Change Order #2 with Road Constructors, Inc. for Entrance Road Improvements, Entrance Road Signage Improvements and Parking Lot Expansion (13-14) 5) Change Order #1 with Progressive Contractors, Inc. for Runway 02- 20 Extension with Taxiway and Connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps (15-16) 6) Change Order #7 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements (17-18) (19-22) (23-24) (25-26) (27-28) (29-30) (31-36) (37-40) (41-44) (45-50) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) (51-52) 17) Agreement with City of Rochester to Spread Biological Solids on Airport Property Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities Appointment of Data Practices Compliance Officer Approval of Accounts Payable Amendments to the City's Investment Policy Appointment to International Affairs Committee Appointment to HRA Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board Appointment to CUDE Annexation Petition by Estate of Robert J. Thompson Approx. 2.66 Acres Legally Described as Lots 28-32, Blk Portion of Lot 27, Blk. 2, Sunnydale Sub. Blocks 1, 2 and 3 Bamber Lake Stormwater Management Agreement to Annex .2and a Council Agenda December 18, 2000 Page 2 (53-54) 18) Assessment Agreements/Curb, Gutter and Overlay on 4°i Ave. NW (55-56) 19) Revocable Permit for Block 31 of Original Plat to the City of Rochester/Sunstone Investors/Kahler Hotel (57-58) 20) Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Circle Drive Business Center Second (59-64) 21) Feasibility Report for Public Pedestrian Facilities Along Rocky Creek Drive Between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway (66-70) 22) Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive and 23`d Avenue SW (71-72) 23) Right of Way Encroachment of Garage at 1624 — 3 d Avenue NW (73-74) 24) Passenger Loading Zone at 114 — 6 Street SW (75-76) 25) Year 2001 CBD Parking Rate Changes (77-78) 26) Parking Restriction on 70 Avenue SW from 2"d Street SW to West Center Street (79-80) 27) Parking Restriction on 50"' Avenue NW/19"' to 65"' Street NW (81-82) 28) Engineering Service Agreement for Restoration #4 of Center St Ramp (83-84) 29) Engineering Svc. Agreements for City Traffic Signal Projects in 2001 (85-86) 30) Rochester City Lines Contract for 2001 'a. C'v,.,,,�-- E) HEARINGS (87-88) 1) Adoption of 2001 Tax Levy, 2001 Budget, and 2001-2006 CIP (89-108) 2) Type III, Phase I Appeal by Frank Kottschade F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (109-114) 1) Rochester Public Utilities — Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (115-116) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I / DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this foram to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-30 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: D-1. Approval of Minutes D-2. Issuance of Airport Exempt Facility Bonds for Airborne Express D-3. New Lease Agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense Commission D-4. Change Order #2 with Road Constructors, Inc. for Entrance Road Improvements, Entrance Road Signage Improvements and Parking Lot Expansion D-5. Change Order #1 with Progressive Contractors, Inc. for Runway 02-20 Extension with Taxiway and Connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps D-6. Change Order #7 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements D-7. Agreement with City of Rochester to Spread Biological Solids on Airport Property D-8. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-9. Appointment of Data Practices Compliance Officer D-10. Approval of Accounts Payable D-11. Amendments to the City's Investment Policy D-12. Appointment to International Affairs Committee D-13. Appointment to HRA D-14. Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board D-15. Appointment to CUDE D-16. Annexation Petition by Estate of Robert J. Thompson to Annex Approx. 2.66 Acres Legally Described as Lots 28-32, Blk. 2 and a Portion of Lot 27, Blk. 2, Sunnydale Sub. Blocks 1, 2 and 3 D-17. Bamber Lake Stormwater Management Agreement D-18. Assessment Agreements/Curb, Gutter and Overlay on 4d' Ave. NW D-19, Revocable Permit for Block 31 of Original Plat to the City of Rochester/Sunstone Investors/Kahler Hotel D-20. Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Circle Drive Business Center Second D-21. Feasibility Report for Public Pedestrian Facilities Along Rocky Creek Drive Between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway D-22. Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive and 23`d Avenue SW D-23. Right of Way Encroachment of Garage at 1624 — 3'd Avenue NW D-24. Passenger Loading Zone at 114-6d' Street SW COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items December 18, 2000 Page 2 D-25. Year 2001 CBD Parking Rate Changes D-26. Parking Restriction on 7 h Avenue SW from 2"d Street SW to West Center Street D-27. Parking Restriction on 50`h Avenue NW/19`h to 65`h Street NW D-28. Engineering Service Agreement for Restoration #4 of Center St Ramp D-29. Engineering Svc. Agreements for City Traffic Signal Projects in 2001 D-30. Rochester City Lines Contract for 2001 11 /COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: j�� Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D - A ITEM DESCRIPTION: ISSUANCE OF AIRPORT EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS FOR PREPARED BY: AIRBORNE EXPRESS T.SPAETH On March 6, 2000 the City Council held a _public hearing and adopted a resolution granting preliminary bond approval for the issuance of $1,000,000 in tax exempt facility bonds for the construction of the Airborne Express facility located upon property leased at the Rochester International Airport. The proposed bonds to be issued are similar to industrial revenue bonds. They are an obligation of the applicant and are not a financial responsibility of the City of Rochester. The applicant for the bond issuance is MDC, Inc. (Midwest Development Construction, Inc.) and the underwriter is GE Capital. On December 11, 2000, the Council held a public hearing pursuant to the "business subsidy' laws. The Council closed the public hearing but took no action at that time. The business subsidy approval is deemed to be part of the bond resolution approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution for airport exempt facility bonds in the amount of $1,000,000 to MDC, Inc. and council authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to execute bond issuance and business subsidy agreement documents on behalf of the City of Rochester COUNCIL ACTION: Mobonhy: second CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNTY OF OLMSTED STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF AIRPORT EXEMPT FACILITY REVENUE BOND, SERIES 2000 (AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION PROJECT), ON BEHALF OF MDC ROCHESTER, LLC BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Authority. The City is, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"), authorized to issue and sell its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing certain projects thereunder. 2. Bond Project• Documents Presented. MDC Rochester, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company (the "Company"), has proposed that the City issue its $1,000,000 Airport Exempt Facility Revenue Bond, Series 2000 (Airborne Freight Corporation Project) (the "Bond"). The Bond would be issued in substantially the form set forth in the hereinafter -mentioned Loan Agreement. The Bond would be issued to provide financing with respect to costs of the air freight facility anticipated to be used by Airborne Freight Corporation ("Airborne") at the Rochester International Airport (collectively, the "Project"). Forms of the following documents (collectively, the "City Documents") relating to the Bond have been submitted to the City: (a) Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2000 (the "Loan Agreement"), among the City, the Company and GE Capital Public Finance, Inc., a Delaware corporation; (b) Assignment and Assumption of Ground Lease and Sublease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2000, among the City, the Company, and MDC, Inc., a Kansas corporation; (c) An Estoppel, Consent and Non -Disturbance Certificate, dated as of December 1, 2000, among the City, the Company, Airborne, and Rochester Airport Company; and 1233069.1 (d) A Business Subsidy Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2000, between the City and the Company. 3. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) There is no litigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened against the City questioning the City's execution or delivery of the Bond or the City Documents or questioning the authority of the City to issue the Bond. (b) The City's execution and delivery of the Bond and the City Documents do not and will not violate any order against the City of any court or other agency of government, or any indenture, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument. (c) The Bond shall not be payable from or a charge upon any funds of the City other than amounts payable thereon pursuant to the Loan Agreement; the City shall not be subject to any liability thereon; no owners) of the Bond shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay any of the Bond or the interest thereon or to enforce payment thereof against any funds, property, or assets of the City; the Bond shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City or a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City (other than the interest of the City in the loan repayments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement). 4. Approval and Execution of Documents. The Bond and the City Documents are authorized to be executed and/or attested in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Clerk, in their discretion and at such time, if any, as such officers may deem appropriate, in substantially the form on file, but with such changes therein as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The issuance of the Bond is contingent upon the full execution and delivery to the City of the Business Subsidy Agreement and the Guaranty of Unassigned Issuer's Rights (also presented for Council consideration). The final forms of the Bond and the City Documents shall duly reflect 2 1233069.1 and incorporate such provisions required therein on behalf of the City by its City Attorney and the City's issuer's counsel for the Bonds, Briggs and Morgan. 5. Annroval Execution and Delivery of Bond. The Bond, if issued, shall be in the principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000 and shall be in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Loan Agreement, which terms are for this purpose incorporated in this resolution and made a part hereof. 6. Certificates. etc. The Mayor, City Clerk and other officers of the City may furnish to bond counsel and the purchaser of the Bond, if issued, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bond, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records of the City in the officers custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2000. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: City Clerk Approved this _ day of December, 2000. (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 1233069.1 cl MAYOR OF SAID CITY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport b - 3 I i tm DESCRIPTION: New lease agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil PREPARED BY: Defense Commission. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a new lease agreement with Rochester -Olmsted County Joint Civil Defense Commission. It is a five year agreement with quarterly payments of $3,716.37 per quarter for the first two years and $3,902.19 per quarter for the last three years. The previous agreement had been in place for seven years without any increases. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the Lease Agreement. trvuNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/ 18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport b _ 4 ITEm uESCRIPTION: Change Order #2 with Road Constructors, Inc. for entrance road PREPARED BY: improvements, entrance road signage improvements, and parking lot expansion. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute Change Order #2 with Road Constructors, Inc. for Terminal Building entrance road improvements, entrance road signage improvements, and parking lot expansion. (J6967) Additional bituminous was needed due the poorer than expected condition of the existing parking lot. The additional bituminous results in an increase of $71,602.96. A copy of the change order is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #2 documents. CvuvICILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I3 DATE: 12/18/00 Consent Rochester International Airport b � S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 with Progressive Contractors Inc. for Runway 02-20 PREPARED BY: extension with taxiway and connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute Change Order #1 with Progressive Contractors, Inc. for concrete paving of Phase II Runway 02-20 2100 foot extension with adjacent bituminous taxiway and concrete paving of the area between the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps. (J6911) The total of five add items results in an increase of $55,657.10. A copy of the change order is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #1 documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 151� DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #7 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for Terminal Building PREPARED BY: improvements. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute Change Order #7 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for Terminal Building improvements. (J6942) The total of five add items and one item at no cost results in a cost of $6,518.00 A copy of the change order is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #7 documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 / DATE: 12/ l 8/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport 6-117 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement with the City of Rochester to spread biological solids on PREPARED BY: Airport Property. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Renew the Agreement with the Rochester Airport Company for the spreading of biological solids from the Water Reclamation Plant on 1025.76 acres of Airport Property. The terms remain unchanged from the previous agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement for the City. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: g , REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f / DATE: 12/ 18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA ISCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. ON SALE 3.2 BEER TRANSFER FROM COMBO CUISINE Sawatdee Thailand 1123 Civic Center Dr NW Rochester Mn 55901 GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Church of St. Francis 338 11'b Ave SE Rochester Mn 55904 Raffle 5/4/01 St Francis School HVAC Hussmann Corporation 4802 Park Glenn Rd St Louis Park Mn 55416 Eagan Mechanical Contractors Inc 7100 Medicine Lake Rd Minneapolis Mn 55427 Dave Hovey Heating & Air Conditioning 7806 Valleyhigh Dr NW Rochester Mn 55901 Guyers Builders Supply Inc 1318 Apache Dr SW Rochester Mn 55902 Spriggs Plumbing & Heating 124 Eva St St Paul Mn 55107 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 010 LLICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PAGE 2 DECEMBER 18, 2000 MASTER INSTALLER Lowell Benson 230 7"' St NW Maple Lake Mn 55358 Michael Andrews 403 Greenbriar Ln Buffalo Mn 55313 Michael Winter 16760 2nd St South Lakeland Mn 55043 Michael Ericson 16910 24`s Ave N Plymouth Mn 55447 Wayne Plourde 771 Indian Trail Afton Mn 55001 MASTER PLUMBER Inland Plumbing 2105 Main Ave Fargo ND 58103 Spriggs Plumbing & Heating 124 Eva St St Paul Mn 55107 SEWER & DRAIN J.O.Ottman PO Box 328 Oronoco Mn 55960 SIGNS Fairmont Glass & Sign Products Inc 1240 Lake Ave Fairmont Mn 56031 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Victim Services Victim Rights Week Rally & Candlelight Vigil Peace Plaza 4/28/00 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM I LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS a 1 PAGE 1 December 18, 2000 JANUARY 1, 2001 RENEWALS Bus 1 Chickens 2 HVAC 107 Master Installer 155 Master Plumber 58 Motion Picture 13 Pawnbroker 3 Pigeons 4 Sewer & Drains 50 Sidewalks 80 Signs 26 Taxicab 1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above new and renewal licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities. 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 12/ 1 S/00 or-FNDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk ITEM NO. D 1 9 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment of Data Practices Compliance Officer PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subd. 13 requires cities to appoint a city employee to act as its data practices compliance officer. The officer shall receive questions or concerns regarding problems in obtaining access to public data or other data practices issues. The apointment must be made by December 31, 2000. In 1979 the City Clerk was appointed as the Responsible Authority for the City of Rochester. In talking with Terry Adkins, City Attorney, it is his understanding that the majority of municipalities are appointing the responsible authority as the compliance officer in accordance with the Government Data Practices Act. He has recommended that the City of Rochester do the same. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution appointing Judy Scherr, City Clerk, as the Data Practices Compliance Officer as required under Minnesota Statures Section 13.05, subd. 13. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING as DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. t) -to ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,125,991.93. Less: Any exceptions COUNCIL. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: DATE: 12/ 18/2000 Routine Business/Consent Agenda Finance Department Amendments to the City's Investment Policy DA Dale Martinson The finance department is requesting amendment to the City's investment policy to address.1) changes in state statute, and 2) the need for an additional authorized investment vehicle to address bond proceed monies. The City Council formally adopted the City's investment policy back on March 18, 1996. (If a member does not have a copy, we will make it available upon request.) The policy covers investment objectives, standards of care, safekeeping and custody, suitable and authorized investments, investment parameters of the portfolio, reporting, and procedure for amendment. Since the date of its adoption, the Minnesota Legislature amended its statutes on public entity investments so that references to statute in our policy are now obsolete. This amendment seeks firstly to update those references. Secondly, the new statute split the definition of allowable investments in "money market mutual funds" into two categories. One is a short term investment fund, the other is a "Minnesota joint powers investment trust" such as has been established by the League of Minnesota Cities and is called the Minnesota Municipal Money Market (or ' 4M") Fund. The proposed amendments itemize these two categories to be consistent with state law. And finally, Section I I8A.05 subdivision 5 of the new investment statute provides for "guaranteed investment contracts," or GIC's, as an authorized legal investment vehicle for local units of government. Since the City's investment policy is more restrictive than state law, we are requesting authorization to include this vehicle as an authorized investment type under our policy. Guaranteed investment contracts can be advantageous to the City when investing bond proceeds and matching investment maturities to expected drawn down schedules associated with the project(s) being financed. The contracts can be structured specifically to meet the City's project cash flow needs thereby maximizing investment returns on the bond proceeds. It is our intent to utilize this vehicle to invest proceeds of the RPU bond that is listed elsewhere on tonight's agenda. We will further be seeking to approve certain staff of RPU as additional authorized signers on specific investment accounts related to proceeds of that transaction. That request will be brought forward in our annual banking matters resolution at the first council meeting in January. The attached redline excerpt from the City's investment policy highlights changes to the policy requested at this time. Recommendation: Authorize requested amendments to the City's official investment policy. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second by to: An Excerpt from the City's Investment Policy adopted by City Council on March 18, 1996 / (Section V., Solid. 1): V. Suitable and Authorized Investments 1. Investment Types The following investements will be permitted by this policy and are those defined by Minnesota Statutes 475.66, sub. � 118A.04 and I I8A.05 where applicable: a. U.S. Government obligations, U.S. Governnment agency obligations, and U.S. Government instrumentality obligations b. Certificates of deposit c. Savings and loan association deposits d. Prime bankers acceptances e. Prime commercial paper (A-1, P-1, F-1) backed only by domestic letters of credit f. Repurchase agreements whose underlying collateral consists of the forgoing g. Investment -grade obligations of state and local governments h. � !oney maFkot mutual funds r-egulawd by the Seni—irities and- 1—�xghang@ Commission Units of a short-term investment fund established and administered pursuant to regulation 9 of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in which investments are restricted to securities described in section 118A.04 and section 118A.05 of Minnesota Statutes restricted to j. Guaranteed investment contracts issued or guaranteed by United States commercial hanks_ domestic branches of foreien banks. United States insurance companies, or t term unsecured debt must be rated in one of the two highest categories by a nationally recognized rating agency. Should the issuer's or guarantor's credit quality be downgraded below "A" the government entity must have withdrawal rights. •'K* Ileinaw4uftKola AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Organizational Business Mayor's Office EM DESCRIPTION: Appointment to International Affairs Committee MEETING DATE: 12 ITEM NO. b�1,2, PREPARED BY: I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Mayor's International Affairs Committee (MIAC): Carl Most 2230 Ridgewood Court SE . OUNCIL ACTION: Moaon ey swxo d er. to: Rp�HL4TEN : Mayor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 ALL-+ME"i" ( ITT Rochester, MN 55904-3782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 CITY Or ROCHESTER VOLU14TEER APPLICATION NAME: C A Az L. W MD ST ADDRESS: PHONE: BUS._ HOME So- agq- 13'0S DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES' NO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: 94* I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON ,�y�"�._w�lfi�yG gyr0•A'swi/t 1 PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFOR14ATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL 'INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT_, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired. DATE SUBMITTED:10 nr.r 100 0 SIGNED: ei tz w. mint - Return to: Office of the Mavor 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3782 -� DATE OF APPOINTMEENT:_' . TEP.4 EYFtRATION: OTHER DATA:.- I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31 DATE: 12-48 -bo / AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: rMM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office D -( 3 ffE?A DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to BRA I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the BRA: Joan C. Karow 310 19th Street SW Ms Karow will fill the unexpired term of Pam Evans which runs to December 31, 2001. ACTION: ii- -n by second by IQ: 3A blow el.l._,1M¢klc,lclr,. ROCHESTER . V'z CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: - /AW'r ADDRESS: —;z PHONE: HOME DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHE TER CIT PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: 1 I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON �� BECAUSE �i SUVAll't4he BUSINEi LIMITS? YES NO ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF Date Submitted: ��� Signe . Return to: Off a of the 20 4th Stree Ro est. n 55904-3782 ...................t........................................ .own ........ ...... I Date of Interview: Other Data: i An EaualOn.artunim Evrtalawr 33 i JOAN C. KAROW 310 19`s Street S. W. Rochester, MN. 55902 H 507-281-1741 W 507-289-3606 EXPERIENCE 2000 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS Rochester, MN. HOME LOAN CONSULTANT Originate purchase, refinance, lines of credit and all other types of mortgage products. Focus on First-time homebuyer products. 1999 to 2000 ROCHESTER MORTGAGE CO., Rochester, MN. MORTGAGE BANKER Originate purchase, refinance, lines of credit and all other types of mortgage products. 1992 to 1999 NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC., Rochester, MN. REGIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SALES REP. My position was designed to increase loan programs available to low to moderate and minority households. Develop and marketing new products by participating in sales seminars to first-time home buyers and other sales representatives in the region to increase our production in loans which contribute to the goals of Norwest Mortgage and Norwest Bank to enhance the Community Reinvestment Act. 1991 to 1992 ROCHESTERlOLMSTED COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, INC., Rochester, M. PROJECT COORDINATOR Administered a program with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to develop a program to purchase and rehabilitate homes in Olmsted County. The project planning consisted of finding homes, facilitated work with contractors, and counseling buyers Also wrote grants to assist with down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. 1972 to 1991 FIRST BANK SOUTHEAST, N.A., Rochester, MN. REAL ESTATE AND CONSUMER PRODUCT OFFICER Originated mortgage, construction, equity, small business, and installment loans. Responsible for all employee loans and lines of credit. Manager and Personal Banker of Branch Office with seventeen people. Administered the main vault function, drive -up and lobby traffic. Opened checking, savings, certificates of deposit, annuities, discount brokerage accounts and retirements accounts (IRA-SEPP-Keogh). Regional trainer for Southeast Minnesota for all retirement products. In-house trainer for all retail products. 1971 to 1972 THE BANK OF DENVER, Denver, CO. CUSTOMER SERVICE Bookkeeping department, customer service and teller line 1968 to 1971 OLMSTED COUNTY BANK, Rochester, MN. BOOKKEEPING Bookkeeping and mail department. 34 i JOAN C. KAROW PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES ORGANIZATION INVOLVEMENT Southeast Minnesota Board of Realtors Rochester Area Builders Association Rochester/Olmsted Community Housing Partnership Presently Secretary Second Vice President Chair of the Partnership for Affordable Housine Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board (HRA) (Usi-n ra cHP) Member of the "Design Team" for Greater Minnesota to develop a Homeowner Services Delivery Partnership -coordinated through the Home Ownership Center in St Paul, MN 21st Century Partnership - Neighborhood Task Force in Rochester Rochester Business and Professional Women Attended National, Regional, District and Local Meetings Chaired State Committees District Director for Southeast Minnesota President of Local Organization Credit Professionals Independent Fee Appraisers League of Women Voters COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Teach "Homestretch Classes" for First Time Home buyers Organized workers for Habitat for Humanity Chaired United Way Campaign for First Bank Member of Grant Review Board For the State of Minnesota Governor's Proposal for High Risk Youths Organized workers for Christmas Anonymous Participated as an instructor at the State Conference for Development Achievement Center Wrote Grants for Down Payment Assistant Programs Participating in the Salvation Armys Shopping with Children 3s ,LOAN C. KAROW PROFESSIONAL SKILLS CERTIFICATIONS AND TRAINING Certified Affordable Housing Specialist Certified Instructor for First Time Home Buyers Classes Classes Taueht through American Institute of Banking, Rochester Vocational College, Community Education and First Bank Rochester: Analyzing the self employed Annuity Training Customer Service Home Equity Lending IRA and other Qualified Plans Personal Banking PSS II (Professional Selling Skills) Selling Bank Services Classes Taken: Norwest Computor Training Lotus I & II Managing Results Real Estate Lending Selling: A Consultative Approach for Retail Bankers Tools and Techniques of Development Lending Analyzing Financial Statements Bank Investments Compliance Effective English Installment Lending Introduction to Commercial Lending Investments Basic and Beyond Principals of Banking Selling EE & HH Bonds Writing Skills REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3� DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: R'EIVA NO. Organizational Business Mayor's OFfice b — 4 i i FM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board Mayor Canfie I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Rochester Civic Music Board: Stephen A. Lalama 1312 28th St. SW Mr. Lalama will fill the vacancy in the Second Ward (Gail Sauter resigned). The three year term will run to December 2003. ..OUNCIL ACTION: tiamn by Semnd by to: J0 ROCHESTER CIVIC MUSIC UV-_u-e"?,I'm 1u To: The Honorable Mayor Charles Canfield From: Steven Schmidt, General Manager RE: RCM Board Application Date: November 16, 2000 Attached please find an application for the RCM Board from Stephen A. Lalama. The RCM Board Executive Committee has reviewed his application and recommends his appointment. I concur with the Committee's recommendation. Mr. Lalama fills a vacancy left by the resignation of Gail Sauter to pursue her graduate degree. I would ask that you expedite his appointment as a regular -voting representative from the Second Ward with a three-year term ending in December 2003. If you have questions regarding this matter, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Don Paulson, Civic Music Board President WEII PAGE http:/www,ci.rochcster.mmus/music 201 41"11 ST. SE • SUITE 170 • ROCI ESTER, DIN 55904-3778 • ADMINISTRATION (i07) 281-6005 • TICKETS (507) 28i-H076 • FAX (i07) 295-8256 Nla}'or Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, MN 55904-3782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION 17. T ADDRESS: /3/1 29'TH ST Sr--J QOCNESTE#"MN.fS')o� fir/ PHONE: BUS. Z9r,917 HOME 07rO _- DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES X NO_ PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Q[Dfk-ci4FCTE2'S PAC Mud/L I AM, SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON 7/E_fla9to of &cl1Ef7pf G/v/C�11C- CM BECAUSE: SuBnnnT ENE GOALI pt��[NESTER C/[.rG� i4No M, 4 P ncnniAL�lrv��T�[�L_?1�PEA r F6fL I t_.as-eLn aiE At-., ASSE xQ TN,E TEAM, (0) 7 (.Oql /Nli/Tf9 __ ---- PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired. -k i/Y ✓A QE/r,,•fga[Frylrrr Er fl• Cxo 10 * AAA Sy J2ECOROI- -rosJ5 pEv&1 Nytrj7v, R of 71r��&-_A4Q tluyc- �UrTAdiJ!Z:: _ _.-- DATE SUBMITTED: /aZ/' pt� SIGNED: __ Return fo: Office of the Mayor - 201 4th Street SE F Rochester, Mil 55904-3782 .;*ttt ttattitttrstit ta.tt�wt watrt:t+t. taa.tttttwt�.ttiw tt t+t tttt tt. DATE OF APPOINTMENT: ^:ER.'f ExPIF.ATIOH: OWER DATA: 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ` l DATE: 12_I$ do AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office D -lg BEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to CUDE avor CanfiPIA I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to Committee on Urban Environment (CUDE) Christine Schultze 503 8th Avenue SW The three year term will run to . April 2003:, Ms Schultze formerly represented the Planning and Zoning Commission on CUDE. COUNCIL ACTION: M n by. SaarW by to: i ya- r M,k%UI' had Chuck Hivaimi ALL -A RICA CIT)' Rodesu•r, Minnesota ;ifi90? APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT NAME t�. Gh sjj"E 54%Aza ADDRESS Sob �jq�}�/EtJtNA1b S1N TELEPHONE HOME Q%-06-+Z BUSINESS 2952 033i DO YOU RESIDE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF ROCHESTER? YES ✓ NO I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON (name of board or committee) u BECAUSE o f eomvwrihl to �•r4�tf ordwr ou oG� rrvss a# ON" Cww4---h V4 I n Gw Yi u:s HAVE YOU SERVED ON ANY OTHER BOARD OR COMMITTEE IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER? IF YES, PLEASE LIST THE NAME(Sl OF BOARD OR COMMITTEE AND DATES OF SERVICE: jio OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, INVOLVEMENT IN OTHER VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES, ETC.) r. 5u mf "fAAv Avr4. h4-jniaw W6- " Gomynuv%;N Pali all3 L 1� �a�zel�Gomrni /.�at��is �T Lilo 3 �s�r �zl1s 1li�siari z000 Kiyt ry TrskyArk M ww. L'I-w T COMPLETED ©iflt O OFFICE OF THE MAYOR air r_, '* n 2Kr)OOM 200, CITY HAL SUBMITTED' €pl i'RACHESTER, MINNES`OT. ke q.3 architect E. Christine Schultze A.I.A. frrm Christine Schultze Architects address 503 8th Avenue Southwest Rochester. Minnesota. 55902 phone 507. 28Z. 0339 work 507.252 .0672 home education Harvard University . Graduate School of Design &awards Summer Course "Technology of the Building Envelope," 1986 Boston . Massachusetts University of Southern California . School of Architecture Master of Architecture 1985 California State Fellowship for Architectural Studies 1977 . 1978 Gerontology Fellowship. Andrus Gerontology Center 1976. 1977 . 1978 Los Angeles. California Princeton University . School of Architecture AB in Architecture 1974 Alcoa Scholarship Award for Senior Architecture Student 1973 . 1974 General Motors Scholarship 1970. 1971 . 1972. 1973. 1974 General Motors Fellowship for Graduate Work in Automobile Design 1574 (declined) Princeton. New Jersey Shawnee Mission East High School Graduation 1970 Prairie Village . Kansas licensing Minnesota . Montana Professional My goal is architecture which satisfies the heart and the mind while supporting day-to-day objectives activities. In working towards my goal I have worked in diverse design fields, in many scales, and have combined traditional and modern details and planning approaches. My greatest strengths as an architect are: 1) logic and the ability to create efficient space which delights & 2) the integration of building and landscape, the inside and outside spaces of life, 3) joy in working closely with people to discover the opportunities, challenges and necessities they see in their project and to build from these. Growing up in small prairie towns led to my love of the land, the sky and inhabitants. The physical environment gave me a particularly graphic approach to design, based on horizons and silhouettes, and led to my fascination with nature's design and the art of building in and of the landscape. July 1992 VC /,, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: _12-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING D _ 40 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #00-17 by the Estate of Robert J. Thompson to PREPARED BY: annex approximately 2.66 acres of land legally described as Lot 28-32, Block 2 and a Brent Svenby, portion of Lot 27, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision Blocks 1, 2 and 3. The property is Planner located along the west side of Strathmore Lane SE, south of Sheffield Lane SE and north of Webster Lanes SE. December 14, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: According to the Joint Resolution for the Orderly Annexation, review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is not required prior to the City acting upon the annexation petition. Property Taxes: As part of the Orderly Annexation agreement, property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue to be paid to the Town of Marion for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or before August 1 of a levy year, based on the dated specified in the order from the Minnesota Municipal Board, the City may levy on the annexed areas beginning with that levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after August I of a levy year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the City. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to be adopted and transmitted to MN Planning/Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. 2. The signed resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #4) should be transmitted to the MN Planning/Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of $25). The resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution shall also be sent to the Town of Marion and the Olmsted County Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk: (Check in the amount of $25) 3. City Attorney: (prepare a resolution for adoption) 4. City Finance Director 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 18, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester/ Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second Prz)p,r4,f -o lae- A^we'& 11 •e Exhibit I Marion Township Orderly "All All Annexation Area #4 Annexation Area K City Parcel 250 0 250 500 Feet W Marion Township Parcel TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 5071285-8345 DATE: December 14, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #00-17 by the Estate of Robert J. Thompson to initiate Orderly Annexation of approximately 2.66 acres of land legally described as Lot 28-32, Block 2 and a portion of Lot 27, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision Blocks 1, 2 and 3. The property is located along the west side of Strathmore Lane SE, south of Sheffield Lane SE and north of Webster Lanes SE. Planninq Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Gary Hayden Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Thompson 5420 31" Avenue SW Rochester, MN 55902 Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of Strathmore Lane SE, south of Sheffield Lane SE and north of Webster Lanes SE Existing Land Use: This property is currently vacant land. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 2.66 acres. The property is platted as lots 28-32, Block 2 and a portion of Lot 27, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision Blocks 1, 2 and 3. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester zoning map. The City has control of the zoning of the property. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its northern, I— �`r AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #00-17 December 14, 2000 i Limits: southern and western boundaries. Sewer & Water: Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area. The owner has petitioned for sewer and water services. On December 11, 2000, the Council adopted the feasibility report for basic construction of sewer and water services to serve the property. Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant. Townboard Review: Townboard review is not required for this annexation. The petitioner did take the annexation request before the Townboard on December 12, 2000. Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map 2. Marion Township Orderly Annexation Area #4 Map Staff Recommendation: Section 7 of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #4) between the City of Rochester and the Town of Marion allows any lands contained in the orderly annexation area may be annexed to the City upon adoption of a resolution whenever a landowner abuts the City limits and said landowner Tiles a petition for annexation with the City. The staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution annexing the property. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 FENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works L> — t ! rn ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bamber Lake mwater Management Agreement PREPARED BY- R. Freese The City of Rochester Public Works Department, the Omsted County Public Works Department, the Salem Sound Homeowners Association (SSHA), which includes the Salem Point Homeowner's Association (SPHA), have been working cooperatively together over the past 18 months to address and resolve stormwater issues affecting the SSHA and property within the subdivision. The City Council authorized a study of the Bamber Lake Drainage Basin, The Study confirmed that initially the Basin contained approximately 350 acres of undeveloped agricultural land. The development of the SSHA property over the past 20 years has altered the natural flow of stormwater from the upland areas of the Basin to the Zumbro River. In addition, the construction of residential housing units, both in the City and in Rochester Township subdivisions, has increased the stormwater runoff quantity and reduced the stormwater quality within the Basin. The widening and reconstruction of CSAH 22 through the Basin has increased the stormwater runoff quantity and decreased the stormwater quality within the Basin. The results of the Study have been shared and discussed with the SSHA and its members. The City, the County and the SSHA have agreed to resolve the stormwater management issues affecting the SSHA property. The major points of the proposed Agreement are: 1. The City and County agree to fund the design and construction in 2001 of stormwater management facilities to collect and convey stormwater to the existing stormwater pond south of the Olmsted Historical Society. 2. The City and County agree to fund the design and construction in 2001 of the enlargement of the existing stormwater management pond south of the Olmsted Historical Society to provide more detention area. 3. The City and County agree to fund the acquisition of property from the Olmsted Historical Society for the enlargement of the existing stormwater management pond to provide more detention area. 4. The SSHA agrees to fund the design and construction in 2001 of a stormwater bypass conveyance system from the enlarged stormwater management pond south of the Olmsted Historical Society to the Zumbro River, 5. Olmsted County agrees to make a lump sum contribution to the City of $100,000, plus inkind services, towards their obligations in the Agreement. 6. The City agrees to accept ownership and maitenance responsibility for the enlarged stormwater management and the stormwater bypass conveyance system from the enlarged stormwater pond to the Zumbro River. 7. The SSHA and SPHA agree that they will not commence, prosecute, or participate in any action, suit, or claim against the City and County related to stormwater runoff entering upon the SSHA property or lake level reduction cased by the diversion of stormwater away from Bamber Lake. The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement. The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the form of the agreement. The SSHA and the SPHA have signed the Agreement. It is scheduled for consideration by the Olmsted County Board on 12/19100. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement with Olmsted County and the Salem Sound Homeowner's Association and the Salem Point Homeowner's Association Agreement to manage stormwater runoff in the Bamber Lake Drainage Basin. 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clear to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik 8 Associates for the preparation of plans and specifications and associated bid documents for the Bamber Lake Regional Pond and Storm Sewer Improvements. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5�3 - 12/18/00 " GENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENTAG Avenue NW.J9544 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D — (g Gutter Overlay on 4m PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur On June 21, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution levying assessments for the following local improvement project: Proiect No. 6304-4-99, J9544 "Curb Gutter Overlay on 41h Avenue NW from 2611 Street to Zumbro Drive,J,9544." After the Council Date, several owners of property abutting the project requested that the City make modifications to the project. These requests are as follows: 1. Driveway approach modification to 2324 41h Avenue NW The property owner further requested that the Assessment Roll adopted on July 21, 1999, for the assessments attributable to their respective property, be amended to include the cost associated with the requested work. Assessment Agreements have been prepared with the property owners that have requested the improvements. One of the remaining property Owners have executed the Agreement and waives their right to contest the assessments for the requested work and the amendment of the Assessment Roll. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Assessment Agreements. 2. Adopt the resolution amending the previously adopted resolution (Assessment Roll) dated June 21, 1999. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 ^13ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works () -19 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for Block 31 of the Original Plat to the City of PREPARED BY: Rochester — Sunstone Investors — Kehler Hotel M. Nigbur Sunstone Investors Inc., owner of a major portion of Block 31 of the Original Plat to the City of Rochester, has asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to allow the continuation of and modifications to the existing canopies located within the City street right of way along 2nd Avenue, 1" Street North and 2Rd Street North. This encroachment does not impede the maintenance or use of the right of way. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: • The canopies shall be located at least 10 feet above the sidewalk adjacent to the building. • These features shall be allowed to extend up to 12 feet into the right of way provided there are no ground supports located within the right of way. er street � a COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit to allow the placement of canopies within the City's Right of Way adjacent to Block 31 of the Original Plat to the City of Rochester. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: ___ ___ _ Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5102 -� DATE: 12/18/00 IENDA SECTION: ---[ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. i CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D a0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve Ci71e Drive PREPARED BY: Business Center Second (J9704) � b-x., M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc. (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9704 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Circle Drive Business Center Second" COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9704 "Basic Construction to Serve Circle Drive Business Center Second" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING — / / DATE: 12/18/00 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works LL// t ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for Public Pedestrian Facilities along Rocky I P ARED BY: Pr Creek Dr. between Northern Valley Dr. NE and N. Broadway . Wellner O�- This feasibility report is for the construction of bituminous pedestrian path along Rocky Creek Drive between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway (U.S. 63). A venial request from City Council and a written petition from area residents for construction of this sidewalk project has been filed with the Department of Public Works for which this report was prepared. The petitioners are anticipated users of the pedestrian facility, but they are not the abutting property owners. The estimated costs of the project, J-4953 are as follows: Bituminous Material Aggregate Base Sodding Ped. Ramp Relocate Hydrant/Street Lights Grading Construction Cost Contingencies, Engineering, & Interest Total Ton 350 $40.00 $14,000.00 Ton 1,000 $12.00 $12,000.00 S.Y. 1,350 $4.00 $5,400.00 Each 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 Each 10 $750.00 $7,500.00 L.S. 1 $6,000.00 6 0$ 00.00 $46, 900.00 $14,070.00 $60,970.00 This project has been proposed for inclusion in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report. 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: I Pz.� 'aa "IAulJ N W cn 0 z c 0o REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ALONG ROCKY CREEK DRIVE BETWEEN NORTHERN VALLEY DRIVE NE AND NORTH BROADWAY (U.S.63). December 4, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project: Construct bituminous pedestrian path along Rocky Creek Drive between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway (U.S. 63). A verbal request from City Council and written petition from area residents for construction of this sidewalk project has been filed with the Department of Public Works for which this report was prepared. The petitioners are users of the pedestrian facility but not the abutting property owners. Feasibility Report We report that this project is feasible. The location of this project is within an area developed primarily for residential use. The majority of the project length abuts the property owned by ALS Properties Rocky Creek. Three other parcels abut the project; Freshwater, Oelkers and a City of Rochester parcel. The project will provide a multi -purpose bike/pedestrian link between Glendale Subdivision and Broadway. The street interconnection of the upper and lower segments of Rocky Creek Drive is proposed for the year 2001 construction. The completion of this street connection will also increase the demand for the pedestrian and bicycle facility link. The sidewalks along the new street segment will be constructed in association with the street construction and the related development, however the link between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway (this project) will be needed to complete the bike/pedestrian facilities. This project has been proposed in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program. It is not proposed to levy special assessments against the abutting property owners. Currently concrete sidewalk exists along Northern Valley Drive NE and the portion of Rocky Creek Drive lying east of Northern Valley Drive NE. Bituminous bike/pedestrian facilities exist on North Broadway. The project will construct an interconnecting bike/pedestrian link along the north side of Rocky Creek Drive between these two pedestrian facilities. The path is proposed to be 10-foot wide bituminous path placed on the street right-of-way as far as practical from the curb. In some locations the path will be place abutting the existing curb to save trees along this segment. No mature tree �r ' a, _2_ DECEMBER 4, 2000 removal is proposed for this project, however, four newly planted trees along the city owned parcel would be relocated. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Bituminous Material Aggregate Base Sodding Ped. Ramp Relocate Hydrant/Street Lights Grading Construction Cost Contingencies, Engineering, & Interest Total Ton 350 $40.00 $14,000.00 Ton 1,000 $12.00 $12,000.00 S.Y. 1,350 $4.00 $5,400.00 Each 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 Each 10 $750.00 $7,500.00 L.S. 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $46,900.00 $14,070.00 $60,970.00 Revenue Sources Total Revenue City Share $60,970.00 TOTAL $60,970.00 Submitted for your consideration: /hnWellner, PEcture Manager w.4.' Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer (3 Project No: J No: 4953 - 3 - DECEMBER 4, 2000 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Date: December 4, 2000 Description: Construction of Public Pedestrian Facilities along Rocky Creek Drive between Northern Valley Drive NE and North Broadway (U.S.63). Project Cost Summary Project Budget Bituminous Material $14,000.00 Aggregate Base $12,000.00 Sodding $5,400.00 Ped. Ramp $2,000.00 Relocate Hydrant/Street Lights $7,500.00 Grading $6,000.00 Construction Cost $46,900.00 Contingencies $14,070.00 Total $60,970.00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �5r DATE: 12/18/00 A 13ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D—o2o2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive and 23`d Avenue SW PREPARED BY: Project J 9761 1 A& Wellner " r Public Works has received several verbal and written requests for pedestrian facilities to be constructed along Fox Valley Drive SW and 23`d Avenue SW within Baihly Heights 6t6 Subdivision. Sidewalks were previously constructed along the segments of Fox Valley Drive and 23t° Avenue within Baihly Heights 6tb Subdivision except for along 6 unoccupied parcels. Individuals that reside in the subdivision own all 6 of these parcels. It appears that these 6 unoccupied parcels without sidewalk are intended to serve as either extension of the property on which the home sets or as long-term investments. Nevertheless, the lack of public sidewalk abutting these parcels creates a situation in which the users of the public sidewalk must walk in the street past these parcels. It also appears clear, that the intent of the Council and of the developer at the time of the subdivision approval, was to have a continuous sidewalk along both Fox Valley Drive and 23rtl Avenue SW. The attached Feasibility Report was prepared for consideration by the City Council. Sidewalk construction is proposed to be fully paid through Special Assessments to the abutting properties. The assessment rate is recommended to be no more than $5.15 per square foot of sidewalk for 5-foot wide sidewalk. Letters dated August 22,2000 were sent to each of the 6 property owners. The letter explained the need for the continuous sidewalk system and asked that the property owners install the sidewalk by June 1, 2001. Based on the August 22, 2000 letter and subsequent conversations with several of the property owners, the Public Works Department recommends that the Council proceed as outlined below. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Motion to accept the Report on the Feasibility of the Proposed Local Improvement Project for the Construction of Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive SW and 23rtl Avenue SW. 2. Motion to set the date for Public Hearing on the Project and Hearing on the Special Assessments for the Project as February 5, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SIDEWALK ABUTTING FOX VALLEY DRIVE SW AND 23RD AVENUE SW. November 16, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project: Construct public sidewalks along the vacant lots on Fox Valley Drive SW and 23`d Avenue SW in Baihly Heights 6' Subdivision and assess the costs to the abutting properties. The improvement consists of 5-foot wide, 4" thick concrete sidewalk abutting 6 vacant parcels in Baihly Heights 6' Subdivision. Feasibility Report We report that this project is feasible. Public sidewalks were previously constructed on Fox Valley Drive SW and 23`d Avenue SW abutting the occupied parcels in this subdivision. The 6 parcels abutting the proposed project have not had houses constructed to date. Individuals that own the unoccupied parcels also own a residence in the subdivision adjacent to the parcel. One property owner owns 3 of the unoccupied parcels. It appears that the unoccupied parcels are intended to serve as either an extension of the lot on which the owner resides or as a long-term investment. The Department of Public Works has received several requests from pedestrians desiring to use the sidewalks in this subdivision and finding that they must walk in the street near these parcels instead of on the sidewalk. Sidewalks are present elsewhere along all the developed segments of Fox Valley Drive SW and 23`d Avenue SW. The City council received a petition for the construction for these sidewalks at the October 2, 2000 meeting. Prior to the receipt of the petition, the property owners were asked to construct the sidewalk via a mailing sent August 22, 2000 (attached). To date, the Department of Public Works has had a response from only one of the property owners. Schroeters indicate an intent to have the sidewalk constructed in the spring of 2001. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's 2000 Capital Improvement Program. The costs of this project should be paid from assessments to the abutting properties. Currently sidewalk has not been constructed abutting Lots 1, 2, 3 & 6 of Block 2 and Lots 1 & 6 of Block 3, Baihly Heights 6' Subdivision. The proposed walk for this project consists of the installation of a 5-foot wide, 4" thick concrete sidewalk abutting these six -2- NOVEMBER 16, 2000 parcels. The total length of the concrete sidewalk for this project is approximately 883 feet. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: 4" Concrete Sidewalk 4,415 S.F. $ 3.00 $13,245 Sodding 600 S.Y. $ 4.00 $2,400 Excavation & Grading 225 C. Y. $ 8.00 $1,800 Pedestrian Ramp 1 Each $ 500.00 $500 Construction Cost $17,945 Contingencies $5,384 Total Project Cost $23,329 Revenue Sources Total Revenue Assessment Charge $22,737.25 City $591.75 TOTAL $23,329.00 Should the council proceed, Public Works recommends that the necessary costs to be collected for this project be done so in accordance with the special assessment procedures of the State of Minnesota and the City of Rochester. Public Works recommends that the City Council Schedule this project for a public hearing with a special assessment rate not to exceed $5.15 per square foot for 4-inch thick, 5-foot wide sidewalk. Submitted for your consideration: ohn H. Wellner, PE Infrastructure Manager Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer 7 Project No: J No: - 3 - NOVEMBER 16, 2000 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Date October 19, 2000 Description: Construction of public sidewalk abutting Fox Valley Drive SW and 23'tl Avenue SW. Project Cost Summary Project Budget 4" Concrete Sidewalk $13,245 Sodding $2,400 Excavation & Grading $1,800 Pedestrian Ramp $500 Construction Cost $17,945 Contingencies $5,384 Total Project Cost $23,329 Revenue Sources Total Revenue Assessment Charge $22,737.25 City $591.75 TOTAL $23,329.00 Project Assessment Rate $5.15/square foot Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund 61 / LM cn r;j 0 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l DATE: 12/18/00 ":ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D — 95 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Right of Way Encroachment of Garage at 1624 3rtl Avenue NW p PARED BY: Aar 1. Wellner A complaint was received by Public Works of an encroachment (a garage) into the right of way that has created a hazard to the pedestrians and bicyclists using the public sidewalk. After field review, staff concluded that the roof overhang on the garage at 1624 3rtl Avenue NW was a significant hazard to the users of the public sidewalk. In consideration of the garage location, which was placed in the 1930's and after negotiations with the property owner, Mr. Andrew Weyl, an agreement has been reached. The settlement provides that the property owner will remove the overhang and will not be permitted to improve, reconstruct or build a new garage within the right of way. The City agrees to allow the garage to remain in the right of way, with a revocable permit, unless the right of way is needed for the improvement/widening of the 3rtl Avenue NW (no widening improvements are currently planned for this segment of city street). Staff supports this settlement and issuance of a revocable permit. The owner has executed the two documents. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the 'Settlement Agreement' and authorize a 'Revocable Permit' in accordance with the negotiation agreement with Mr. Weyl. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion W Second by: to: �� j»\<%� \� �-� � T°¢ <� (� � - _. . >� \ ,,� � � � . y. � \� �� _ -- . - � �� � � %�4 © � �z� � 2� . . «� � � � � � _ ��\��� - _> - - 3 *�§ : - . - :� ---��� . . -©^��� � � � � � . . � � >; ��� y� � � � \� � � � REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `l3 DATE: 12-18-00 "GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D —02I+ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Passenger Loading Zone @ 114 6th Street SW PREPARED BY: 47;—D. Rossman The City has received a request for a passenger -loading zone for the "Just For Kids' Daycare operated by Ms. Peggy Lee at 114 6 h Street SW. Their business hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Saturday. This Daycare is presently located at 1312 — 71h Street NW in the Northgate Shopping Center, and is being relocated due to the 161h Avenue Project. The loading zone is needed for both parent and school bus loading. There are 10 onstreet parking spaces in this block consisting of 2 — 30 minute metered spaces and 8 — 10 hour metered spaces. 4 of the spaces will be used for the loading zone. This is the minimum size needed for a school bus. The school bus and the passenger cars can share the same zone since they will not be there at the same time. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends its approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (84.5) of Section E "Passenger Loading Zones' of the Comprehensive Traffic And Parking Resolution Book; to read: (84.5) Sixth Street SW, in the 100 block, on the south side of the street, 80 feet more or less in front of the premise known as Just For Kids Daycare at 114 a Street SW, 5 minute limit, from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday Thru Saturday. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: Second 4STSW SSTSW a STSW Irsw CA 13 -S Pt, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -aS ITEM DESCRIPTION: Year 2001 CBD Parking Rate Changes PREPARED BY:�,j �4,0 D. Rossman This is a request to change certain parking rates in the C.B.D. Parking System. These changes are consistent with the recommendations of the 1995 CBD Parking Taskforce study which stated that rates be should reviewed annually; that the parking system continue to function as an enterprise fund with no tax subsidy; that the parking continue to be provided "absolutely free" on evenings & weekends; and that City ramp rates continue to be comparable to private ramp rates in the downtown area. The underlying basis for the rate increases at this time is to continue to accumulate a fund of money to eventually pay for major repairs, and replacements, within the five City ramps. With five ramps, the City can expect to have a structural restoration project in at least one of the ramps every year. In addition, the Second Street ramp will most likely need to be replaced in the next 10-15 years. This project is listed in the City's 15-year infrastructure report. In a few years the Downtown TIF district will expire. At that time the City must be prepared to fund the major repairs, and replacement costs entirely from Parking Utility revenues. If the parking system is to be self sufficient, then the resources for funding these projects must come from the revenues generated by the users. Rates need to increase at a gradual rate over a period of years so that these goals can be accomplished. With those guidelines in mind, City staff in consultation with Republic Parking Systems staff has identified rates to be adjusted effective 1-1-2001. 1) Increase the parking ramp monthly rates by $2/month. This is expected to raise an additional $38,000 per year in revenues. There are approximately 1,600 monthly parkers in the City ramps. The last monthly rate adjustment was on 1-1-99, at which time the rate increased $2/mo. The monthly parker revenue is approximately 1/3 of the total ramp revenue. There is one location where additional rate increases may be warranted in the near future, and that is the monthly rate in the Center Street Ramp. This ramp is experiencing a very high occupancy rate. The full sign comes on almost daily sometime between 10:00 AM and noon. Republic Parking Staff have enacted several strategies to control the monthly use and keep space open for hourly customers. No new monthly parking contracts have been issued in over 1 year. The number of monthly contracts has been decreased thru attrition and enticements to other ramps. However it remains at 143 contracts, and the full sign continues to come on too often. A reduction to 100 monthly contracts is recommended for this ramp to encourage contract holders to move to other ramps. The ramp generates an average of $123 per space per month. There may be a need to conduct a Pricing Study for this facility. 2) Increase the Overnight Rate in Center Street Ramp. This ramp receives spillover parking from the Kahler System. A $1 rate increase is recommended due to the high level of occupancy. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution amending sections of Chapter "K" of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book to read: 1) Monthly Rates; change the Monthly Rates as listed on page 2. 2) Overnight Rate; increase the Overnight Rate as listed on page 2. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: __ second RCA: Reports and Recommendations (Page 2), 2001 Parking Rates Changes, 12-18-00 Current Monthly Rates Center Street First Street Second Street Civic Center Third Street Random $56 $52 $52 $52 $55 Select N/A N/A $54 N/A N/A Basement N/A N/A $57 N/A N/A Rooftop N/A $42 $44 $44 N/A Evening Pass $26 $26 $26 $26 $26 Residential $61 $57 $57 $57 $60 Flex Parker NA NA NA $48 NA # of Contracts Allowed 140 200 330 500 470 # of contracts issued 144 179 339 474 471 Ave. Revenue / space $123.29 $75.26 $72.52 $42.07 $55.46 Proposed Monthly Rates Center Street First Street Second Street Civic Center Third Street Random $58 N/A $54 $54 $57 Select NIA N/A $59 N/A N/A Basement N/A N/A $59 N/A N/A Upper Levels N/A $54 $46 $46 N/A Evening Pass $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 Residential $70 $59 $59 $59 $62 Flex Parker NA NA NA $46 NA (D)1. Hourly rates: Existing Proposed Rates Time Rates Time All Other City Ramps Time Center Street 0 - %s hour $ 0.40 0 -'/z hour $ 0.40 0 - %s hour $ 0.40 '/2 -1 hour $ 0.80 %a -1 hour $ 0.80 %: -1 hour $ 0.80 1-1 `/: hour $ 1.20 1-1 % hour $ 1.20 1 -1 '/z hour $ 1.20 1 '/2 - 2 hour $ 1.60 1 % - 2 hour $ 1.60 1 '/2 - 2 hour $ 1.60 2 - 2 '/a hour $ 2.00 2 - 2 '/a hour $ 2.00 2 - 2 '/x hour $ 2.00 2 '/2 - 3 hour $ 2.40 2 '/2 - 3 hour $ 2.40 2 '/2 - 3 hour $ 2.40 3 - 3 % hour $ 2.80 3 - 3 '/2 hour $ 2.80 3 - 3 '/2 hour $ 2.80 3 %2 - 4 hour $ 3.20 3 '/z - 4 hour $ 3.20 3 '/z - 4 hour $ 3.20 4 - 4 '/2 hour $ 3.60 4 - 4 %Z hour $ 3.60 4 - 4 % hour $ 3.60 4 % - 5 hour $ 4.00 4 % - 5 hour $ 4.00 4 % - 5 hour $ 4.00 5 - 5 '/z hour $ 4.40 5 - 5 %z hour $ 4.40 5 - 5 %s hour $ 4.40 5 %2 - 6 hour $ 4.80 5 `/z - 6 hour $ 4.80 5 `/s - 6 hour $ 4.8 6-9 hour $ 5.20 6-9 hour $ 5.20 6-9 hour $ 5.2u 9-12 hour $ 5.60 9-12 hour $ 5.60 9-12 hour $ 5.60 12 - 24 hour $ 6.00 12 - 24 hour 1$6.00 12 - 24 hour $7.00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 17 IY / DATE: 1-1.-2$-00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works ITEM NO. a a` ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction on 7"' Avenue SW from 2" Street SW to PREPARED BY: West Center Street ,L D. Rossman The City has received arequest to "Modify the existing parking controls on T" Avenue SW from Center Street to 2"d Street by extending the 2 hour limited parking to include the block from 1" Street SW to 2"d Street SW The reason being is due to provide short term parking for visitors and customers of the abutting property owners. The request came from Lynda Goldberg, Secretary of the B'nai Israel Synagogue. Presently the parking is uncontrolled weekdays in the 100 block, with the exception of one passenger - loading stall. Vehicles fill all the available on -street spaces and remain all day, leaving no room for short-term parkers. The pavement width is 27 feet and parking is restricted on the west side of the street. There are two sections of Passenger Loading Zones in this area. 1 stall is a 15-minute zone effective at all times. 5 stalls are 15-minute limit from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM, Sundays. These would remain. A survey of all the property owners from Center Street to 2"d Street was conducted with the following results: In Favor 4 Against 1 No Response 5 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution for the following: 1. Amending paragraph (3.5) of section H "Limited Time Zones" Zone F (2-Hour Limit) to read: (3.5) Seventh Avenue SW, on the east side of the street, from West Center Street to Second Street SW 7:00am to 5:00 pm, Monday thru Saturday. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second A IC CENTER CRVE WV r-f-T-- i_� CJJJJ C � Cs f _�.��-- US M�j I I ril WMER, IN Evil I it MEL Ave I _= 2STSW — I 3STSW SL,)f I'D+ too G"V, 4STSW I F TIT 717 FFT� Can AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works on 50th Avenue NW: 19th to MEETING DATE: 12/ 8/on ITEM NO. PREPAREDE D. Rossm This is a recommendation to restrict parking on 50th Avenue NW from 19' Street to 65th Street NW wherever the roadway is within the City Limits. This is an old narrow roadway where portion of the roadway have been annexed in the past few years. On -street parking has been allowed on 50" Avenue but never occurs to a great extent. Portions of the road are scheduled to be improved under the Federal TEA-21 Program. A resolution is needed during the design of the road restricting on -street parking. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph ( 262 ) to Chapter B "No Parking" of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book to read: ( 262 ) 50th Avenue NW on both sides from 19' Street NW to 65' Street NW at all times, wherever the roadway is within the City Limits. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 8o R 6 6 ! d End 50th Avenue NW Project FST. NW t z �0 \ Q 522 } O ._._ .. ...... \ �\ \ 7 Z 109 NW n a 5 y r Begin 50th Avenue NW Project Z Q 19 29 L4 VALLEVHIGH RD. NW NW R CE. m 1g ST. NW 31 a 29 26 /2 ImIle 12TH STII fI 4, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 81 DATE: 12-18-00 I A1,,ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Agreement for City Project 8215-36-01 (J2592) PREPARED BY: �! — Restoration #4 of Center Street Ramp S, D. Rossmar This is a recommendation to retain the firm of .Walker Parking Consultants of Minneapolis to provide professional engineering services for City Project 8215-36-01 (J2592) — Restoration #4 of Center Street Ramp This ramp is now 19 years old. Presently structural surveys are conducted once every 5 years. Any minor repairs that are needed will be documented, and the cause of stress will be determined and a repair estimate will develop. The cost of this survey is budgeted in J-2594. "Walker Parking Consultants" will conduct the following professional services: 1. A visual condition survey, chain drag with soundings, and documentation of location of stress of the top & bottom of all supported decks; all columns, walls, and beams; structural connections; expansion joints; and adjacent.stairtowers. 2. Obtain concrete dust samples on each deck to determine dissolved chloride ions. 3. A condition survey of the electrical and mechanical HVAC, drainage, elevators, fire protection system, energy management systems and parking control systems. 4. Prepare a report on the results of the survey, photographs, cause of distress, recommended repairs, estimated cost of repair, and the capability of the structure to continue to safely support the imposed loads. 5. Prepare contract documents for the repair work as needed 6. Provide contract administration and inspection of the project. The fee for this work is $ 29,150 plus reimbursables. The schedule is to complete the inspection work and report in February, receive repair bids in April and conduct the actual repair work in mid summer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to accept the proposal of "Walker Parking Consultants" 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 425 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 to provide Professional Engineering Services for the City Project 8215-36-01 (J2592) — Restoration #4 of Center Street Ramp COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 83 DATE: 12-18_00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works � —aq ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Agreements for City Traffic Signal Projects in PREPARED BY- i 2D01 D. Rossman This is a recommendation to retain Engineering Consultants to provide professional engineering services for City Traffic Signal Projects in 2001. The projects and consultants are: J-6373 Traffic Signal Interconnect on TH 63 from Northern Heights to 371h Street: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates of Rochester have been requested to prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate. They are preparing the same documents for the segment from Northern Heights Drive to 14" Street NE that is part of the Broadway Street Resurfacing project. The extension to 37`h Street will be scheduled concurrently with the southerly section. J-6373 Traffic Signal Installation on County Road #1 (111h Avenue SE) & Willow Creek Middle School: Short, Elliot, Hendrickson of St. Paul has been requested to prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for this project. This is a joint City —County Project. They are preparing the same documents for the other joint City —County Signal projects in 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to accept the proposals of "Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates " of 112 7`h Street NE Rochester Mn 55906 to provide Professional Engineering Services for the City Project J-6373 Traffic Signal Interconnect on TH 63 from Northern Heights to 37 Street, and of Short, Elliot, Henderson of 3535 Vadnais Center Drive , St. Paul 55110-5196 to provide Professional Engineering Services for the City Project J-6373 Traffic Signal Installation on County Road #1 (11`' Avenue SE) & Willow Creek Middle School: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12_jg_Up DATE: AGENDA ITEM . ROCHESTER CITY LINES ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS I �> — 30 PREPARED BY: A KNAUER 1, This is a recommendation to approve the 2001 operations contract with Rochester City Lines. This contract provides funding for the regular route deficit. The contract maximum is $1,187,541 based on the estimated deficit. (Expenses less revenues.) This compares to a contract maximum of $1,093,941 in 2000. The 2001 contract includes increases for wages and fuel costs and some modest expansion of service. The contract provides reimbursement for actual expenses less revenues. Some expenses are allocated based on miles of operations. The contract is subject to an annual audit. The contract runs from 1/1/2001 through 12/31 /2001. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution approving the following contract the 2001 contract with Rochester City Lines in the maximum amount of $1,187,541. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution _,UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR D - 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MILEAGE ALLOWANCE PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD The City's mileage reimbursement rate was recently increased from S.32 to $.34 per mile, a 6.25% increase. I recommend that the City Council's mileage allowance also be increased to compensate for the increased vehicle operating expenses. The current and proposed rates are as follows: Current Rate Proposed Rate Council President $100/month S105/month Councilmembers $85imonth $90/month COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion approving the mileage allowances as requested, effective January 1, 2001. %,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Attorney's Office DESCRIPTION: Request authority to enter into an agreement with the State of PREPARED JBY: Minnesota, 3'd Judicial District, for access to TCIS computer system. Dav M• Gg The city attorney's office requests authority to enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, 3rd Judicial District, for access to the Total Court Information System (TCIS). The funds for this access were included in the city attorney's budget for 2001. This information system is the main computer system presently used by Olmsted County for criminal court information. The State requires execution of a "TCIS Online Access and Nondisclosure Agreement" prior to providing access. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution approving the TCIS Online Access and Nondisclosure Agreement and authorize and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same. 10 UNC1L ACTION: Motion by: Seoand by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING D DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administrator I EM DESCRIPTION Council approval to proceed with redemption on foreclorure property PREPARED BY: located at 1813 1st Avenue SW T. Spaeth At the present time, the property located at 1813 1" Avenue SW has a $12,441 mortgage foreclosure action against it. The present property owner (Ms. Wendy Cassel) had applied for and received approximately $19,000 in SFD rehab funding through the City of Rochester's CDBG program. As part of that program, a second mortgage for the rehab amount is secured and is to be paid back to the City upon the sale of the property. Since the property is under a foreclosure action, the City will forego its 2"d mortgage for the S19,000, unless the City acquires the property through the redemption process. It would cost the City the S12,441 plus interest over the past 6 months and other incidentals to acquire the property. According to the Olmsted County Assessor's office, the property has an estimated market value of $63,700. City Administration staff has had discussions with the HRA staff, who has expressed interest in acquiring the property and renting it out as a single family dwelling. As that has worked in the past, the City would acquire the property, and the HRA would pay back the City with rent receipts. The City recently received S 18,000 for a 2"d mortgage repayment on a home that was recently sold in the West Zumbro Estates subdivision. These funds could be a source of funds to acquire this foreclosure property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorization to proceed with the redemption action to acquire the property located at 1813 1" Avenue SW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADOPTION OF 2001 TAX LEVY, 2001BUDGET, AND 2001-2006 CIP MEETING 847 DATE: 12/18/00 ITEM NO. f. —t 11 PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD The City Council held a required Truth -in -Taxation Hearing on Monday, December 11, 2000. Truth -in - Taxation laws require that the final property tax levy and budget be adopted at a "subsequent public hearing." A summary of the effect of the changes and adjustments approved by the Council during review of the proposed budget has been prepared by the Finance Department and is attached. The recommended tax levy is $18,920,781 and the final budget is $115,845,782. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolutions to adopt the 2001 Property Tax Levy of $18,920,781; the 2001 Total Budget of $115,845,782; and the 2001-2006 Capital Improvements Program. �5- AAr I,.. C/��e.�d/it.Gr�P COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: to: 22 2Avr -r §§ k k R k k 2` SO OEM— /` / \ § \ } }\�§`§\ ON� §\!@(:■;A E A k § ) ` ` , m ) E ; { §E2a§§0-1 \ § , - - «$ � 0r S kcm E cm N 04 ■0 §/k E 20 ■ t =°o « E § �f $= k7 - 2/ CM ) BE/ `��kk� m U! ��E�«J M OE\ / (�§ k \■r!!$! ` | 2)� o < £ ! 8;| 2 -kAk|■E! ( / { -a t_ ( # f |§) [! {ƒkkkf r ! ! Mt ! ! 7 - {t! °Z/LUƒUifLULU k $ k k 0 ! �m �,IL £ƒ§ E ( _ IT ) E k / k � ! ! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 01 i DATE: 12-18-00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING is - a, I DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I Appeal #00-04 by Frank Kottschade PREPARED BY; Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner December 13, 2000 Background: On October 4, 2000 the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals (RZBA) held a public hearing to consider Variance request #00- 32, a request by the applicant that the nine (9) conditions placed on General Development Plan (GDP) #151 be waived. The Board closed the public hearing on October 4, 2000, and voted 4-0 to deny Variance request #00-32 (please see the attached report, minutes and resolution/findings for more information). On October 26, 2000, the applicant filed an appeal to RZBA's decision to deny Variance #00-32 (see attached). Included with the application was a written narrative explaining the appeal and the grounds for appeal. This narrative identifies 1) "The Board of Appeals failed to act within the time prescribed by the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance" and 2) "the Board of Appeals was arbitrary and without any factual support." On November 20, 2000 the Rochester Common Council remanded the Variance back to the Rochester Board of Appeals to act within the time prescribed by Ordinance. The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on December 6, 2000 to consider the remanded application. The Board voted 5- 0 to deny Variance #00-32 and adopted findings and a resolution (see attached). • City Council Action (see staff report for additional detail): Section 60.761 states that the review body shall issue an order at the meeting at which the application for appeal was reviewed stating the scope of review an appeal to be one of the fallowing: 1) restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed; 2) limited to such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper resolution of the matter; 3) a de novo hearing on the merits. On October 25, 2000 the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment to Sections 60.760 - 60.764 to amend the language regulating processing of Appeals applications. The ordinance currently allows for three different types of review including 1) restricted to the record, 2) limited to issues determined to be relevant; and 3) "de novo" hearings. The City Council has heard many appeals as "de novo" hearings, that is, hearings where both previously submitted and new information may be considered before a decision is made. The initiated text amendment would modify the Ordinance to provide for only "de novo" hearings of appeals. The City Council has several options to proceed with this application: 1) Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board; or 2) - Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board, but also hear the timing issue de novo; or 3) Proceed to hear the entire appeal de novo, with previously submitted and new information considered. NCIL ACTION: Modon by: Second by: to: Page 2 �D RCA December 13, 2000 IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THIS APPEAL, THE COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING THE COUNCIL'S DECISION, AS WELL AS A RESOLUTION THAT CAN BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL. Attachments: 1.. Staff Report dated November 30, 2000 2. Resolution & Findings document, denial of Variance #00-32 3. Minutes of December 6, 2000 RZBA Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 4. City Administrator 5. City Attorney 6, Planning Department File 7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on December 16, 2000 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. I -I- e"'�>2� � J Rl' MINUTES FROM OEMBEiR Al B® ® OF APPEALS MEETING ryy �MGr6 :41 "1 gage s City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 Mr.Xnganki asked the applicant if it was possible to cover the windows and put Mr. KlemenN- consideration. With no one else that there would be lighting requirements that had to bXaken into ing to be heard Mr. Ellis closed the N GDP be waived As specified in the application for Appeal dated October 26. 2000 - In particular, the applicant requests a variance from the following sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 61.215 (4)(5)(6)(7) Criteria for Approval of General Development Plan: 64.230 et seg.. Determining Right of Way Width: 64.133, Funding Required Improvements: 64.134, Dedication Required: 64137 Cost Sharing: 64.136, Drainage Easements Required• 64.310 Storm Water Run off: 64.227, Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks: 64122 Street Design Features, 64.250, Development Agreement with Regard to Street Easement and Right of Way Designations• 64.400 at seg.. Park Page 6 ` t 3 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 Land Dedication: 64.240, Private Roadways; 64.220, et seq., Public Roadway and Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report dated November 30, 2000. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ellis opened the pubic hearing The applicant, Mr. Franklin Kottschade of 4719 Warwick Lane NW, addressed the board. Mr. Kottshcade stated that all legal questions should be addressed to Attorney John Arnold. Mr. Kottschade stated that he is seeking a variance of the nine conditions imposed by the Rochester City Council. He stated that the conditions place an undue hardship upon the property, and therefore pursuant to State Statues he believes that he is entitle to a variance for that reason. Mr. Kottschade stated the he was prepared to make a presentation to go through the record again. He stated that the Board has the 215 pages of history. Mr. Kottschade entered an additional two items into the record. Mr. Kottschade reviewed page 286 from the packet, which is the documented cost pursuant to the development agreement presented to him by the Rochester Public Works Department. Mr. Kottschade gave a description of the cost involved with developing the land. He stated that there was no allowance for land value, transaction costs or real-estate commission, development or overhead cost, legal cost, etc., and there is no developer overhead profit. Based upon the GDP he had proposed to go forward with, 104 units would have $22,378.00 per unit. After the nine conditions where imposed, they take that track of land from 104 units down to 26 units. Basically the development costs is similar, but split between less units, at that point there is $89,511.00 of hard cost prior to what was previously indicated. When adding in developer profit, overhead cost, legal cost, and return on the land value, these units would need to be on the market for $135,000.00 to $150,000.00. In real-estate development, land should represent between 20 and 25 percent of the value, the home would represent between 75 and 80 percent, that being the case, he would be looking at a market of $600,000.00. Mr. Kottschade entered a MLS listing of sales into the record. Mr. Kottschade also entered a summation into record. Mr. Kottschade stated that the in the last 24 months, there were been 569 listing. The highest list price was $255,000.00 and the highest sale price was $248,000.00. Mr. Kottschade stated that he can not stay in a market range that is reasonable with the development costs imposed by the nine conditions. This creates an undue hardship, because he could not make the land economically feasible. Mr. Kottschade stated that staff has stated the he could make an economical return on the property through mining permits. Mr. Kottschade entered a document relating to the mining activity into the record. He stated in order to harvest the gravel he would need a river crossing and expand the haul road. The estimated cost to mine this property is $384,521.00. The water table is 4 to 5 feet below the surface, he would strip the black dirt and put the overburden on ~ the areas where the townhouses would be developed, that way this project would be ..:r; economically feasible. Mr. Kottschade stated it would cost him $400,000.00 to mine '' this property, and therefore not economically feasible. Mr. Kottschade stated that he `Page 7 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 appealed the nine conditions with The Zoning Board of Appeals, two months ago, and was denied. He then appealed to the Rochester City Council. Due to certain deficiencies they remanded this back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kottschade stated that was why he was here asking again to grant the variance from the nine conditions. Mr. Haeussinger asked if the public sector was responsible for making all Mr. Kottschade properties cash flow efficient. Mr. Kottschade stated that he had a right to have a reasonable rate of return from his property. Mr. Haeussinger asked who would assume or burden these other cost. Mr. Kottschade stated that his attorney could comment on that question. Ms. McCaleb asked if the townhouse diagrams that where presented were similar to what was being proposing by the applicant. Mr. Kottschade stated that the original concept was to have 104 townhouse units on the property. He stated that the conditions imposed by the Planning staff has had a detrimental impact on the value of the land. Mr. Haeussinger asked Mr. Kottschade when he purchased the property. Mr. Kottschade stated that the property was purchased in 1992 with the expectations of developing K. He stated that beyond the sale price, there was substantial cost in the property with the 37 different permits that have been applied for. Ms. Baker stated that page 284 of the packet is Mr. Kottschade's version of the before plans for this property. Mr. Kottschade stated that page 284 shows 104 townhouse units before the nine conditions and page 285 shows the project with the impact of the nine conditions. Ms. Baker asked Mr. Kottschade if he knew how many units per acre were shown on page 284, within the buildable area of the site. Mr. Kottschade stated 16.44 acres, and the GDP that was approved would be six units per acre. Ms. Baker stated that to clarify for the Board, page 284 was not the general development plan that the council acted on, the plan that was acted on was shown on page 128. Page 128 does`not show specific townhome units on it. It appears as though much of this property.rnay be subject to Shoreland District zoning. 11 Page 8 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 Mr. Kottschade stated that what was being presented was an exhibit as what was anticipated. That the exhibit would meet the minimum standards relative to the Rochester City Code as per the approval to the zone change to an R-2. Based upon the densities that where approved by the zoning commission and the Rochester City Council. If this where to move forward he would be submitting that plan. Mr. Haeussinger asked Mr. Arnold if it was the public's responsibility that all Mr. Kottschade ventures make a profit and if not, there should be reconciliation through waiver and relaxation of regulations. Mr. Arnold stated that under 60.410 the issue is, whether the literal provisions create an undo hardship. He stated that with the 9 conditions combined, this piece of land is reduced from 104 units to 26 units. Those conditions do create an economic hardship. The result of what these 26 townhouses would have to sell for is unrealistic. Whether the community as a whole should bear this is not the nature of the statue, the question is whether the conditions create an undue hardship on the property owner. If the conditions are literally enforced it would be at such a cost that the applicant could not afford. They are not asking the city to bear this cost. The city may in fact, in the future, have some cost if they wish to purchase this property in the future. He stated the effect of imposing all of these conditions through the development agreement has created a situation where there is not an economic return on this property. Mr. Haeussinger asked what other projects could be done on this property. Mr. Arnold stated that they had explored the possibility of mining. Mr. Haeussinger asked what other type of housing projects could be done on this property. Mr. Arnold stated that the land is zoned R-2, and multiple unit housing is the best that could be done with this parcel. Multiple units would be a way to make this parcel economically viable. Mr. Haeussinger asked Mr. Arnold what the difference would be between waiving a total provision and eliminating the setback requirement for a property. Mr. Arnold stated that was not what was presented. Mr. Haeussinger replied that there was not any difference. Most applicants are not asking for a total elimination of the requirements. This applicant is asking for a total elimination of the provisions. *Mr. Arnold stated that the applicant would still be subject to the general subdivision and x zoning ordinance in terms that the applicant would have to comply to the setbacks as it w relates to R-2. That is what the 104 units where designed to comply with. The Applicant worked within the parameter of the flood prone district, the property was 4 �Page 9 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 rezoned to R-2, then to find that this property could not be utilized, due to the conditions. The conditions are not setback requirements, they are setbacks that the conditions imposed. The conditions are not part of the subdivision or zoning ordinance, these are the additional conditions that were imposed as a result of GDP #151. He stated that the applicant would still have to abide by the parameters of the existing setbacks. This was remanded back by the City Council, there is a discrepancy in the way that business is conducted, and what the zoning ordinance reads. The Board no longer meets twice a month. The applicant had 10 days after the 21 days to file the appeal and the applicant wanted to make sure that the appeal would be filed in a timely manner. The applicant would like fair consideration of what has been presented at this time. He stated that the planning staff has taken the position that this is not the appropriate method. The applicant feels that this is the appropriate method under 60.410 and under Minnesota Statue 462.357. This is a request for a variance from the literal provisions of the ordinance, the strict enforcement of those provisions is creating an undue hardship. Mr. Kottschade presented a summary of the nine conditions impose by the Rochester City Council. The conditions create an undue hardship. The applicant believes that the summary he presented to the Board could be used as the findings, instead of the findings proposed by the Staff. This is a reasonable request, there are unique circumstances, and the essential character of the location would not be compromised. This will remain residential and there would not be any changes of the other zoning or setback requirements other than the variance from the extra imposed conditions, Mr. Staver asked if Mr. Kottschade also own the property to the south. Mr. Arnold replied yes. Mr. Staver asked if there was topographical concerns that would not allow the properties to be joined. Mr. Arnold replied that Willow Creek is the main geographic feature that runs down the south boarder of the property. It separates the 16 acres from everything to the south and east. Ms. Baker asked Mr. Arnold about the summery document that was present by Mr. Kottschade. Mr. Arnold replied that the applicant would provide a copy of the summery to be entered into record. Mr. Arnold reviewed the findings that the applicant presented to the Board. !�Ms. Baker read the memorandum of the summery to the Board and audience. The :vmemorandum is on file at this Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. `Ur. Ellis asked If anyone `elsewished to be heard. Page 10 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals 1 Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 Mr. Josh Allen of 739 37 h St SW, address the Board, Mr. Allen stated that he lives on the hill above this property. Mr. Allen stated that not every piece of property is necessarily buildable. He stated that he thought this piece of property could be a park, then the property to the south could then be developed. Perhaps there is a reasonable use, and that it might be the applicant that is being unreasonable. Ms. Karen Marty, representing the City Attorney's Office read the staff recommended findings and resolution, which was presented to the Board. Ms. Baker made a correction to the staff report and the proposed recommended findings. Both stated that the property was zoned R-1. All except portion in section 27 is located in R-2 (low density residential) zoning district, the portion in section 27 is in Olmsted County and zoned Agricultural. With no one else wishing to be heard Mr. Ellis closed the public hearing. Mr. Staver stated that a key part of the discussion has been section 60.410; Staff has commented that the Board is not allowed to vary the conditions of a GDP. The Board can vary specific regulations within the ordinance. The new information that was presented cited the sections of the ordinance that pertain to the conditions of the GDP. There has not been a specific variance suggested for any of those sections. What the applicant is suggesting is that all the conditions should be waived. That the total of those conditions, has a negative financial effect. Mr. Staver stated that, nothing specific was presented to the Board. Mr. Haeussinger stated that he agreed with Mr. Staver. He referred to a Section 60.750 from the ordinance, the burden of producing substantial evidence or testimonies upon the party who files the appeal. If he fails to do so the Board of Appeals shall deny the appeal. He stated that there was not any new additional information presented to the Board. Mr. Haeussinger stated that he concurred with the findings as presented in the proposed resolution for findings of denial of variance #00-32. Mr. Staver stated that he agreed with staff findings and summery for all of the categories. Mr. Stever stated that he had concerns about absence of detriment. If the Board waived the conditions, it would not be an orderly implementation of the compressive plan. In terms of dedication of roadway improvements, pedestrian facilities, parkland, etc. Mr. Staver stated that the Board would be doing a disservice to the public good, as a whole, if the Board were to waive these conditions. Mr. Langanki stated that waiving the conditions could result in harm. To waive storm water drainage could result in harm and not having the proper slopes for roadways could result in harm. Page 11 "i (J City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: December 6, 2000 Mr. Staver made a motion to deny Variance Request #00-32 by Franklin P. Kottschade. and to adopt the findings/Resolution document presented by staff, With the correction concerning the legal definition of the property, that it is R-2 (low density residential) Mr. Haeussinger seconded motion, the motion carried 5-0. . 1. As ray be brought up by members. The Board di ssed section 60.414 the time frame between the close of t public hearing and the ing of formal decision as being 21 days. Staff is ad ssing the 21- day requirement, w may require a revision to the zoning ordinan This will need to be presented to the nning Commission for adoption. Mr. Haeussinger stated that a needed to be some clarify' language as to what situations the Board of Appeals 'ews situations. Whe ovisions are adopted by the City Council and are not going t ugh any other b , they should not be subject for review by the Zoning Board of Appe Ms. Baker stated that it might be possible to a memorandum from the City Attorneys office, explaining the situation, if this were co up again. ADJOURN: Mr. Staver made a motion to business, Mr. Ellis, Chair, aq Respectfully , AICP 3d Planning Dept. , seconded by Mr. the meeting. The Mr. Bob Ellis, Chair With no other ned at 9:05 p.m. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) I, JUDY SCHERR, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE COMPARED THE ATTACHED COPY OF A RESOLUTION WITH THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION ON FILE IN MY OFFICE AND THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. WITNESS MY HAND THIS -�+n DAY OF �nPnPrnoee - , 20 00. o"Ar City Cle•c City of Rochester, Minnesota (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) BE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS City of Rochester, Minnesota VARIANCE RESOLUTION DENIAL Variance Request ##00-32 (Franklin P. Kottschade), upon remand: WHEREAS, an application has been filed on behalf of the owners of a parcel of land LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF 40TH STREET SW, EAST OF 11' AVENUE SW (Co. Rd. 147 and west of TH 63), legally described as follows: A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 26 minutes 47 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 2445.71 feet; thence South 45 degrees 13 minutes 11 seconds West, 322.88 feet; thence South 64 degrees 18 minutes 15 seconds West, 237.58 feet; thence North 84 degrees 55 minutes 13 seconds West 818.52 feet; thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 47 seconds West, 609.95 feet; thence South 84 degrees 49 minutes 18 seconds West, 390.02 feet; thence South 67 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds West, 194.73 feet to the west line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 01 degree 25 minutes 40 seconds West, 350.00 feet to the point of beginning. Together with: A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Ohnsted County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 25 minutes 40 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 350.00 feet; thence South 43 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds West, 210.97 feet; thence South 88 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds West, 50.00 feet; thence North 01 degree 25 minutes 40 seconds West, 500.00 feet to the north line of said Northeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 02 minutes 33 seconds East, 200.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing in all,16.44;acres more or less; . ovmd WHEREAS, the application asked the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester -tto grant a variance to the nine `conditions placed by the City Council on General Development Plan (GDP) #151, and to waive the nine conditions; and WHEREAS, the matter of such variance has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who has submitted a report to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Council / Board Chambers, 151 4a' Street SE, Rochester, MN at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2000, at which hearing all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4-0 to deny Variance request #00-32; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals adopted a Resolution denying the application; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2000, the applicant appealed this matter to the Rochester Common Council, stating both that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to act within the time prescribed by ordinance, and that the Board of Appeals was arbitrary and without any factual support; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2000, the Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing and, because the Board of Appeals had failed to act within the time prescribed by ordinance, remanded this matter back to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2000, this matter came again before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT: The parcel of land is located along the south side of 40s' Street SW, east of 1 la Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 147 and west of TH 63), and legally described as set forth above. All except the portion in Section 27 is located in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The portion in Section 27 is in Ohnsted County, and zoned A-4. The applicant originally sought a variance from the conditions placed on a general development plan. In bis appeal to the Common Council, the applicant also requested variance from the following sections: 61.215 (4)(5)(6)(7), Criteria for Approval of General Development Plan; 64.230 at seq., Determining Right of Way Width; 64.133, Funding Required Improvements; 64.134, Dedication Required; 64.137, Cost Sharing; 64.138, Drainage Easements Required; 64.310, Storm Water Run off; 64.227, Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks; 64.122, Street Design Features; 64.250, Development Agreement with Regard to Street Easement and Right of Way Designations; 64.400 at seq., Park Land Dedication; 64.240, Private Roadways; and 64.220, at seq., Public Roadway and Trail Thoroughfare Design Standards. Rochester Code of Ordinances, Sec. 60.400 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to Vary the literal provisions of the ordinance in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, Subd. 6. That PA state law contains identical language referring to varying the literal provisions of the ordinance. General Development Plan #151 is not an ordinance. Rochester Code of Ordinances, Sec. 60.700 allows appeals to a higher administrative body. The Zoning Board of Appeals is not a higher administrative body than the City Council. Mr. Staver made a motion to deny Variance Request #00-32 by Franklin P. Kottschade, with the following findings. Mr. Haussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. FINDINGS: Regardless of the jurisdiction of the Board, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support reversal of any of the nine distinct conditions that the City Council placed on General Development Plan # 151. The applicant did not address the required variance findings in relation to the nine conditions that the City Council placed on General Development Plan # 151. The applicant also submitted insufficient evidence to justify a variance from any of the ordinances cited. Some of the evidence presented at the first hearing did not relate to the above -described parcel of land, but rather to other, adjacent parcels of land owned by the applicant. It was not clear that development of the above -described parcel of land could not be integrated with development of this other land, in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance. The burden is on the applicant to present sufficient evidence to justify a variance. The applicant presented insufficient reasons to question, vary, or relax any of the nine apparently well-founded conditions that the City Council placed on this development plan. For example, storm water management, S.A.C. charges, and W.A.C. charges are valid conditions. The applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria applicable to the granting of a variance. The basis for this conclusion is as follows: a. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances or conditions peculiar to this property that do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or zoning district. Other properties within the area and City exist that are subject to similar features or existing conditions. The conditions placed on the approval of the General Development Plan were necessary to insure that the property develops, in the future, in accordance with the standards of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and to 17-.implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate how any of the specific Sections referenced in the October 26, 2000 application for appeal meet this criterion, as related :.-:mto the conditional approval of General Development Plan #151. ,.. .. °f,4 A finding can not be made to support a claim that there are extraordinary conditions or FAr (03 circumstances, which are peculiar to the property included in this application, and which do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district. b. REASONABLE USE: Granting of this variance request does not appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. There are several approved Restricted Development conditional use permits for this property permitting extraction/mining activities/use on the property. Restricted Development conditional use permits #97-23 and #97-29 approve use of this property for mining, haul roads, access and stockpiling. There is no supporting documentation to provide evidence that there is no reasonable use of this property without granting a waiver to the nine conditions of the Council's approval of GDP #151. Additionally, the applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate how each of the specific Sections referenced in the October 26, 2000 application for appeal meet this criterion. c. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request may be materially detrimental to the public welfare and may adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by not providing for the dedication of lands for roadway improvements, providing for pedestrian facilities, providing for parkland dedication, providing for stormwater management facilities, and providing for the extension of public utilities and compliance with minimum development standards and requirements of the adopted plans and ordinances of the City. If this variance were approved, the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed and substantial justice would not be done. Granting a waiver to the nine conditions of approval of GDP #151 would result in a development that does not meet minimum requirements of the LDM, which all developments are subject to meeting. A finding cannot be made supporting a statement that granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the other property in the area, that the development would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and that granting the variance would not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. In the spring of 1999, the Rochester Common Council adopted an Ordinance relating to the revision of subdivision regulations. Each Section of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) included in the applicants October 26, 2000 appeal application was included in this major amendment which became effective May 15,1999. Attached is an excerpt from the Ordinance enacting and amending the LDM, which provides additional support for the regulations from which Mr. Kottschade is requesting a variance. The applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate how each of the specific Sections referenced in the October 26, 2000 application for appeal meet this criterion. MIIZMLTM VARIANCE: A finding cannot be made to show that the variance request would be the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the property. There is no evidence supporting an argument that extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist which are not the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. The 14 . applicant has not provided adequate information to demonstrate how each of the specific Sections referenced in the October 26, 2000 application for appeal meet this criterion. Additionally, there is no supporting information to make a finding that the development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. The applicant does own adjacent parcels. Conclusion: The applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria applicable to the granting of a variance. CONCLUSION: The conditions on General Development Plan # 151 are hereby not varied. Rochester Code of Ordinances Sections 61.215 (4)(5)(6)(7), Criteria for Approval of General Development Plan; 64.230 et seq., Determining Right of Way Width; 64.133, Funding Required Improvements; 64.134, Dedication Required; 64.137, Cost Sharing; 64.138, Drainage Easements Required;.64.310, Storm Water Run off; 64.227, Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks; 64.122, Street Design Features; 64.250, Development Agreement with Regard to Street Easement and Right of Way Designations; 64.400 et seq., Park Land Dedication; 64.240, Private Roadways; and 64.220, et seq., Public Roadway and Trail Thoroughfare Design Standards also are hereby not varied. Denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, on this 6th day of December, 2000. Chair of said Zoning Board of Appeals Attest: y[ `� oning Administrator 6'h dayofDecember 2000. KAREN E. MARTY Notary Public Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005 T:DISTRIBUTION: ::l:��s:.: City Clerk (Original) (Certified Copy) {Copy of Staff Report) zd. City Attorney (Certified Copy) (Copy of Staff Report) Zoning Administrator (Certified'.Copy) +.nq.Applicant (Certified Copy) e in the spring of 1999, the Rochester Common Council adopted an Ordinance relating to the revision of subdivision regulations. Each Section of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) included in the applicants October 26, 2000 appeal application was included this major amendment which became effective May 15, 1999. The following is an excerpt from the Ordinance enacting and amending the LDM, which provides support for the regulations which Mr. Koftschade is requesting a variance from. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND FINDINGS. A. Minnesota Statutes § 461.351 provides a legislative finding that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The legislature has found that municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal planning assists in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, makes the provision of public services less costly, and achieves a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of the state planning and subdivision enabling legislation to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning. B, The Minnesota subdivision enabling legislation, Minnesota Statutes § 462.358, enables a municipality to adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities. The legislature provides that regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The legislature provides that regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision. C. The Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area provides that growth should occur in conjunction with community services and facilities and existing growth centers. D. In developing these subdivision regulations, the Common Council hereby finds that these standards are reasonable, as set forth in numerous professional studies, including those studies described in this Section, and the familiarity and experience of the members of the Common Council with local conditions. E. In revising its subdivision regulations, the City of Rochester is responding to a number of local issues that have prompted the need for regulation, which are precipitated by rapid and often unplanned growth. These include: 1. Lack of affordable housing; 2. The tendency for development to "leap -frog" into undeveloped areas; 3. Deteriorating infrastructure and a backlog of maintenance and repair work; 4. Degradation of the environment; 5. Overutilization of energy sources; 6. Fiscal strain linked with the expense of serving low density sprawling development, resulting in increases in travel, inadequate public facilities and over -burdened transportation facilities; and 7. Loss of agricultural lands and open space. The Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) Long -Range Transportation Plan (1997) projects preventative maintenance and reconstruction needs for the existing City of Rochester system to be $115 million over a 20 year period. Combined with the needed $45 million for highway and bridge upgrades, the $160 million in costs compared to the projected $106 million in available funding portends a $54 million deficit. G. The ROCOG LRTP establishes the policy that transportation infrastructure should be paid for on a "user pays" basis. The LRTP also promotes transit -friendly development, livable communities, and sustainable development. The Olmsted County General Land Use Plan, which provides a basis for planning within the Rochester Urban Service Area, also includes policies promoting a "user pays" approach to development as a means of encouraging a more sustainable settlement pattern. National reports and studies of infrastructure needs provide for increased reliance on the "beneficiary pays principle" to finance public works at all levels of government; and the promotion of developer financing of new Infrastructure investments. Nancy Rutledge, Public Infrastructure as a National Concern; 11 Urban, Stale and Local Law Newsletter No. 1 (Fall 1987). H. Channeling growth into efficient land use patterns significantly economizes both public. and private expenditures (Bank of America. Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California (1996); Burchell, Robert W, Economic and Fiscal Costs (and Benefits) of Sprawl. 29 Urban Lawyer 159 (Spring 1997); ERE Yarmouth and Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC), Emerging Trends In Real Estate 1998 (Oct. 1997); Freilich, R., Garvin, E. & White, S. Mark, Economic Development and Public Transit Making the Most of the Washington Growth Management Act. 61 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 949 (1993); Freilich, R. & White, S.M, The interaction of land use planning and transportation management: lessons from the American experience. 1 Transport Policy [U.K.) 101-115 (1994); Freilich, R. To Sprawl or Not to Sprawl: A National Perspective for Kansas City, Charles Kimball Lecture (April 21, 1997); Froelich, Smart Growth: Why Local Governments Are Taking a New Approach to Managing Growth in Their Communities, Public Management (May 1998), at 6-9). Studies have demonstrated that public capital costs for corridor and nodal developments are approximately one-half of those for scattered, leapfrog or sprawl developments (Froelich, at B). In addition, responsible measures to combat sprawl and to grow intelligently have significant benefits for the private sector (Bank of America, at 2; ERE YarmouthIRERC, at 8). I. Adequate public facilities (APF) standards have been recognized as one of the most effective forms of growth management (Gary Pivo, Growth Management Planning & Research Clearinghouse Local Government Planning Tools, (Aug. 1992)). APF controls have been judicially approvpd in cases across the nation and in Minnesota Y e 161 (Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291, app. dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972); Woodbury Place Partners v. Town of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn.App. 1992), cart. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2929 (1993); Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn.App. 1986); Larsen v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn.App. 1986); Garipay v. Town of Hanover, 351 A.2d 64 (N.H. 1976); White, S. Mark. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management (American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No, 465, 1996). The purpose of APF standards is: 1. To economize on the costs of municipal facilities and services to carefully phase residential development with efficient provision of public improvements; 2. To establish and maintain municipal control over the eventual character of development; 3. To establish and maintain a desirable degree of balance among the various uses of the land; 4. To establish and maintain essential quality of community services and facilities. K. The averaging of APF standards can be accomplished at a citywide level to establish an overall carrying capacity which can be allocated to infill areas/ centers to allow increased development in those areas while debiting or diminishing the allocation to rural, fringe areas. Development in urban areas can be further encouraged through selective concurrency waivers that allow development to be exempt from concurrency review. Infill development can rely on alternative transportation modes, access pedestrian systems and produce mixed -use development, all of which will reduce roadway impact. L. Development agreements or "development contracts," which are expressly authorized by Minnesota Statutes § 462.358.2a, can be used to balance private expectations with community needs is the development agreement. Taub, Development Agreements, 42 LAND Use L. & ZON. DiG. 3 (Oct. 1990). Development agreements may place a limit on the land use regulations that may be imposed throughout the development approval process, may enhance the real estate financing process by eliminating the uncertainty and risk posed by unstable land use regulatory schemes, and may increase the value of collateral to be mortgaged to obtain financing for development projects. As development agreements have evolved nationally, they typically contain numerous promises by both the developer and local government. Cailies, Statutory Development Agreements: Analysis, Checklist and ModelAgreemenL M. This ordinance shall be known as the "Rochester Subdivision Regulations Ordinance." '�A l �9 MATERIALS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON DECEMBER 6, 2000 BY FRANKLIN KOTTSCHADE Note '10 c; PGckel ma�er�G/s �e beep Copied and Se - Oc Cowried ,VaraWy odso been set4mi4d A We Pctieskr UI Clerk i�cia% r"ecOrj d A r bMA//C" A?ar��. Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 12/18/ AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations Rochester Public Utilities t F' ` ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on December 14, 2000 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: to approve a "Resolution Awarding the Sale of the City's Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, and Providing for Their Issuance," as described in Resolution No. 46 "Resolution Approving and Consenting to the Issuance of Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000 of the City of Rochester," which was approved by the Utility Board at their special meeting on December 14, 2000. Upon its adoption, the bond resolution approved by the City Council would authorize the issuance of the bonds, specify their terms, rates of interest, redemption premiums, form and other details, pledge the Net Revenues of the Electric Utility for the payment thereof, and set forth other covenants and obligations of the City. The Council is also requested to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the "Bond Purchase Agreement between the City of Rochester as Issuer and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. and Lehman Brothers as Underwriters. GENERAL MANAGER: COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Fj FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 1 Meeting Date: 12/ 14/00 SUBJECT: Approval to Issue Electric Revenue Bonds PREPARED BY: Larry Koshire, General Manager ITEM DESCRIPTION: At the special Board meeting on Thursday, December 14, 2000, the RPU Board will be considering a resolution approving and consenting to the issuance of approximately $37.2 million in electric revenue bonds. There are three documents presented for the Board's review, although the Board is only requested to approve one resolution. The three documents include the following: 1. A resolution approving and consenting to the issuance of Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, of the City of Rochester to be approved by the Utility Board. The resolution was prepared by the City's bond counsel, Jim O'Meara of the Briggs and Morgan firm. 2. A resolution awarding the sale of the Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, and providing for their issuance to be approved by the City Council at their December 18, 2000 meeting. This resolution was also prepared by the City's bond counsel. 3. A Bond Purchase Agreement between the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as issuer, and U.S Bancorp Piper JaMay, Inc. and Lehman Brothers as underwriters. The Agreement was prepared by the underwriters' counsel and approved by the City's bond counsel. Last week we received the ratings for the issuance of bonds from Moody's and Fitch. Moody's has rated the Utility as Aa3, while Fitch has rated the utility as A+. Attached is their credit report and discussion of RPU's operations with respect to this bond issuance. We are pleased as a first time issuer in the market to receive such strong ratings and a strong credit report by these rating agencies. We have also attached a copy of the Preliminary Official Statement that was used in marketing the bonds. The statement gives more detail on the bond covenants, the uses of the funds and details of RPU's and the City's financial condition. On Wednesday, December 13, 2000, the underwriters price the bonds and a spreadsheet providing this information will be prepared by the City's financial advisor, Springsted, and presented at the special meeting. It is anticipated that action taken by the Board will be forwarded to the Council for their consideration on December 18, 2000. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: We request Board approval of the resolution approving and consenting to the issuance of Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000 of the City of Rochester. l2 /3 dD Ge al Manager D to rpnw-�, we pledge, we deliver RESOLUTION No.46 Resolution Approving and Consenting to the Issuance of Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, of the City of Rochester BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board (the "Board") of the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Recitals. (a) The Board, in cooperation with the Rochester Common Council (the "Council"), has determined to make certain improvements (the "Improvements") to the City's municipal electric utility (the "Electric Utility"). (b) In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the Council is expected to consider for approval on or about December 18, 2000, a certain resolution of the Council entitled "Resolution Awarding the Sale of the City's Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000, and Providing for Their Issuance" (the "Bond Resolution"), a copy of which has been presented to the Board for its consideration. Said bonds are hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds". (c) The Bond Resolution would, upon its adoption, authorize the issuance of the Bonds, specify their terms, rates of interest, redemption premiums, form, and other details, pledge the Net Revenues of the Electric Utility for the payment thereof, and set forth other covenants and obligations of the City (and particularly but without limitation relating to the Electric Utility). (d) The Bond Resolution, as the same may be finally adopted by the Council, is hereby incorporated into this Resolution to the same extent as though set forth in full herein, and each capitalized term which is used in this Resolution but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given to that term in the Bond Resolution. 2. Consent and Approval. The Board hereby consents to and approves the issuance of the Bonds and determines that their issuance by the City is necessary and desirable and that the aggregate amount of the Bonds is appropriate in respect of the purposes for their issuance. The Board hereby consents to, adopts and endorses the representations, terms and covenants of the Bond Resolution, as incorporated in this Resolution in full. The Board hereby covenants and pledges to cooperate with the Council (and to take such actions, or refrain from 1231468.1 �(a we pteGpt. we Miner acting, as the case may be, as may be necessary) in order to fully effectuate the intent, purposes and obligations of the City under the Bond Resolution or otherwise in respect of the Bonds. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 14th day of December, 2000. President Secretary The foregoing Resolution was introduced by Boardmember Ronald Ress, who moved its adoption. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Boardmember Richard Landwehr and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Boardmembers voted in favor thereof: James Carlson John Hunziker Richard Landwehr Ronald Ress Roger Toulouse and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 1231468.1 wa ple6ge, we selaver STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the Board duly called and held on the date therein indicated, which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom approving the issuance and sale by the City of Rochester of its Electric Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2000. WITNESS my hand as such Secretary this 140' day of December, 2000. 'r�o n W lk.i-OY--' _ Secretary Rochester Public Utility Board REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: iOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G.1 ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 ITEM NO. G PREPAREDBy.] TERRY AADKINS G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the R-1 District to the R-1X District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located West of Woodland Drive SW — North of Salem Road SW — South of Baihly Woodland 7°i Subdivision and Baihly Hills Drive SW. b) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the H District to the M-1 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the West Side of West Circle Drive North of 28"' Street NW and South of Valleyhigh Road NW. c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 13.66 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 107 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located East of East Circle Drive South of Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3`d and 4"' Subdivisions. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Resolutions & Ordinances Public Works DESCRIPTION: Annexation Amendment — Rochester Township. PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur Staff members have recently reviewed the legal description for Ordinance #3366 for the surrounded areas located within Rochester Township. To further clarify the intent of the legal description Staff would request a change so that the last paragraph of Section 1 reads as follows: This proposed annexation area includes all public right-of-ways, easements, and roads within, abutting, and adjacent to the above described areas. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Amend Ordinance #3366 relating to the annexation of 100% surrounded areas in Rochester Township with the above referenced language changes. NOTE: Council should also suspend the rules and allow the Second Reading for this amendment to occur at the December 18, 2000 meeting. R'ox, a'#P"`Gb'v g COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: _. ____ Second by_ _ to. r� W INFORMATIONAL ITEMS I) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 08107100, 09111100, 09125100, 10102100, 10116100, 10130100, 11113100, 11120100 and 11127100 r COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL AUGUST 7, 2000 4:15 P.M. 1) Presentation of Public Works Web Page COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 PACE 1) Ac lourned Council Meeting - 4:15 p.m. (1-4) 2) Review Architect Selection for Prototype Design for Future Stations (attachment) 12 • PAGE COMMI= OF THE MOLE AGENDA M ROOM 104, CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 4:15 P.M. 1) PRESENTATION OF MASTER ACTION PLAN FOR Yq�`Ttt (ATTACHMENT) �vi G 67re ALA �IQCGtri7/, 2) UPDATE ON BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB/SHARON TUNTLAND 3) PROPOSED DEPARTMENT HEAD CLASSIFICATION AUDIT (ATTACHMENT) 11 i COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL OCTOBER 2, 2000 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-7) 1) Consideration of Proposed Location for a New Art Center Building (attachment) t r� Ale _ I P `- � I -G it-Cc✓� J"' ��i � .+...s-)O �¢'.� �,6r Ct-.-v.r�/� S � 7ao'+'..L-c f% /a u� a'� e7 ✓iSC4a . Ttc� OF �r 0 1 PAGE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL OCTOBER16, 2000 4:15 P.M. 1) Soldiers Field Memorial Presentation/Wayne Stillman to (1-2) 2) Neighborhood Organization Presentation of their 2001 Budget Request (attachment) -�- ��rs�.-F w.��i'�� .ter �` ��-<-aF -4.� �•'-«_.� (3-14) 3) Review of O(f-Street Parking Regulations in Residential Districts (attachment) Gy�,h STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL OCTOBER 30, 2000 RECESSED COUNCIL MEETING - 4:15 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1) Presentation of School Board Levy Override Referendum 2) Continued Organization Review Sessions a. Police b. Music c. Public works • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL NOVEMBER 12, 2000 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - 4:15 P.M. Canvass of Votes from I IR100 Election COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE 1. Review of County Solid Waste Business Plan/Mike Cousino 2. Continuation of Organization Review Sessions a. City Clerk b. Building Safety C. Planning M • STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL NOVEMBER 20, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. I j Presentation of Art Center's Business Plan G 2) Discussion of Possible Environmental Appeal/Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (attachment) �4 M Pc.4 I G:7//_ 1N 44, limm 1021, CI•I"Y J-� Nunsi-n1{ 27, 2000 commI` f&F, OF tm w1jo , - 21:151).M. 1) `$o�'DeWIC Requests to Address the Coumeil %S: VVeterams'Memorial ?) `OrN>entgttom o� Boyal Xwgememts 'Det^elopment rojert Y �tvr 3} Review Proposed T'rotovpe ror New Fire Mgtioms i