Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1985RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item A-1 President Postier called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., the following members being present: President Postier, Aldermen Allen, Bluhm, Powers, Solinger and Strain. Absent: Alderman Duffy. Bluhm moved, Powers second to approve the minutes of the September 3 and 4, 1985 minutes with the following change. On Item B-8 of the September 4, 1985 meeting, Solinger moved to grant Group W an increase of $1.50 with the addition of a super channel. It was stated that this motion died for a lack of a second . Alderman S'olinger pointed out that no second was called for and that part of the minutes should be stricken. Alderman present agreed upon this correc ion. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried with the correction. B-1 A Hearing on the Final Plat of Arborglen. Having no one present that wished to be heard, President Postier closed the hearing. Powers moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 496-85 approving the plat. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. B-2 A Hearing on the Proposed Assessment on Project No. 6216-3-71 J 8372 Deferred Assessment to Lot 4, Block 2, Golden Hill Addition - Street Improvements in 16th Street S. W. from T.H. 63 to West Line of Graham Addition. Having no one present that wished to be heard, President Postier closed the hearing. Bluhm moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 497-85 approving the assessment. B-3 A Hearing on the Final Plat of # 85-17 of Sanborn's Subdivision. Having no one present that wished to be heard, President Postier closed the hearing. Powers moved, Strain second to table this to a future Council.meeting, Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. D-1 Solinger moved, Powers second to adopt Resolution No. 498-85 referring the petition for Extension of Sewer and Water on East River Rd. from East River Lane North to existing Sewer and Water connect- ion. Petitions have been received from the owners on Lots 30,31,32,33 34,35 and 37 in Christensen-Sehl to the Public Services Department for a feasibility report. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-1 A Request was received from Group W Cable TV for reconsideration of the request for a rate i ncrease.Pt :the >rreeti ng of September 4, 1985, the Common Council denied Group W a rate increase. The testimony regarding the request of Group W is as follows: For the Record, I am Richard Ehrick and I am the local attorney and my office address is the Marquette Bank Building here in Rocheste Minnesota, and I come here tonight to speak on behalf of Group W Cable in connection with their recent application for a rate increase With me also is Mr. Robert Loos, who is the manager of the Rochester system. Last Friday, I wrote you a letter which ended with a request that you reconsider the action that you took at your September 4 meet and you will recall that at that meeting,you rejected the application of Group W for an increase and denied any rate increase whatsoever. From speaking with several of you, I am now well aware that regulatio of Cable rates or regulation of any rates is not one of your favorite subjects. I ng, RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2504 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Cont. Richard Ehrick, Attorney for Group W is speaking: It is, as everybody agrees, a corn ex and difficult matter, and I know that some of you are not happy with the action that was taken by congress in the last year - in eliminating, or proposing to eliminate rate regulation for cable systems. You also tell me that some of your constituents have complained to you about service and programmini And I know that you and some of your constituents feel that at least one superstation should be added to the programming for basic service. And with all this, I am sure there comes a good measure of frustration that seem to follow - that seem to follow anyway in every rate regulating matter. I hasten to assure you that I under- stand your feelings in all of this, and to the extent that Mr. Loos or I can alleviate any of your frustration or respond to any state- ments you want to make, or any inquiries you want to make, why, we'll make every attempt to do so. But, the sad fact remains here that deregulation has not yet occurred - cannot occur until the end of 1986 - and may not occur at all. And the duty and the obligation to regulate r a t e s , which has been imposed on you by the Charter of the City of Rochester, and also defined further in the Cable Franchise Ordinance -still exists and must be fulfilled. Now the reason I refer to your rate regulating function as a duty and obligation is because when you act on a rate application you don't act strictly as a legislative or a political body, you act as an administrative tribunal. Quite different. You are required as a rate regulating body to evaluate an application for a rate increase as objectively and as impartially as you can and then you are also required to exercise your judgement as to whether the application that has been made to you has any merit - has validity and decide on that basis. Now with respect to Group W's application for a rate increase, it was submitted to you properly and then you in turn referred it to your administrative staff and to the Advisory Cable TV Committee and also to your Director of Finance for evaluation, and this was entirely proper because you needed special expertise to properly evaluate this application. It involved difficult and debatable accounting principles and other issues and is something on which you needed expert advice and recommendation. Now, when you referred this, your advisory committee and your Director of Finance and your administrative staff did what you requested. And in that process of reviewing this application, Group W was required and did submit additional information to those persons and they met with your people. And on completion of their analysis your Advisory Committee and your Director of Finance and administrati staff all reported to you and made recommendations as to the requestE rate increase. These recommendations vary - the Advisory Committee,after reducing the rate base and rejecting some expenses of operation, and lowering what Group W thought was a fair rate of return, did mention in its report an increase in the range of 38¢ to 60¢, but then they followed that statement about increase with another statement that le 1 Agenda Item E-1 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ' CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA '� Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 they were not recommending that small an increase because it would not encourage Group W to expand its services. They did not recommend to you a specific increase, but Schedule E, which is attached to their report does seem to suggest to me, at least, that an increase in the range of 93� to $1.93 was or merited your consideration. Now your Director of Finance reviewed all materials including the Advisory Committee report and recommended to you an increase in the range of $1,.25 to $1.50. And then your staff reviewing both of these reports adopted the position of your Finance Director and recommended the same - $1.25 to $1.50 increase to you. Now the reason Group W now sincerely and respectfully asks the Common Council to reconsider the action you took on September 4, 1985 is because notwithstanding these facts which I am going to mention 1. That Group W's application was received and referred for expert evaluation and recommendations - nowithstanding the fact that these evaluations were completed and recommendations were made by all for a rate increase. And to my knowledge at least, the Common Counci never made any independent study or evaluation of this application for a rate increase. I am talking about an evaluation on your own. The Common Council has not challenged the application or the various evaluations and recommendations and yet, on September 4, 1985, in effect rejected all recommendations totally rejected the applicai:i and denied Group W any increase whatsoever. Now members of the Council, I submit to you that the action that you took on September 4 1985 is.not in keeping with your duties and obligations as a rate regulating body. I submit that the action taken by you on September 4, 1985 was without foundation and was without factual basis and in a legal sense would have to be classified as arbitrary and improper. Rate regulation, members of the Council, is not a.politica issue, it is a fact issue and involves judgemental action, and this is why we are asking you now to reconsider your action and if you do reconsider your action to act then on the basis of the factual evaluation and analysis made by your experts recommendations made by them. Or, refer the application to the Committee of the Whole to yourselves as the Committee of the Whole for further consideration and later action. If such a motion to reconsider is made and adopted, it merely sets aside the action you took on September 4 and reopens this matter for further consideration and action. And I have the feeling that there are matters which should be further considered. I have clearly heard from you that there are complaints about service. These complaints must be resolved and rectified and Group W stands ready I assure you, stands ready and plans to do this. There is a clear Ordinance procedure that can be followed in the Franchise Ordinance fl handling complaints and if you consider the personnel at Group W discourteous or if you consider their service is defective in any way, or if their signals are not up to the highest standards, I assure you that we will work to resolve these. And you have also told me, I think rather clearly that you and some of your constituent. )n it 2506 RECORD -OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Cont. Richard Ehrick, Attorney for Group W is speaking. feel that you would like another independent, or superstation added to the basic service. I assure you that this can be done, and Group W stands ready to do it if the Council will grant an increase adequate to cover the cost or if the Council grants an increase to the present rate up to a fair return level and then agrees that the actual expense of adding a superstation can be passed through to the subscribers. Now we are talking just about actual out of pocket expenses of adding that superstation to the basic service. We are not asking for any overriding fee on top of that, just an agreement that the actual expenses which can be' presented and approved can be passed on through to the customers. Members -of the Council, Group W maintains, in all of this applicatior that our Rochester system is a good system and I know some of you are going to dispute and say that you have many complaints. We claim that it is second to none in the State of Minnesota. Group W in the past two plus years has spent in excess of six million dollars to rebuild this system and upgrade it. There has been substantial upgrading of the programming in connection of that -rebuild and the rate for that service may be the lowest in the state and if not it may be among the very lowest. I assure you that working together the City and Group W can further improve this system and the programming. And, once again, we urge you first to reconsider the action which you took and then act on the basis of the evaluations and recommend- ations made by your experts and act on the basis of the standards that are set forth in the ordinance, two of which seem to me to be particularly appropriate. No. two of those standards says that you should approve a rate which will encourage the company to experiment and develope improved and additional subscriber services. And No. five that you will approve a rate which will enable the company to earn a fair return on its invested capital, commensurate with returns on investments in other enterprises having correspondinc risks. Now as I indicated, I hope sincerely that one of you who voted with the majority in the action taken on September 4 can find it in your heart and in your ability here to move to reopen this matter to further consider. Your action does not set any particular rate, it just opens it for further consideration in the light that all I have said. And, I and Mr. Loos, and whoever you need will be more than willing to meet with any of you to supply any additional information you might request. But we feel sincerely that the action taken by the Council in denying any rate increase whatsoever is not in keeping with your obligations and is arbitrary and improper. Thank you. Postiet Thank you Mr. Ehrick. Mr. Powers - 1 �I RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA '��� Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Alderman Powers is speaking on the Group W rate increase request. Mr. Ehrick, going back, I agree with you that we should look at this objectively and as you mentioned in your talk, you know, we should w„ei,gh ' what the experts have told us. All right? Mr. Ehrick - yes Alderman Powers continues -- If one looks at this, the Cable Advisor, Board apparently did not come to a consensus and varied in price fror 60� to $2.50 and our own Finance Director gave us a figure of $1.25 to $1.50 and Group Cable says they need $3.50. Now, I'm no CPA, but that isn't very scientific as far as I am concerned, when you run from 60¢ to $3.50 and I am sitting here trying to figure out what is fair, that is a long spread. So who am I to believe? If I believe Group Cable, you know, I may be giving them the world. It is a very difficult situation. Ehrick It is a difficult situation and nobody ever - you know - said that rate making is easy and as I said, these are debatable issues and the argument always arises over what is to be included in the rate base, what is a fair return. And, in addition to, what is a fair and accurate reflection of what they did earn. All I can say to you is just a couple of things. First of all, I think that the Advisor; although — it mentioned 60�, did add that they were not recommending any increase that low. If I read that report correctly. And I do recall when reading the minutes of your last meeting, that Mr. Loos did say that if an increase of $2.50 were granted, that would be adequate for Group W to add a superstation without any further additional cost. Now I think that - a combination there has or it seems to me has lowered the range of difference there, has narrowed the range of difference perhaps somewhere from $1.00 to $1.25 to $2.50. Well actually to about $2.00 - you know the cost of the superstation is probably in the range of 50¢ a month per subscriber. Powers Well if you went for $2.50 on a superstation,then you would still be coming out with a $2.00 rate. Ehrick Yes Powers This would be a very hefty raise as far as I am concerned. Ehrick Well, it is a question of providing a fair rate of return and what you have to do is you have to look at the rate base and you have to decide what a fair rate of return is on that and you have to make your judgement and conclusion. Powers Well, you just got thru talking about experts and we have got one that says 60� and if I was to give them a superstation I would be talking about $1.10 and our Finance Director which is lower than the $2.00 you are talking about and we have Group W Cable which wants $3.50 and no superstation and I don't know what I'm to think. Ehrick Well, as I've just said, as came out in your last meeting, they did say $2.50 and they would include a superstation - add a super - station to basic service for that. As I say, all you can do is act Comm. I 2500 RECORD -OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item Ehrick as you are obligated to do on the recommendations and on the analysis that had been made for you by your people. I am here to offer our further cooperation in any discussion of this that you would like to have. linger Mr. Ehrick, I would like to ask you - when the Cable company did their rebuild, I believe the rate before the rebuild was $6.45. Is that correct? rick $6.95 ;olinge $6.95- and when you did your rebuild, and reauthorizing the new Franchise, reestablishing it and doing the rebuild to the present set up, you were authorized $8.05 including the cost of that rebuild,and that is why you were authorized to bring that so at that point, weren't you receiving a fair rate of return? Loos Mr. Robert Loos, Manager of Group W is now speaking. Let me address some of that - the Franchise renegotiations were back in 1982-1983. At the time we did our renegotiation there were a number of new programming sources that we had talked about adding. One of those was MTV which my age bracket might not have cared for, the weather channel, there are a whole host of services at that time, there was 24 hour news service which was no charge. Those all changed, became subscriber supported. So while we have negotiated a rate say in early 1982 or say very late 1982 and early 1983, some two years plus ago, a number of things have changed. We have been asked now, "How about adding some new services". We are saying O.K., there has to be an adjustment of those rates. The performance may not have been accurate, you do a pr._o"iforrma it isn't always accurate - you say, this is our best guess at what will happen. Now historical data replaces your pro. -forma So what we have done is supply the financial information to the City. It has been reviewed by Bill Crawford, who is here this evening, your Chairman of the Cable Advisory Board and Paul Utesch. We said - O.K., here is what the realities are in 1985. Based on that, this is what we would nee( for return. In answer to Jim's question, "Why is there a wide range between the rates"? You get down to what is a fair rate of return. If you go a bank and one bank may say we will give you 5.7% on a passbook savings , somebody else may give you 6.25% , somebody else probably 6% - 6.75% or whatever, so there is an argument as to where the rate of return should be. The city's position has been, or at least the Cable Advisory Board and Paul Utesch has been we are a regulated utility with low risk and low risk businesses get a lower rate of return which is around 15%. NSP in the State happens to be getting more than that, Northwestern Bell happens to be getting a little less than that, but around in those numbers. ;olinger Well, that is going a little bit beyond my question, so what you really mean by that rate of return is on the upgrade you had propose( that you were going to get a fair rate of return but some of the services costs more than you expected and you are not getting that fair rate of return. 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2509 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14- September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Group W Cable Request - Robert Loos is speaking. Loos Time is an.element and our prices and our costs have increased. olinger That is what I wanted to know. Postier I understand that Bill Crawford is in the audience and wishes to be heard. Without objection from the Council. O.K. William Crawford - 1641 8 1/2 Avenue S. E. Crawforc I am Chairman of the Cable TV Advisory Committee and I would just like to point out that the Advisory Committee in its report that it sent to the Council did not make a recommendation I think there was a division of opinion on behalf of -the Advisory Committee which was one reason why we couldn't come up with a uniform rate increase. Some of felt that the financial information, as presented by Group W, was not prepared with standards that we would have liked to have seen and that their accounting systems lack some definition about what the Rochester system actually was. And as a result in going through several pro formas, we came up with the 38� number. In analyzing the financials, we also felt that there -is an increase in management charge and if we did remove that increase, we would have supported no rate increase. And so I think that when I - I am sorry that I was not here when you had your Council meeting on the 4th, I think I.supported the fact that you not increase the rates, and I think the numbers that we presented to you before the report in fact supported - there was information. there to support the fact that you do not increase the rates. If Group W was go come along with an increase in services, I think the Advisory Committee recommendation to the Council would be to go ahead and increase the rates to the cost of those additional services are going to be. But, I think the numbers that we provided can support no increase. Postiel Yes, go ahead Gordy - Bluhm Two things Bill,,I think at our Committee of the Whole meeting, you made a statement in regard to the fact that you would support a $1.25. .rawforc I think I said that our numbers on the - we said 3U to 60� under one set of assumptions - and that I would go up to $1.00 as my recollection, I don't think that I would go up to $1.25. That was to to encourage Group W to provide a superstation. I think there was a great deal of concern on the Advisory Committees part and my own personal opinion is that the numbers that they provided us do not support a rate increase. But I think we are to trying to come to- gether with the Advisory Committee and not be divisive as far as our report is concerned. try RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2510 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item Group W- request for rate increase - cont. Bluhm The other concern that I have is when the Advisory Committee dealt with the rate increase and dove into the financial figures of Group W Cable, if there wa-s something missing there, why didn't you ask for it and consider that. ,rawford I think to goes back to the accounting practices of Group W. At the time of the rebuild question, it became apparent to the Advisory Committee and the City staff,at that time, that the financial figures they were presenting, were not for the City of Rochester, but were for the Rochester division. The initial financia statements that were provided to us at this time also were for the Rochester division. We asked them to come back with the financial statements for the City of Rochester alone. When I say Rochester division includes Eyota, and Stewartville and Cronoco. I think our concern is that their accounting practices do not keep track of the capita:1 investments specifically for the City of Rochester. And that the numbers presented to us were on an allocated basis and not be identified specifically with the cost to provide the service here in Rochester. Bluhm So you have not seen those figures or what. rawford They have provided it to us., but they are on an allocated basis, we have not seen figures that are on a very specific basis and I would say that you could argue and I would argue , being an accountan that those numbers could have been prepared arbitrarily and we did not have time to go through in detail to challenge the allocations that were being made. I think that is one reason why we didn't come back with a specific recommendation. Bluhm I think that statements that you are making right now puts a cloud on this whole issue, as far as we are concerned because it puts this whole thing in doubt when you say that figures could have been just taken out of the air - so to speak. rawford I am trying to choose my words carefully, I am not trying to accuse Group W of trying to do something unethical or that way, I think their preparation in numbers, I would question they way they were done. I think.that goes back into basic accounting system and I think that every City that has to regulate rates has to put up with the same thing and I don't know if anybody else has gone into the detail in numbers as what we did, but I think we have to make a decision, I think you have to make a decision and so we went ahead and submitted the report. And I think we tried to convey that feeling of the fact that there were some arbritariness to the presentation of the numbers that were in there. Bluhm Did you make a different decision do you think if you dealt with figures that dealt specifically with Rochester? 1 1 Agenda Item ;rawfo Postiei ;rawfo Postier rawford Postier rawford Postier RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2511 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Group W - Request for rate increase - cont. I would be very comfortable taking the numbers dealing specifically with Rochester and going through the formulas and saying "Here is the rate of return that we aught to decide upon and say that ought to generate an increase." I do not believe that - I don't think they are capable of presenting those type of figures and if they were presented, I do not think they would support a rate increase. May I ask something before I forget it. Bill, I believe you did state that - was this a unanimous opinion of the Advisory Board there was difference of opinion ? I guess I would kind of like to know - do you represent them - and with all due respect - Whether you represent a majority or whether you as an accountant are the prominent one in this decision? I think the latter very definitely. There were three members of the Advisory Committee that passed in the final report,there was one member of the Advisory Committee that was willirg to give the entire amount - of the $3.50 increase if they would add a couple of super - stations and said they .ought to add $2.50 regardless. I think that myself and the other member of the Advisory Committee were not willin to make any recommendation at all because we are not satisfied with the financial numbers that we are looking at and just did not feel that in good conscience,representing the subscribers, make a recommendation when the methodologies and the numbers have been presented to us.- we are not comfortable with. We were comfortable with our analysis in coming up and saying " OK, if you take this set of assumptions and giving them the benefit of the doubt that it would support a 38¢ increase. What I am saying is there is another set of assumptions that could say that the management charge that increased when Group W purchased.the system from Teleprompter and that doubled just by that fact that they purchased, all of a sudden the cost of the local system here doubled- that if you subtracted that out, that would not - taking those into consideration that would not justify a rate increase, - But you also, and I don't want to repeat what Gordy said, but you also did state that you would go for a'$1.00 to $1.25. II said at the Committee of the Whole - (Committee of the Whole - Right - that I would support a $1.00 increase to try and encourage them to go ahead and do that, but I think I was trying to again to convey some sense of what the Advisory Committee was -to convey that sense that some of the members of the Advisory Committee were on there. (Pete - you have a question? ' RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Group W - request for rate increase - cont. olingev I want to ask Mr. Crawford a question - isn't it common practice in business accounting to - if you are a multi -faceted company to use cost allocations. rawfor Oh yes, I think that - olingey And isn't this what you are questioning of them? ;rawfo What I am really specifically questioning is the fact that they did not keep track of the capita•1 cost specifically for the City of Rochester and that is the rate base. You have to - you know - if you are going to operate several divisions or several localities around Rochester, from an expense side, you would have to allocate those things. linge> Capital costs meaning what - ,rawfo >ol i ngei Costs of string wires, plant property, plant expenditures that they would have to string the cable around the city and to provide the head -in. The head -in would be an example of something that the capita'-1 cost would have to be allocated, but the wire that they specifically strung in Rochester is a capital cost that they should have been able to specifially identify with the City of Rochester. So it is those areas there that I am critical of their accounting practices, and not presenting us numbers that do that. I am also very critical of the fact that they present numbers and final numbers that are not for the City of Rochester and that as a point in fact is what they did initially. And that is where the $5.50 or $5.30 figure came initially was off a statement that was specifiall; filed for the Rochester division, not the City of Rochester. So you have a pattern, I think of statements that have been filed with the City of Rochester and the Advisory Committee. I think they are questionable I think they are - the fact that they reference the Touche-Ross study that was done in Dubuque and said that they have substituted in their numbers, O.K. that to me , interprets to me, and they had disclaimer in there, it says, " we used our own numbers". That would mean to me that they would take their expenses and their capital costs and go through the methodology and come up with a rate of return. When a point of fact, the Touche-Ross study disallowed a considerable amount of the expenses and in the rate base in the Dubuque study. They did not tell us that that is what they had done. It was not until we went through and analyzed that and realized that, so what I am saying is that there is a pattern here of financial statement filings that - I don't know the right word to use - I think they did in all honesty I think they do it na evely to be honest about it. Getting back to another point, the management was somewhere around $410,000. Does that come to, I don't know exactly what their gross is, but is that about 20% of their gross? 1 1 Agenda Item RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL �-. CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA �' Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Group W - request for rate increase - cont. Crawfor I don't know. Ehrick I think they are about 2 million. Solinge� Yeh, that is about 20%. Isn't that kind of a high rate of return? for management. CrawforJ I really don't have any basis for knowing whether it is or not. I can say this, that Touche-Ross in the Dubuque study subtracted a considerable amount out of the management charge in their analysis. And they also took several other things into consideration. Postie� Any further questions. Thank you Bill. O.K. Gentlemen - I will be asking for a motion for reconsideration. I do want to tell you where I stand prior to that. I could truthfully support a motion to reconsider to be sent back to the Committee of the Whole so we -can perhaps get these two parties together and I'm hearing a lot of information tonight maybe I heard it then, but didn't listen carefully. I would do it for that reason, support it if it were to be brought up. Secondly I would support it because I am also fearful of us being taken to court again and perhaps we can win the case, I don't know if we can, I'm not an attorney and i f Fred couldn't tell me outright if we can win the case, maybe'we are capricious if we don't give them any raise. But anyhow, just for those two reasons,if it were decided to bring it up, if it were brought to reconsider, I would not vote on an increase tonight. I would like to see it come back to the Committee of the Whole, just for your information. linge Question - on procedures - and that is, who can make a motion to reconsider? Postiet Prevailing side. olinget How about the side that wasn't here? Postiet That would have to be answered by Fred, but I don't believe so. Suhler ,Post ier Al l.en Powers No. ( shook his head in a negative manner ). Darrell can't. We have two that could make the motion for reconsider ation that would be Aldermen Allen and Powers. Good, I'll move that we reconsider and take it to the Committee of the Whole Mr. Chairman Mr.Chairman - Postie+ Yes, Alderman Powers. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 251.2- CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-1 Powers Allen 3ostier -,owers Postiei Strain Grimm Strain Postiei Ehrick Postiei E-2 Group W - request for rate increase - cont. I will second that Mr. Allen, only if you will make it a part that Group W Cable brings back some sort of a package that I can look at. I agree with that. Any superstation included in that. I not only want them to come in and say what they are going to do about a superstation, but I want a package that says, we will give you this for this. I don't want to sit and listen to all this business that has been going on tonight again and we are traveling from 3 U to $3.50. I don't know who to believe in that situation. h O.K., I accepted your second. Before voting - Alderman Strain. Mr. President - The Chairman of this Committee brings up some very interesting points from accounting auditing standpoint. And, I believe since we have a tape recording of the testimony here by Mr. Ehrick and Mr. Crawford, that it is possible to have this as a full print in our minutes. Is that correct, City Clerk? Yes, it is. I would request that if possible. Very good. You understand the motion now, we are making a motion and a second to reconsider to be taken back to Committee of the Whole, no rate increase and as been asked by Alderman Powers to come with a specifil and I don't want to quote for him, a specific price in what you are going to include in with it whether it is one superstation, two or whatever. Fully understand that. Yes. O.K. Any other discussion, all in favor of the motion say aye. Ayes (6). Nays(0). Motion carried. Thank you for coming down. Bluhm moved, Strain second to approve the following licenses & bonds; Renewal application received from the Rochester Lodge 2128, Royal order of Moose for a Bingo License. Request received from the Rochester Police Benevolent Association for a single one7Oay consumption and display license for the Mayo Civic Auditorium for the annual Policemen's Ball on September 28, 1985. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. I. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 -.September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-3 Solinger moved, Powers second to for On -Sale Non -intoxicating Malt dba Golden Hill Country Kitchen a Nays (0).Motion carried. approve the request for a. license Liquor to Beier Companies, Inc. t 1705 South Broadway. Ayes (6), E-4 Powers moved, Strain second to approve the Accounts payable in the amount of $1,679,229.89 (list attached). This is a semi-monthly record. Ayes (6),Nays (0).Motion carried. E-5 Strain moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No.499-85 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 A.M. on October 2, 1985. This is for 27,500 GVW Chassis and a Hydraulic Crane System and a Dump box. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-6 Bluhm moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 500-85 approving No. 85-9 Orderly Annexation of the Johnson, Drake, and Piper - Steve Schuller property east of County Club Manor to Cascade Creek (32 acres of vacant land including the south pond area. This also includes a-.47 of an acre of land located and the southern end of the tract. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-7 Solinger moved, Bluhm second to approve the No. 85-16 Preliminary Plat of Meadow Hills 4th Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The street name on the proposed cul-de-sac street should be changed to "Meadow Hills Lane S. W." 2. Include in the final plat the land lying south of this preliminary plat to 25th Street S. W. This land should be platted as an outlot. 3. The transition in right-of-way width from 66 feet to 60 feet should be uniform beginning at 66 feet wide at the east side of the plat and reducing to the 60 foot width gradually through the first curve. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. E-8 Powers moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 501-85 and 502-85 accepting the feasibility report and order a hearing to be held on October 7, 1985 on Project -No. 6303-1-85 J 8914 - Extension of Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in East River Road from East River Lane to the Existing Sewer and Watermain approximately 1200 feet North. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-9 Powers moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 503-85 authorizi the City Clerk to advertise for bids on Project No. 6303-1-85 J 8914 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in East River Road from East River Lane to the Existing Sewer and Watermain Approximately 1200 Feet North. Bids to be opened at 11:00 A.M. on October 4, 1985. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-10 Powers moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 504-85 and 505- 85 dechring the cost to be assessed and ordering a hearing to be held on October 7, 1985 on Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 2-1984 J 8864. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. 251 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2516 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-11 E-12 E-13 E-14 E-15 E-16 E--17 E-18 Powers moved, Strain second to table the request to convert No Parking and Loading Zones in front of Fontaine Towers to 30 minute parking meters and refer this back to Public Services for further study. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 506-85 approving the following changes in the Comprehensive Parking Resolution as follows: Add the following paragraph to Section G- Alleys - (4.5) The alley between Second Street S. W. and Third Street S. W. from First Avenue S. W. to Second Avenue S. W., One-way for West Bound Traffic. Add Paragraph 20.to Section B, No Parking Zones - at all times (20). On both sides of the East -West Alley which lies between Second Street S. W. and Third Street S. W. from First Avenue S. W. to Second Avenue S. W. at all times. Ayes (6),Nays (0) Motion carried. Solinger moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 507-85 awardin the low bid of $30,327.00 to the Swenke Company of Kasson, Mn. for Project No. 8418 J 8893 Reconstruction of Sanitary Sewer in Soldiers Memorial Field and in 700 Block of 3rd Avenue S. W. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved,Allen second to adopt Resolution No. 508-85 awarding the low bid of $36,727.00 to.the Swenke Company of Kasson, Mn. for Project No. 5403-85 J 8912 - Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension in the East Service Drive Trunk Highway No. 52 from 4th Street N. W. to approximately 450 feet north. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried Allen moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 509-85 approving a resolution of the Public Utility Board approving a purchase order agreement with Road Machinery and Supplies Co. for furnishing two - truck cab chasis and aerial devices in the amount of $125,730.00. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 510-85 setting a hearing date of October 7, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the Charter Commission's recommended amendment changing the filing fees for candidates filing for a City Charter elections from $5.00 to $25.00. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved, Solinger second to approve the issuance of an On -Sale and Sunday Wine License to Wong's Cafe at 4 Third Street S. W. effective October 1, 1985. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Bluhm moved, Strain second to approve the request for Homecoming Parades received from the following schools: John Marshall parade on October 4, 1985 from 4:00 to 4:30 P.M. The route is approved by the Rochester Police Department. The Mayo High School parade will be held on October llth from 4:00 P.M. until 4:30 P.M. along an approved route by the Rochester Police Department. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. 1 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - September 16, 1985 Agenda Item E-19 Bluhm moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 511-85 awarding the contract for State Project 5501-56 Contract No. 1759 Construct- ion and Lighting for Taxiway T-8 and General Aviation Apron at the Rochester Municipal Airport.to Road Constructors, Inc. of Rochester, Minnesota in the amount of $135,900.40. This is subject to approval of funds by the State of Minnesota. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-20 Allen moved, Strain second to adopt Resolution No. 512-85 awarding the contract for State Project No. 5501-55 Contract No. 1780 for General Construction including demolition,mechanical and electrical for Energy Conservation work for Hangars "A" and "B" of the General Aviation Terminal at the Rochester Municipal Airport in the amount of $358,362.00. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-21 Powers moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 513-85,approving the transfer of $348,543.00 of unused funds allocated to the Rochest Municipal Airport to Park Rapids Minnesota for Airport Construction. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-22 Solinger moved, Powers second to approve the payment of $15,619.85 from J 6923 Sub. 1134 to Miller-Dunwiddie of Minneapolis, Mn. for design work on Hangars "A" and "B on the Rochester Municipal Airport. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-23 Allen moved, Powers second to refer the request for a Consumption & Display License for Alpine Way ( Eastwood Golf Course) back to the Committee of the Whole for further discussion. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-24 Strain moved, Solinger second to approve the request received from the Corps of Engineers to have the City Administrator submit a letter of intent to them on the South Fork Zumbro River project. This letter would contain the new construction start (intent) in thl President's 1987 budget on the South Fork Zumbro River Project. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-25 Solinger moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 514-85 approv- ing a lease in the amount of $4,000. annually to -the Bawek family for a lot on East Center Street across the street from the Art Center. This would be used as a parking lot and would accommodate 36 cars for daily parking. This would also be used for Civic events. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. F-1 An -Ordinance Annexing property.in Rochester Township ( Klopp Property ) 110.65 acres. was given its second reading. Strain moved Allen second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. F-1 2,517 r An Ordinance Relating to Intoxicating liquor; providing for per- mitted hours of sale and inspections; amending the Rochester Code of Ordinances Sections 125.20 and 125.21 was given its second readi g. Powers moved, Strain second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (6 Nays (0).Motion carried. 2516 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - Septembere16, 1985 Agenda Item F-1 G-1 G-2 Strain moved, Bluhm second to adopt Resolution No. 515-85 approving an Owner contract with Larson Construction and N.A. Realty Inc. for Pinewood Second Subdiviiion - Phase I, 1985. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Solinger second to remove the Final Plat of Cascade Manaor Subdivision from the table. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Powers moved, Allen second to deny the application for a Final Plat. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Solinger moved, Strain second to remove the Application for Planned Unit Development (Final Plan) by VenStar Corporation for a Townhome Development known as "Cascade Manor" or Block 3 of Radichel Sub. from the table. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Strain moved, Solinger second to approve the request by the applicant to withdraw this request. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Having no further business, Strain moved, Allen second to adjourn the meeting. Ayes (6),Nays (0).Motion carried. City Clerk