The URL can be used to link to this page

05-153�� Presented Referred To Council File # �� S3 Green Sheet # 3024890 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 3� Committee Date WI3EREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that the license application (ID # 20040003862) for Auto Body RepairlPainting Shop, Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle Licenses by 7ohn C. Fox, owner, doing business as J& K Auto Sa1es Auto Body, 363 Atwater Street, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The numbex of vehicles for sale displayed outdoars may not exceed 12 as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. 2. All customer and employee vehicles must be parked in the area designated on the LIEP approved site plan. Employee vehicles may not be parked or stored in the alley. There should be five pazking spaces for customers and employees. 3. There shall be no exteriar storage of velucie parts, tires, oi1, or any other similar materiats associated with the business. Trash wi11 be stored in a covered dumpster. 4. At no time shall vehicles be parked in the driveway or in the public right-of-way. 5. Cars for sale may not be parked on the street or public right-of-way. 6. All vehicles parked outdoars must appear to be completely assembled with no major body parts missing. 7. Ve}ucle salvage is not permitted. 8. General auto repair is not permitted. 9. No body repair of vehicles may occur on the exterior of the lot or in the public right-of-way. All repair work must occur within an enclosed building. 10. Vehicles awaiting repair may not be parked or stared in the adjacent alley, 11. Customer vehicles may not be parked longer than 10 days on the premises. It sha11 be the responsibility of the licensee to ensure that any vehicle not claimed by its owner is removed from the lot as permitted by law. 12. Provide maneuvering space on the properiy to ailow vehicles entering and exiting the site to proceed forward. Backing from the street or on to the street is prohibited. 13. Licensee must comply with all federal, state and local laws. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves this license application with the aforementioned conditions. os- ts3 Green 5heet 3024890 Yeas Nays Absent Benanav ✓ Bostrom �/ Harris � Helgen y Lanhy ,i Montgomery r/ Thune ,� .� Adopted by Council: Date ��i�� d�� Adoption By: �pproved 3y: Requested by Departrnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council ti o5-��S'3 ,; � Green Shee# Green Sheet Green Sfieet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � l_� � co -co�� CorHaet Person 8 Phone: Marcia Mcemwnd 266-8560 Agenda by (Date): Tota! # of Signature Pages 12JAN-05 �/ Assign Number For Routing Otder 0 I 2 3 4 5 Green Sheet NO: 3024890 oa ' ooncd De e tD'r tor ncil " Clerk AI! LocaHons for SignaWre) Approving license application with condirions, per fl�e Legislaflve Hearing Officer, for Auto Body Repair/Painting Shop and Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle Licenses by John C. Foac, owner, doing business as J& K AuW Sales Auto Body, 363 Atwater Street. �aations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Service Contracts Must Answer the 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a conVact for this department? Yes No 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this perso�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attaeh to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWqes If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: DisadvaMagc�s If Not Approved: . Total AmouM of Transaction: FuMlinq Source: Finaneiallnfarmation: , (Explain) Activity Number: i� � aiw ��sch ��n4e� �NtY �, � L�U� � CosNRevenue Budgeted: � �5-153 Crreen Sheet 3024890 � �3 2, Z3 - d�� Proposed amendments 14. The licensee and property owner will endeavor to make unprovements to this property in accordance with the Rice Street Design guidelines. 15. The licensee must be in compliance with all conditions, as verified by a LIEP inspeetor, prior to opening. 16. The license wiil be reviewed for compliance with these conditions at least every six months. Failure to comply will result in adverse action against the license. o5-t 53 NIINU1'ES OF TT� LEGISLATIVE HEARING J& K Auto Sales Auto Body - 363 Atwater Street Wednesday, December 7, 2004 Room 330 City Hall/Courthouse, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: JeffHawkins, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Christine Rozek, LIEP; Kristine Schweinler, LIEP Mazcia Moermond explained this is a legislative heazing to develop a recommendation for the City Council to consider in the application for these licenses. There are three possible recommendation at tlus level: 1) grant the license without conditions, 2) grant the license with conditions that the applicant agrees with and wiil adhere to, or 3) send this matter to an Administrative Law Judge (AL7). What is not on the list is deniai of the license. If the Council fmdings were that the license should not be granted, it would haue to be sent to an ALJ. The ALJ process takes about 3 to 5 months. After the AI.J process, it would go back to the City Council for action. Kristine Schweinler reported their recommendation for the Auto Body Repair Shop and Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle Licenses is approval with conditions. Also, they have changes to Conditions 1 and 2. Condition 1 should read as follows: The number of vehicies for sale displayed outdoors may not exceed 12 as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. The following should be added to Condition 2: There should be five pazking spaces for customers and employees. Ms. Moermond asked has the owner had a chance to read through the conditions or taik to staff. John Fox responded yes. John C. Fox, applicant, home address of 2650 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, appeared and stated he appiied for the licenses. Over the years, he has bought and sold cazs. He never had a dealers license; it was something he dabbled in. His partner has mechanical ability and knows how to buy discount parts £or repair and replaaement. They thought they would do something with a lot and have more vehicles on display than just buying and selling a cars. That is why he appiied far the license. He has aiready examined the location and it was suitable for that type of business and had been utilized for that purpose in the past. They hope to buy, sale, and repair cazs in that location. There are industrial businesses and he used to deliver in that azea when he did a root service for another company. Most of it seems to be B-1 to B-3. Jeff Hawkins stated the area is actually I-1. Kerry Atrim, Community Organizer for District 6 Plamung Council, 213 Front Avenue, appeazed and stated the neighborhood was flyered about a meeting. There was no one representing 7& K Auto at the meeting, nor did a representative call the office. There has been clear neighborhood OS- �53 MINUTES OF 7& K AVI'O SALES AUTO BODY - 363 Atwater 3treet Page 2 opposition voiced conceming the painting of the vehicie because of air quality issues. This conflicts with the district's lazge azea plan which is to minim;�� and not enhance the auto related businesses. Repair facilities already e�st there. There was question about the site plan with overhead doors. This is considered a gateway to the neighborhood. The display is not to excess 12, but the site plan has quite a few display areas. If the committee does approve this with the conditions, which Ms. Atrim finds to be fair, District 6 Pianning Councal would like cleaz recourse as to re-evaluation of the licenses of all auto related businesses to ensure that conditions are met for their neighborhood. At a m;nimum, District 6 Piamiing Council would like Mr. Fox to come to their meeting. Ms. Moermond asked the meeling schedule. Ms. Atrim responded December 15, 630 p.m., 1021 Marion. The owner will get a letter. In answer to several questions, Mr. Hawkins answered that I-1 zoned properiy woutd permit a body shop with paint. A business has been there for 36 years. He does not know of any air quality concerns with that business, and there is nothing in the files concerning this. Mr. Aawkins asked is there an existing paint booth there and has it been approved by fire. Mr. Fox responded yes. Ms. Schweinler reported it has been approved by Fire. Mr. Fox stated his failure to show up far the community meeting was because they put the information at 363 Atwater and he did not get it. If it came to 2650 James Avenue North, then he would have shown up for that meeting. He will be there at the next District 6 Planmiing Council meeting to keep them appraised of what he is doing. Ms. Atrim is welcome to come and inspect the shop at any time. She will note it is neat and clean. Ms. Moermond asked the hours. Mr. Fox responded they will be open at 7:00 a.m. They will have to stay open unti16:00 or 7:00 pm. for people who are transitioning from work to pick up their vehicle or make arrangements to buy a vehicle. Ms. Moermond stated the business address is 363 Atwater and she does not see another address. Ms. Rozek responded LIEP has the home address on James Avenue. Ms. Schweinler added that the applicant designated a mail-to address in their application, which is 363 Atwater. The business is not open yet, which is why the owner has not received anything. Ms. Moermond explained the district council system to Mr. Fox: the district council can be his greatest ally, as it is a collection of people who are residents and business owners in the area. If Mr. Fox is in contact with the neighborhood organization, he will hear about things sooner if small things come up that can be resolved easily. It sounds like the district council is asking for a six month evaluation on the license. Mr. Fox responded he has no problem with that. Ms. Rozek responded that LIEP checks the conditions annually, and they respond to complaints, but it is true they are not there every week monitoring the number of cars in the lot. D S� t S3 MINLJTES OF J& K AUTO SAI,ES AUTO BODY - 363 Atwater Street Page 3 Ms. Moermond recommends approval with the following conditions: i. The number of vehicies for sale displayed outdoors may not exceed as as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. 2. Ali customer and employee vehicles must be parked in the azea designated on the LIEP approved site plan. Empioyee velucles may not be parked or stared in the alley. There should be five pazking spaces for customers and employees. 3. There shall be no eaterior storage of velucle parts, tires, oil or any other similaz materiais associated with the business. Trash will be stored in a covered dumpster. 4. At no time shall vehicles be pazked in the drivewap or in the pubiic right-of-way. 5. Cazs for sale may not be pazked on the street or public right-of-way. 6. All vehicles pazked outdoozs must appear to be completely assembled with no major body parts missing. 7. Vehicle salvage is not permitted. � 10. 11. General auto repair is not permitted. No body repair of vehicles may occur on the exterior of the lot or in the public right-of-way. All repair work must occur within an enclosed building. Vehicles awaiting repair may not be parked or stored in the adjacent a11ey. Customer vehicles may not be parked longer than 10 days on the premises. It sha11 be the responsibility.of the licensee to ensure that any vehicle not clauned by its owner is removed from the lot as permiried by law. 12. Provide maneuvering space on the property to allow vehicles entering and exiting the site to proceed forward. Backing from the street or on to the street is prohibited. 13. Licensee must comply with all federal, state and local laws. The hearing was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. � Council File # � � �r Green Sheet # 3025476 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 1 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council consents to and approves the appointments, made by the 2 Mayor, of the following individuals to serve on the Workforce Investment Board. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ap�ointments Name Brian Miller Tom HIas Bob de la Vega Representing Business Business Business Term Expires July 31, 2007 July 31, 2007 July 31, 2�07 Adopted by Council: Date,/j�/��irl,��3 �J�s Requested by Deparnnent of: � OS- �)i � � Green Sheet Creen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Mo -r�ayor5o�e Contact Person & Phone: Kurt Schuliz Ot-MAR-05 � Assign Number For Routing Order Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip Ail Locations for Signature) Approval of the appoinhnents, made by the Mayor, of Brian Miller, Tom Klas and Bob de la Vega to serve on the Workforce Investment Boazd (WIB). iaatfons: Approve (n) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civii Service Commission t. Has this person�rm ever worked under a contrect for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/irm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curzent city empioyee? Yes No Fsplain all yes answers on separate sheet ami attaCN to green sheet Green Sheet NQ: 3Q25476 0 0 's O1Lce 1 a o' Office De rim nt 're tor 2 i A o e 3 or's ce Ma oHAssisfant 4 e'1 5 ' Clerk Ci Cierk Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanqgeslfApprovetl; Disadvantaqes If ADProved: DisadvanYages If Not Approved: Transaction: Fundin5� Source: Fi�ancial lnformafion: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: AcGviN Number: MAR 0 2 ZOU5 os-ai� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor 390 Ciry Ha11 IS West KeUogg Boutevard Sairtt Paul, MN SSIO2 Telephone: 657-266-8510 Facsimite: 651-26b-8573 To: Saint Faul City Councilmembers Council President Kathy Lantry Councilmember Jay Benanav Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Pat Harris Counciimember Lee Helgen Councilmember Debbie Montgomery Councilmember Dave Thune From: Kurt Schultz Date: Mazch 2, 2005 RE: Warkforce Investment Board Mayor Kelly has recommended the appointment of Brian Miller, Tom Klas, and Bob de la Vega to the Workforce Investment Board. Their terms shall all expire on 3uly 31 2Q07. Attached is a copy of the resolution nominating these individuals as well as their applications. Please remember that certain information on the application is classified as private and should not be released to the public. Feel free to contact me at 266-6590 if you ha�e any questions regarding these appointments. Attachments cc. Kitty Gogins Kate Bates Tom Triplett � Sep 28 �4 10:42a Brian E Miller t Mihnesot 4D16521039 Membership Application MaIe ❑ Femalc Veteian needed, p.1 os-ait ' °9 � ° � q1i118B � d � P�qe 1 of 3 Rt-t01903 Optional: [n mt aCempt to ens�ve Baml represeutaCOn reflecu 1he makeup ojourcommmriry, laeowledge of:he ollowfn in amration is he However, com leii� ihis i ornration i,s White(Cancasian) ❑ B13ck ❑ AmericanTndiano7AlaskanEskimo tJ Hispanic ❑ A san ar Paci6c Islander Q Other. Sep 28 04 1�:42a Hrian E Miller ( Mihnesot 4016521039 p.2 ��J �� 1 Z Ramsey Cauniy Workforce )nvestmerrt Board Membership Appfication Pnb}ic 7nfnrmation: (The data in tlus box is public and fherefore, available ta the public.) Ramsey County is recmitiag individuals to represern vaxious categories. Applicatians will co�e to be accepted for filnae v�apncies as we31. Please indip2e below the c�tegory or categories you can regrese� an tfie WIB. Please note: Busine�, Educa6on or La6or pusi[ions reqmre a numinafion letter as described below: �--�---------------�------°-----------°----------------------------�------°--•-------------------------------------- 0 Business� defined a4 fer-pYOfii (Nomirratedlry Ioca1 business o�gmrimtiorzs and/ar bu%iners trcde nssociations - aaadtyournaninaBon7�ter.} �U S P�t4RM 4� ��c �4NQ /�u° 57 {�4 v �. MN . --- - -i- - -- ----- " - � ------ ' ----- ' ----- ' - � ----' � piease iadicate com s�me munbec' of 10 <� 5-<LO 2Q�SD _504L50 250+ - Business ownec, cLiefexecative or operatmg afficer, O Repcesen[ business withemployment opportunifies sad offier execuflve or employa wi$ optimum titat re$ect the local area policymaking or Luing authority. • RepresenYacl��mberofcommesce � O RepresevYt�e:�eatihcareiudvsuy ----�--° �-�---------•---------------• °..----------•------° • -------'--°-----'-------�----------•-------------'--' - q Commnnitq-Based OTganizarion defined as nonpro6t organ'rcations • Represenfative of commvnities or signficant segmenis of co�unities providing job taming ' Agency se+vinS YoutL . .qgency sercing displaced b�,,,P • Other: -' - ----- � -"-------"- `- -----"---'-'-. -"'-"---"'.. Q Economic Developmeat Agency • Organi2ation serving non-xeservatioa Indian and hibal govemmevt . Agency represeniing vetetavs • ASencY zePreseu�Ag individvals with disa6ilities • Private sector • Puhlic sectat ----•-----'---------------^ ---------�--°., --°°-'----°---'---------'------- •-'---°-----' ----'---°---------- Q Ednea$on Nrnirinaied by regional nrIaa7 educatinn agenczes, institvtions, or arg�mizatians representing such [oca7 educatianaf entities- altack yow rfomirtatiore IdterJ • Locak educational entities (inclndiag K-12} . Postsee:ondazy e3ncational institutions • Locai schoo3 board . Other: • Entitiesproviding aduTt educa[ion and literacy activities '--'.."'-'-"--•°-'-'-'-'---°-"-_"-'.•-'--' •'-.'-----°--"'-"'-.--""-'-°--'-'-"--'-"'--.-"'--'---•-'_ _ � C1 Labor (Naminated lry reeognized srate midFor Loeai laborfedemaons- aKach your nominminn Idter.) - -------°--------'------'-------�-� •-------------�-°--° ---' - °--'---------------' --- •------' ---' -"------------ - ❑ OneStop World'oree CeMer Partners, defiued as the paAans tLat caay ont the following activities! prograu�s (Yiease check those 2Hat aPPIY7- ❑ Adult Dislocated Worker, youtlt, Tob Corps, Native C�' Locat Vetaens' Employmeut R.°pzesenEatives and Amencan and VeterBt's (DJ3A I"iQe F) �" Disabled Veter<rtes Outreach (TiUe 38, U.S.CJ Ct Wagner Peyser Act C3 AduiY Educaliou and Litefacy (WIA Title II) Q 7'rade Adjustmeat Assistance (TAA) and NAFTA O Stafe Unemptoymeat Campensatian I,aws (in TAA (Trade Act af 1974 Tifls � accosdance vviih applicable Fedeiai laws) � Vocational Rehabilitation (Rchsbilihtioa Aet TiUe I} ❑ Commumty Services Biac& c'nant ❑ We]faredo-Work Progams (SocisI Secmity Act) ❑ Depazime� of How^ing and Urbsn Deve}opment � Senior Cozamunity Service Ea�loytnent (Title V of the Oider Americans Act) ----'----------' ----------'---'---------------'------------°---•-------'-°---° •-----•-----------"--------- � ❑ I.ocal Elected OfiiciaU Representative (Czty ojSt Paut. Rmnsey Counry) nvoouaa+inee.aa P2ge 2 of 3 x>-�o.�eaa Sep 28 04 10:43a Brian E Miller ( Minnesot 4Q16521039 p.3 �5 a-41 Ramsey Courrty Woticfiorce irtvestrnent BoarcS Membership Appfication Pubtic Iafornsation: (The data irr ttus bar is public and themfore, wailable to the public.) �� YloVNT s o6a VJbat sldlls, training and exgetience da yonr possess foz WfS membe�hip? Please attach s I- to 2-page resume. Mail or fas your WIB Membership Application to: Ramsey Connty Warkfocce InvesEmeut Board Chamber of Cammerce Centes 441 NoRh RobeR Stteet, Suite t50 gaintPaut, MN SSI01 Fax:65I-223-5129 Phone:651-265-2760 Terms are nom�aily two yeazs, commencing on the daie of appointment and ending Iuty 31. The Wort�orce 3nvestment Boazd's regnlazly-sche3uled meeangs are held the first Thursday, every other month from 2:3D to 4:30 p.m MembeTS are expected to aLso serva on at least one standing com¢�zffee. Staiiding committee meeting sahedules vazy'- The information on th+s applicatinn sn"D be nsed to evaivate and select members of_the Workforce Invc4tment Board (R'SB). Applicants map refuse to snpplp ahe mqne.sted ia3ormation However, sxcegt for optional voluatary iaformation, the fa7ure fo complete the appluation may reso}t in it heing dascarded. This data may be reviewed and used by Ramsey Counfp and Saiat Paul city staff: Thank yox for yaur interes�� Commissioner Dis7itt _ For Office Use Only Plazming DisE[ict _ City Council Ward, nncuomw�wies,ea Page 3 of 3 a>-+a�em Sep 29 04 30:43a Hrian E Miller ( Minnesot 4�16521039 Srian E lYliiler 1567b Danville Ave. West Rosemouat, MN, 55068 651-491-4892 BEMiller�CVS.com Accomplished CV$ Eaecutive with 5 years Niulti-Unit Egperience 5k�lled in Developing People, Processes, Produets and Prefits. Profess;onal I�igh�ights �d Accomplishu��eo#s p.4 �-a 11 CVSlPharmacy DistricE Sales Mana�er Twin Cities, MN 7-04 —gresent Relocated to Rosamount, MI3 as aperations manager responsible for a11 CVS new market activities in the Twin Cities. These inciude staffing, training and development, merchandising, proSt and loss, loss prevention and community relations £or a11 acrivities in Minnesota. CVSIPharmacy District Sales Mana�er Pittsburgh, PA 7-99-7-04 Managed 17 units in the Pittsburgh market with sales of $90 million producing a bottom line profit of over 8 million doIlars in 2003. Responsibilities include ihe total operati�n of the units to encompass implementation of company initiatives including Pharniacy Service Initiative, Increasing Co-Operation to Tmprove Resuits CE progfam, and Sales Through Service programs. Responsibilities also inciude Team Development, SaJes Enhancements, Flawless Execution of Company Susiness Plan and Cottunitment to Outsta.nding Customer Service. • Exceeded 2003 Sa1es budget by 15% • Exceeded 2003 District profit by 30% • Developed and *mpiemeated long te�n str�e�c managemment and ghazmacist staffing plan to improve district st�ng capability • Achieved Top 10 �anking in campany Execution Metrics • Achieved # 1 district ranking in Pharmacy Customez Service out of 240 districts • 2403 District Manager Recoguition awazd in Area 5 • Developed Plan and "unplemented complete store and merchandising remodel of 700Q sq foot store over 40 hour tuneframe. • Assisted in opening of new and relocated stores in Pittsburgh and Indianapolis • Developed and Presented Rx Business Levers to CVS Emerging Leaders candidates at corporaxe tr�azttuig center. Sep 28 D4 10:44a Hrian E Miller [ Minnesat 4016522039 p.5 Brian E Miller Page 2 •➢eveloped Pilot Program far America's Promise in Pittsburgh, Pa for job shadow and summer internship to promote pharmacy as a cazeer option to inner city schoolsin Pittsburgh. CVS/Pharmacy Pharmacv ManaQerlStore ManaEer Pittsbargh, Pa 1Q-&5-7-99 Managed 7 CVS Phazmaey locations over this Time frazne as Pharmacist in Charge and Store Manaaer. As an operations speciaiist I helped develop a long-term strategy to improve sales, pmfi#, s�;rvioe, shrink m1d . • 1997 District Store Manager Paragon Winner • 1498 District Pharmacist Paragon Winner Education University Of Pittsburgti, Pa 1477-1983 Degree Bachelor of Science Pharmaey Graduated High Honors Licensed Registered Pharmacist 1983 Greater Johnstown r#rea Vocational Teehnical School 1975-19'77 Degree High School Diploma with Technical Degree in Metallure cal Tecl�nology National Honors Society �-ai� e Private Informafion: (The data in this box is private.) �r ts�" = (1) �� 7 ._ �2) �, t � v - ` .> -, . Wtiat are your reasons for wanting to serve on the WIB? '� ii�:�.�'d�va2\� c� l5 i?�l�'�`��- ( C:za��t`Cca' `i0 °��P" t3'AS` ��,�:.2c .',��'✓`� � S1CriiCtC;��IZ :�2� U�- ��5 c...�c,-2Ki-c;2C� 1 � i�2c�t Tn what ciries or commw�ities do you provide sertices? What services aze provided? i2A cLf S c�'�� L�"-'� "� �- —• –�..� =�.Ja�Z\t r i �.'�it7��S � a�� l.� C �i.: ��•.\�tiS"'� �2idaL t��.�.l.t– i'�c"L�Zt.�S C i--cc � 5 i rS C 10.\ C ow.t�`"1�1e ��la� �� i r��"�V t�� ` t � ._t crc_ic��--�ci��- A,'1t�.r�ci„<�C .]..S.i1 6vl.l��')1Cr�� I�GL��.IC�S. LT Z,L,T C�CS.S Optional: rn an attempt to ensure Board representation reJlects td ol(owin in orntation is $e! 1. However, co letiors < White(Caucasian) ❑ B3ack �❑ - Hispani� Li Male ❑ Disable� ❑ Veteran ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander ❑ Female if special accommodatlons are needed, please �this information is mluntary. ❑ American Indian or Alaskan Esldmo ❑ Other: nop�m�w�eamc Page 1 of 3 x�- m.iero a5a�i Ramsey County WorkforCe Investment Board Membership Application Public Information: (The data in this box zs public and, therefore, availabte to the public.) Ramsey County is recnuting individuaLs to represent vazious categories. Applications will continue to be accepted fnr fuhue vacancies as well. Please indicate below the category oz categories you can represent on the VS'IB. Please note: Busiuess, Educa6an or Labor positinns require a nomina6on letter as descn'bed below: ----------- ° ---------------------------------------------------------------------- • ------------------------ • I3� Business, defitted as for-profit (Nominated by local business organizatiorss and/or busirsess trade associations - apach your nomination lette�) --' --' ------------- ° - - -----------------"-' ---------------' --' -----------' ---------' -------- --- -- -9 Please indicaze company size by number of employees <5 _5-<20 _20-<50 _50-<250 _250+ • Business owner, chief executive or ogereting officer, • Represent business wlth employment opportunities and other execudve or employer with optimum that reflect the local azea policymaldng or hiring authority. • Represent a chamber of commerce • Represent the health care industry --°---------° --------°--------------------°-----------------• --•----'-°-------'------------ -' --'-------------� ❑ Community-Based Orgauization, defined as nonprofit organizations • Reptesentative of cotYVnunities or significant • Organization serving non-reservation Indian and segnents of communities providing job training tnbal govemment • Agency serving youth • Agency represrnting veterans • Agency serving displaced homemakers • Agency representing individuals with disabilities • Other: ---------' ------� --• ---- •-----' ---------------------------------'----------------•--'--' -----°---'--'--------' CI Economic Development Agency • Private sector • Public sector ' ------'------ °'-•-----------------------� -------------'--------------------------------------------' - ❑ Educ2tion (Nominated by regiona! or local education agencies, insii[utions, or organizations represen[ing such local educational encities - attack your nomireution leteer.) • Local educational entiries (including K-12) • Local school board • Endries providing adult eduearion and literacy activities -------•---------'•-----'-----------'---------'--'---- • Postsecondary educational instiN6ons • Other: ❑ Labor (Nominaied by recognized state andJor local laborjederations - attach you� nominadon lelter.) ---- °----------------------- °----------' ---•---- °---------------• --------------' -'-----�----------'--- ❑ One-Stop Workforce Center Partners, defined as thepartners that cany out the followrng activides / programs (please check those tha2 apply): ❑ Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth, Jo6 Corps, Naiive Q Lceal Veterans' Employment Representarives and American and Veteran's Workforce (WIA Title n Disabled Veterans Outreach (TiBe 38, U.SC.) ❑ Wagner-Peyser Act [7 Adult Education and Literncy (4VTA Tide In ❑ Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA} and NAFTA [1 State Unemployment Compensation Laws (in TAA (Trade Act of 1974 Title In accoidance with appficable Federal Laws) p Vocationai Rehabilitation (Rehabilitation Act 1Ytle I) O Community Services BSock Grant ❑ Welfare-to-Work Progrems (Social Securiry Act) ❑ Department of Housing and Urban Development Q Senior Gommunity Serrice Employment (Title V of the Older Americans Act) '-------------'--'---------'-'--------------------------'----------'--'-° ------------------------ O Local Elected O�ciaU Representative {City ojSr. Paul, Ramsey Counsy) noq�no�wiesao� Pege 2 of 3 R>-101609 Ramsey County Workforce Investment Board vS a � I Membership Appiication Public Information: (The data in this box is public and, therefore, available to the pubtic.) What skills, training and experience do yo�s possess for VJIB membership? Please attach a 1- to 2-page resume. Mail oi fax youx WIB Nrlembership Applicativn to: Ramsey County 111?orkforce Investment Board Chamber of Comirieree Center 40i ATor� Robsrt Street, Svite f50 SaintPaul, M1V SS1U1 Fas:651-223-S1t9 Phone: 651-265$7GD Terms aze normally two years, commencing on the date of appoinhuent and ending July 31. The Workforce Inveshnent Board's regiilarly-scheduled meetings are held the fust Thwsday, every other month frum 2:3Q to 4:30 p.m Members are expected to also serve on at least one standing committee. Standing committee meeting schedules vary. The information on this application wiil be nsed ta evaluate and select members of the Workforce Inrestment Board (WIB). Applicants may refuse to supply the requested informatiom However, except for optional voluntary i¢formation, the failure to complete the applicaHon may result in it being discarded. This data may be reviewed and used by Ramsey County and Saint Paul city staff. Thank you for yaur irtteresU Commissioner District _ For Office Use Only Planning District_ Ciry Council Ward _ nw+�wmvieeaoc P29e 3 Of 3 ar- �a�a.w d� a � 2 Kitty Croggins CEO Ramsey County WIB 401 N. Robert Street Suite 150 Saint Pau1. MN 55101 Dear Kitry, I very much enjoyed talking with you this week conceming the opening on the Boazd of Directors for the Ramsey County Worl�orce Investment Board. As by your instruction, I am sending along to you a brief descriptiott of my employment, educational background, and presem and past memberships. I am a lifelong resident of Saint Paul, currently living in Highland Pazk. I am presently empioyed at the TapeMark Company as Director Community Relations. In addition to my work at Tapemark, I am also a member of Government Affairs Committee of the Saint Pau( Area Chamber of Commerce (SPACC), the Govemment Affairs Committee for the Northem Dakota County Chambers of Commerce (NDCC), the NDCC's representative on the Metropolitan Coalition of Cbambers, the Board of Directors of the Greai American History Theatre (in Saint Paut), the Board of Directors of the TapeMark Charity Pro-Am (golf taurnament and charitable gambling), the inaugural Alumni Board of Directors of Inver Hills College, and the ad hoc committee on bringing Gopher football back to campus for the University of Minnesota Athletic Department. I am also a former member of the Citizens League Committee on Higher Education (report to the Govemor, issued this past November, 2Q04), the Saint Thomas Academy Alumni Board of Directors (two terms), and a former member of the managing committee of Special Olympics Area 12 {Ramsey, Dakota, and Washington counties). I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota with a BA in International Relations (with a focus in Political Economy} and a graduate of Inver Hills College with an AS in Business. I have also studied at L'Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec and L'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec. My resQonsibilities at TapeMazk involve community outreach and communications, as well as transportation, government, and empioyment issues. TapeMark's workforce reaches tiuoughout the Twin Cities metro area (including westem W isconsin) but is primarily focused in Runsey and Dakota counties. I hope this helps give a useful description of my background. Please contact me if you need more information. Sincerely, �o�sv1 1��d5d Thomas I. Klas Director Community Relations TapeMark Company West St. Paul, MN 55116 6� 1 4�0-8405 klastri�tapemarkcom JAN-31-2005 MON 02�18 PM W F GOVT RELTNS FAN N0. 6126679403 Membership Ap�lication P. 02 d5 �a 11 w��,�,,,�«,nam Page 1 of5 ,,,-ioino� JRN-31-2005 MQN 02�18 PM W F GOVT kELTNS FAX N0. 6126679403 P. 0� (1 �5-a � � 651 227-0239 Wha� are your reasons for wanting to servc on Ehe WI33? ! have lived in Ramsey County for ail of my adult fife and plan on fiving there for the foreseeab(e fu'Cure. { hava an 'snvestment in the community and want to protect it. 8uilding effiective business-training partnerships ase a critical etement in building the cammuni#y's economy and helping familiar. With my background in business, ecanomic development, anct public policy, I believe 1 can oFfier something useful 2o the board to make it more successful, In wl�at citics or communities do you provide servicos? W1�at sarvices are provided? My emptoyer Wells Fargo does business throughout Ramsey County and the Twin Cities metro area. Wells Fargo is a tull services financiaf serviees company. {ts main iausinesses inciude mortgages, consumer banking, business 6anking, trust, brokerage, real estate lending, and credit card lending. Optional: tie nn at�empr to ena�ure &oard mpnseritation ref/�cts _ in,(brmarion Is helpfert, ffowever, compietlo: CJ Wbitc(Cauuo-�sian) ❑ Black Ct Ilispanic U Asisn or Pacific is)ander ❑ Male Q Fcmate O f)i9ablccl 'j tF special accommodations are needed, plea�� Q vCtCl'80 I ofaurcommunity, kr�owledge ojihc [] Amcricanl��dianorAtnskvi(:skimo ❑ Otlier: ._ specity v�nu�m�wwm=u �tee Pag6 2 of 5 r+�- ro m oa JAN MON 02:19 PM W F GOVT RELTNS FAX N0, 61266794D3 °, 04 ��a � i Ramsey Caunry Workforce Investment Board Membesship App�ication !'uUiic Snformation; (The data irr this box is pu6lic and, there/'o�e, crvo%lable ro the public.) Ramsey County is recruiting ind"sv+duals to represent various cate�ories. npplications will continue to bc acceptod int fitilurc vaeancies as well. Plcase itidicate below the category or categories you can represent on the WIB, Please note: Bu,incss, F.ducation or Labor positions reguire a nomination lettcr as describcd betvw: -----....-----..._-------_...°-•----•-•------°--..•.-.------°-�-•----------•-----------•.....----- �•--°--- X BuSiOCSS, �!e{�ntd aS for-prOfit (Nominated by focal businesr organizatiPns and/or b�tsiness trpde associotioas - �i�lach yournaminntion telfer.) ...'--�----...... _."-' ---"""' --'- .... ....... ..' - _.......'-"-""-'-'-,"-"...--:--"""---'--'-"'•"---'.-'--"' S-<20 ZO-<50 50-<250 X� -> P1r.iso inAicat� cumpany vzc by IIumbcr of cmploye°s �5 _ _ _-- • 13u5irn:ss owncr, ehief exccative or operatutg ofGcer, • Re�zcscnt business with employment apportunitics anJ otiiet cxccutive or cmploycr widi optimum that rcflcct the Iocai arca po6�ymaking ur hiring authoriry. � Represent a ch.�mber of conimcrce • Represcnt thc bealtli carc induslry ,. _ _.....------...,..------••...------••-•'--------......------'-°°..••--'--'----....-------_....-�------ ❑ Curnmunity-Bascd �rgani defined as nonprof,t organizations � Kcprcaentalivc of cummunities or si�nificant � Orguniz;dio�� scrving non-tascrvation Indiun anJ scgments oPcmnmunities providing job tr.�in(ng tsibaS govemmnnt . Agrncy scrving yuuth • Agcncy rcproseuting vcicrans - A�ency serving di+placed homemt�kers � Agency represcniing individual< with dwab�hlies . Uthcr. .. ..... ....'•__'___. 0 EconamicDevelopmc�tAgency • ('riv;ito Scctnr • I'u6Uc scctor ......_"'_'_"' •'--'-'---. _.....----.__.....___.____.___....'•"'_----'-'�......--'-'--�--..........,----- �1 lb(InC.itjOn (Nnntinated hyregtana/ ar (neal edurnaio�i a,qenciev, lnetinaions, or a�,ymzisatlnns represen(uigsvcli loca/ educnlionnl c�u�tirs - attach your nowrrn�/�on lenee) • Local cduc:acinnal cnUtic5 (h,cluding K-12) • PUSUccnndaty cductdio��l inscitutions . l.bcai sclioo! bo�ird • nit��' • I':n�i�ies providinE ndult education tmd ]lteracy —..- ----- ;uliviti�� '_-__,_.... _....."'"_'___'__' .............'_............. . . ❑ 3.�bor (Nnro�nnm�ibyreco{ncedsratr.anr.!/nrtocad(nborfedNrnJionc-anarf�ya�nreomir.�irian!¢tterJ --...._. _..----'-""�"-'--------......'--'---'-'.........._-'-�----"-.--"'---�--'----- .............. _--- � One-Stop Wackforee Center Pnrtners, dcGned ae cUe paxtners �hal e:lrry ouc the foiowin� aetivilies / prn�rams (plca;c chcck ihosc chat apply): ❑ Adulc, Dislocacui Workcr. Youth, Job Corpx, Nativc ❑ t.oca! Vctcrms' �mptoymont Rcprescncativcs an<i Amcrican:tn�Vclera�i'sWorkforec(WIAI'it�e1J Pisabl�VctcransOutsrnch(TilSe3R,U-S.C) [7 WagncrvPcyscr Aot ❑ Adu7t tiducation a�zd Li�cr�cy ( WIA Yi�tc 1[) O Trad� Adjusimcn6 Assi>Iance (1�M) and NAI"CA ❑ Stytc Un�'rnpl0ymeni Compcnsaiian Lmws (Sn }'t\A (PraUc Acl of S9T4 7iqe lq accordanctl witF� applicahlc Ncdcral laws) [] Vocasional Cichnbililali0n ([tehaUilitution Aet TiUe I) ❑ Communiry Services Ltlock Grant ❑ Wclf.�rc-to-Wo�k Prugrams (SociuS Sccu��y ncq ❑ Dept�rtment of llousing nnd Urb.m Developrnen[ d Senior Commnnity Serv�ce Employmcni (Til(e V of tUc bider Amcrican5 Acc) C7 i.oenl lleeted OfFicial/ RepYCSentative ((:ity nfSt. Pmd, Rcvnsey Cot�nry) w�� n��.m,� Page 3 of 5 a�-io ie cs JAN MON 02;19 PM W F GOVT REL�NS Ramsey County Workforce lnvestment Soard Membership Appfication Public Iniormation: (3he Jata in tAis hox is�rublic and thcrefore, arailable ro the puhlic.) Robert de ia Vega 'i 19 Western Avenue North FAX N0, 6126679403 St. Paui Ramsey MN � 55102 What skilis, trainin� and E,cp��rience do your possess for W1B membership4 Pleas'c �tli3ch a 1- to 2-pagc resumu. I be4ieve ! hava two areas of expet'tise tha'C are relevant to the WfB. First, as a fong-time Wells Far�o team member, i fepresen2 one of the coUnty'S major ernployers. Second, as a former state official, I am familiar with pubiie poticy. My resume is attached. Mail or f�x your WIt3 Membcrshi� Applicatio�i to: linmscyCounty Workforce SmestmesitBoard Chamber u!`Commerce Center 40 i Nurdi 12oUcrt Strect, Suite 150 Saiiit Yaul, MN 5510 t Fax:651-223-5119 Phone: (51-265-27G0 "Cerms are narmally two yrars, commcncing on thc date of a�pointment and cndin� July 31. P. 05 v5a�i I'Ife Wot (tives(mene 13o1cd's regutarly-schcduted meetings are held the Tirst'1 hursday, every otk�er month fiom 2:3U ca �4:30 p.m. Memben are expected ta also serve on at least nnc sfanding committee. Standin� co�umittee u�cCting schedules vary, Tlic iutormaiiors on fhis appiication will be used to evaluate and select members o� Ihe Workforce Iny�eshnent Bonrd (WS13). Applicants may refuse to suppiy the reqacsted ini'oruiation. Hawever, cYCept for optional voiuntary information, the failure to complete the nppiicetion may sesuit ici St bein� discaraed. This dnta m9y be reviewed aud usccl by Ramsey C-vunty and Saint Paul city stafL Tl,nnk yn�r fo� yorrr inlereet.' '.^nona�a..:�u�n uu� P3}0 A �f 5 ;:l - io �e a� �RN-31-2005 MON 02�19 PM W F GOVT RELTNS FAX N0. 6126679403 CammizsionCf Distcict _ For OLfia: Usc Only Plannin^_. Dis�rict _ _ Chy Council Ward _ F. 06 �5 -a ► ► wu�ai.y4..,�w,uec Page 5 of 5 a r- m io ea JAN-31-2�05 MON 02�19 PM W F GOVT RELTNS FAH N0. 6126679403 P. 07 d5-a f� Kobert Raul de la 'Vega ll 1 Westeru Ave. 1V., St. Paui,1VIN 55102 (651) 292-9585 Lxr�:iuLncE Deccmbcr 1990 io 1'resent Wclls Fargo/NorWest Corp. Minneapolis, MN REGIONAL DIREC"fOR, GOVERNIvI�NT RI%T.ATIOIJS DFPT. Manane g�vcrncnent relalions program in nine-state region in cooperation wi�h rcgionai bank presidents and business executivcs. Jamiary 1987 to Minnesota T�epartment of Trac�e aud St. Paui, MN Uccembcr 1990 F,conomiC Devclopment DT:PI7TY COMMIS SIONER/A,SSIS1'ANT TQ 'i"I iE COMMiSSIONI�R. Managed and direct�d 45-person division of state agency responsible fc7r business liaison. Smail business develupnient, industrial recruitm�nt, and community partncrships. I�muary ]9$( to Gowernor's Commission on the Economic St. Paul, D1N 1�nuary 1987 Future of Minnesota �XF.CU'1'TVF. DIRL',CTOR. Ch9ef staff person for gubeinatorial study group with charge to develop state economic devclopi�aenl strategic p3an. February 1950 Cilizens Lengue rn,�,n�:+rou5, MN 3anuacy 1986 RliSBARCH ASSOCIA'T�. S4�ffed studies abotrt eeonomic graw�h, ncighborhood servic� dcfivery, statc legislature, state iiscal and ta:c policy, and otl7er lopics I�ecember 1977 to Sky�vay News Minnenpolis, MN Febniary 1980 ASSIS'I�ANT EDI'I'UT�. Directed stafCand freelance writers and photographcrs, edited all copy, and directzd production staff for thricc-wcekly paper serving downtown Minncapolis. 1;llI3CATiON llcccmbtr 19?7 LTniaersity of Minnesota M.A. 7oumalism Minneapolis,111N Muy 1975 Colu�n6is� Univcrsity Ncw York, t�'ew York I3.A_ Histoiy JAN MON 02:19 PM W F GOVT RELTNS FAX N0. 6126679403 P. 08 05-a � � C1VIC' ANll COMNfUNTTX 1NVOLVEMEiV'f Saint Paul Chamber Le�islalive Committee, current Saint Yaul ChamberTransportation Committee, cunent Citizens i,�a�ue Boazd of Directors, 1994-96. Citizens I,eague Fro� am Committee, 794U-1991. University of Minnesata, FIuhert �Iumphrcy Institute of Yublic Affairs Mondale Yolicy Forum Fcllow, 1991-1992. ITispanic Chamber of Commv*rce Roazd of Directors, 1985-] 989. Northwestcrn $ell Direce Dialogue consumcr panel, 193G-19S7. Minnesota Squash Associarion Board, Chair, Xouth Committee, 1992-94. P�,12St)NAI, Twenly year residcnt of St. Patd. Manied, two chitdren. 11 _ Memorandum Date: February 1, 2005 To: Kurt Schultz, Deputy Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office From: Kitty Gogins, WIB CEO Subject: WIB Vacancies Current vacancies on the Workforce Investment Board now include: 5 Business (3 City, 2 CounTy) and ] Labor (County). The WIB is forwazding two applications received for two of the open City Business posi6ons. This is in addition to the application already before the City for a business position (sent on October 13, 2004). The WIB, jointly with the City and County, has set recruitment priorities to ensure the board represents the community. Current goa]s for business include adding retail representation; adding diversity, particularly Hispanic and Hmong representation; and recruiting only high quality candidates. The three candidates before the City are high qualiiy, with two meeting additionai recruitment goals. Brian Miller from CVS would add retail representation. Both Brian Miller from CVS and Tom Klas from TapeMark Company represent companies that have shown strong commitmant to working with the public workforce system. Wells Fargo has previously had a representative on the WIB who had to step down after leaving the company. Bob de la Vega was identified by Wells Fargo leadership to represent their organization, and he also meets our goa) of increasing Hispanic representation. Business Position Tom Klas, TapeMark, Co, to replace Kutian Benjamin, for a term beginning on the date of appointment and ending on July 31, 2005. Due to the length of the replacement tenm, we aze requesting an extension of two years, for a term ending on Ju1y 31, 2007. Bob de la Vega, Wells Fargo, to replace Teresa Tschida, for a term beginning on the date of appointment and ending on July 31, 20Q5. Due to the length of the replacement term, we are requesting an e�ension of two years, for a term ending on July 3l, 2007. A copy of the applications and nomination letter are attached. If you need further assistance with the appointment process, please contact me at 651.265.2788 or kgogins@rcwib.org. Thank You. �� Kitty Gogins CEO Ramsey County Workforce Investment Board J WIB Vacanc� Name Organization Term Service Reason Ends Ended Vacancy Status Representing: Business Appointed by: City Benjamin, Kurian Benco Messenaer Service Rose, Shelley LogIn, Inc. Tschida, Teresa Wells Fargo 7/31/05 l2/OII04 Resigned 7131105 7l3110A Resigned 7i31105 11103104 Changed companies Representing: Business Appointed by: County Goldman, Brenda Deluxe Corporation 7/31/OS 12/O1/04 Resigned Zolin, Allan Herberger's Dept. Store 7/31/OS 6/03/04 Left position Representing: Labor Appointed by: County Knutson, Shar Salnt Paui Trades and 7/31/05 1136/OS Resigned Labor Vacant, need to recruit Vacant, need to recruit Vacant, need to recruit Vacant, need to recruit Vacant, need to recruit Vacant, need to recruat 211105 - Nomination Checklist Tom Klas TapeMazk p��ctor of 6usiness Compariy Community Relations Yes I No I Yes Bob de la Vega Director, State Business Wells Fargo Govemment Relations Yes � No � Yes t� Director of Community Relations for TapeMazk Company, fowsing on community autreach and communication, as well as transportation, government and employment issues. Govemment retations for Wells Fargo, full service 5nancial corpo�ation with several locations in Ramsey Couniy and Saint Pau1. vuos Additional Information of Interest bS�!) �AINT �AUL �REA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Ghambex of Commezce Cenur 401 North Robert Sueet Saice 150 s�= ra�r, ��ta ssioi Suburban Business Ceuier 1935 Wett Comry Road B2 Suite 241 Roseville� Mimesota 55113 Phone: 651.223.5000 F�: 651.223.5119 February 1, 2005 Mayor Randy Kelly Office of the Mayor 390 City Hall I S West Kellogg Boulevard S$1Ilt P3ll1 M1V $5102 Deaz Mayor Kelly: The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to nominate the following individuals and urge their appointment to the Ramsey County Workforce Investment Board (WIS): Tom Kias, Director of Communiry Relations, TapeMark Company Bob de la Vega, Director, State Government Relations, Welis Fargo YOUR BUSINESS ADVOCATE We believe these individuals will do an excellent job representing the diverse interests of the Saint Paul and Ramsey County business communities. They share our goal of utilizing the unique authority of the WIB to build economic vitality. Thank you for yow assistance in helping the WIB as it assisYs East Meiro employers and job seekers. Sincerely, t Ellen Watters Senior Vice President, Economic Development s a i n t p a u 1 c h a m b e r. c o m Date: October 12, 2004 To: Kurt Schultz, Deputy Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office From: Kitty Gogins, WIB CEO Subject: WIB Vacancies In addition to the candidates submitted for reappointment June 17, other vacancies on the Workforce Investment Boazd now include: 2 Business (1 City, 1 County), 1 I,ocal Elected Official (City), 1 Economic Development (County) and 1 One-Stop Par[ner (County). The WIB is forwarding the one application received for the open City Business position. The WIB, jointly with the City and County, has set recruitment priorities to ensure the board represents the community. Curtent goals for business include addiug retail representation. With the following candidate, we are accomplishing this goal. Brian Miller of CVS Pharmacy represents a rapidly growing retail drug store in Ramsey County with three stores planned for the City of Saint Paul. The store located on Maryland and Arcade is the first ona to open, commencing operation this month. CVS is a strong supporter and partner of the WorkForce system and would make an excellent addition to the WIB. They are a national partner of the Department of Labor through its "Partnerships for Jobs" program and have made extensive use of the local workforce system to staff their local operations, hiring roughly 40% of their staff for their first two stores in the Twin Cifies through the WorkForce Centers. Business Position Brian Miller, CV5 Phannacy, to replace Shelley Rose, LogIn, Tnc., for a tenn beginning on the date of appointment and ending on 7u1y 31, 2005. A copy of the application and nomination letter is attached. ff you need fiuther assistance with the appoinhnent process, please contact me at 651.265.2788 or kgogins@rcwib.org. Thank You. � � x� co CEO R ey County Workforce Investment Boazd Brian Mitler I&usiness I CVS I Distriar Sa]es I No I I ,� Pharmacy Manager ia/12/04 Manager for CVS Pharmacy, new retail i ,� business in Ramsey Counry with three locations planned for the City of Saint Paul. Additional Informal3on of Interest �� i WIB Vacanc� Report Name Organization rerm �ennce Reason Vacancy Status Ends Ended Representing: Business Appointed by: City Rose, Shelley Logln, Inc. Representing: Business Appointed by: County Zolin, Allan Herberger's Dept. Store Represe�tin;: +�ne-Steg Partaers Appointed by: County Schwichtenberg, Saint Paul College Donovan 7l31f05 7131/04 Resigned Vacant, need to recruit 7131/OS 6l03104 Left position 7/31l04 7/31lOA Term ended Vacant, need to recruit V acant, need to recruit Representing: Economic Development Appointed by: County Locke, Kevin City of New Brighton 7131l04 4130/04 Left Vacant, need to recruit position Representing: Loeal Elected Official Appotnted by: City Orenstein, Howard City of Saint Paul- Mayor's 7/31f05 6f 18/04 Left Vacant, need to recruit office position 10/12f04 65- a 1 � a ..`NT �ntrt �a CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 401 North Robert Street Suite 150 Saint Pant, Minnesoq 55101 Phone: 651.223.5000 Fas: 6512235119 s„n� s�� c�rer 32b2 Rice Street llttle Canada, DYwsesora 55126 Phoue: 651256.4770 Fax: 651.256.4771 October 12, 2004 Mayor Randy Kelly Office of the Mayor 390 City Hall I S West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paui MN 55102 Dear Mayor Kelly: The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to nominate the following individual and urge his appointment to the Ramsey County Workforce Investment Board (WIB): Brian Milier, Distriet Sales Manager, CVS Phannacy YOUR BUSINESS We believe this individual wili do an excellent job representing the diverse interests of the Saint Paul and Ramsey County business communiries. He shares our goal ofurilizing the unique authority of the WIB to buiid economic vitality. Thank you for your assistance in helping the WIB as it assists East Metro employers and job seekers. Sincerely, Ellen Watters Senior Vice President, Economic Development ADVOCATE saintp aulchamb er. c om �'PO�:a�zQ :ITOUno� au� �iq pa;dopy •za�z�u� .C�z� au� �o �,Z .za�deu� u�tr+� a�u�pzo��e uz Zt�uno� I��t� au� o� aw2s au� �zodaz jlpus pue uzasau� pa.zzn�ut sasuadxa ZZe a��jn�j�� jj�us s.za�t��o I�z� zadozd au� '�uamanozdmz pi�s �o uot�ajdmo� au� uodn �euy 'QgnZOS�23 2I�HZ2IR3 �t aq pu2 '�uawanozduit at�� t1�im paa�ozd o� paztzou�n� pue pa��aztp Isqa.zau a.z� s.za�i��o ��z� .zadozd ar�� pu� 'apew aq �uamanozdmi paqzz�sap-anoq� au� ��u� zapzo Iqazau saop Znad �ut�g �o ��z� au� �o Zt�uno� ar�� uy 'a�n�osa�t �t aq 'azo3azau� 'mou :am�s au� pazaptsuo� I,jjn3 seu pue �uawanozdmt pasodo.zd pt�s o� butuz��zad suot��puawwo�az pue suot��aCqo 'suoszad Zj� p.z2au s�u Zt�uno� auy 'SFi�2i�HM pu� : za�.zetlJ �C�?� eu� �q Pac{tz�sazd s� uant6 uaaq butn�r.� �oazau� a�z�ou anp '�uawanozdmr anoq� ar.i� uodn butz�au �ttqnd_e pa��npuo� seu Zn�d �uz�S �o ��?� au� �o Tt�uno� auS ap.zp I.z2utw?Zazg zapun •�aaz�g suana�g o� �aaz�g p.zo�uo� mo.z� �aaz�g a��g ut pu� �aaz�g a��g o� p�og Zauuecl� abz�g woz3 �aaz�g pso�uo� uz pa��nz�suo� aq jZtm wa�sAs ,zaMas wzo�s Mau e'osZ� •pa�u�Zd aq jjTM saaz� pue suoz�p�oZ snozz�n �� u�tpam za�ua� e ��nz�suo� 'uoi��asza�ut abzoa�-a�r�g-pzo�uo� au� u5nozu� sMOj� anozduiz�sanssi I�a�ps u�t.z�sapad anozdmi o� bu �z3��z� 'sleq bu buipp� 'sauet a�tq 3o buzdzz�s 'Iajzano/'[Z?w snoutmn�tq apnt�uz o� pz�naZnog o�ejd o� �aaz�g pzo�uo� moz3 �aaz�g �us�q�M pu� �aaz�g �us�q�M o� �aaz�S szTod�uu� moa3 �aaz�g pzo�uo� zo3 s�uamanozdmz �zZqnd but��nz�suo� ;o sa��eyz au� u= buz�on ST06T 'atQ 2I3Q2i0 TdN23 Q � � �/ �" ��' �.. .-� h �� E� -$O � oH `��=3 zz rmo� �n�a • ss 3o as=� . � _.- os-aa�- � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � , P\II/ — Public Works � Contact Person 8 Phone: i Dan Haak 266-80&4 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): 'I6-FEB-05 y Assign Number For Routing Order ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) M4lIVI1 RC!{YC`.�1C0: Set date of public hearing to approve the order for Concord Street from Annapolis to Wabasha and Wabasha from Concord to Plato. FIle No. 19015 rcecommenaanons: approve (a.) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee . _ Civil Service Commission (K): Cost/Revenue Budgeted: y Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): ' The intersec6on of Concord-State-George is large and confusing to drivers and difficult for pedeshians to cross. Concord/Wabasha ' has no bike lanes. Flooding occurs at the Bancroft/Robie intersections due to an inadequate storm sewer in Concord. AdvanWpes If Approved: � The project will unprove the quality of life in the neighborhood and for surrounding businesses. It will enhance traffic flow in the ! Concord-State-George intersecrion and provide bike lanes. Fiooding along Robie will be eliminated. Disadvantapes If Approved: None. � DisadvanWges If NotApproved: , Project will not proceed. Total Amount of 3070973 Transaction: Fundin� source: 2004 Major Sewer Financial Information: Repair/Met CounCil (Explain) Livable Funds Green Sheet NO: 3025072 0 � ublic Workt Dan Haak ' 1 Council �1arv Erickson ' GOOLYdCIS MUSL Af75W2f tOB FOIIOWIfIg QUBStlOf15: �. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent city empioyee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Activiry Number: ��q�+pn.�h f'.C3'�£3, ��k� ��. ' . ��.. OS - �-� pRAFT SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCORD STREET from Annapolis to Wabasha WABASHA STREET from Concord to Plato City Project No. 05-P-1263 & 05-S-1947 Report Prepared — 1-13-05 Public Hearing — PROJECT This project is on Concord Street from Annapolis to Wabasha and on Wabasha from Concord to Plato and includes a bituminous mill and overlay, striping and signing of bike lanes, and adding parking bays. Additional improvements include traffic calming to improve pedestrian safety issues and improve flows through the Concord-State-George intersection. A center median will be constructed at various locations and trees will be planted. A new storm sewer system wili be constructed in Concord from Barge Channel Road to State Street and in State Street from Concord to Stevens. This project is a component of a long term overall community initiative to improve public safety and enhance the quality of life and aesthetics of the neighborhood. EXISTING CONDITIONS The intersection of Concord-State-George is large and is confusing for drivers and difficult for pedestrians. Concord has no bike lanes. Flooding occurs at the Bancroft and Robie intersection due to an inadequate storm sewer system in Concord. PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS Concord and Wabasha will be milled and overlaid with a new bituminous surface. Bump outs will be constructed at Ada, Anita, and Bancroft. Bike lanes will be striped and signed along Concord and Wabasha. Improvements include traffic calming to improve pedestrian safety issues and improve flows through the Concord-State-George intersection. Medians will be constructed at various locations and trees will be planted. o s - a-a� A new storm sewer system will be constructed in Concord from Barge Channel Road to State Street and in State Street from Concord to Stevens to re{ieve flooding in the Bancroft and Robie intersection. ALTERNATES To do nothing would be inconsistent with the Citys commitment to improve this segment of Concord and Wabasha. POSITIVE BENEFITS This project will improve the quality of life in the neighborhood and for surrounding businesses. {t wifY enhance traffic flow in the Concord-State-George intersection and provide bike lanes along Concord and Wabasha. The bituminous overlay will provide for a smooth driving surface. Installation of bike lanes will provide a safe place for bikers. Flooding along Robie will be eliminated. ADVERSE EFFECTS Normal problems associated with construction such as noise, dust, reduced access, and general disruption will be present. EFFECTS ON TREES Trees will be planted where appropriate. Construction will not impact existing trees. TIME SCHEDULE The project will begin in the spring of 2005 and will be completed by the fall of 2005. 2 COST ESTIMATE Construction Engineering Miscellaneous PROJECT TOTAL ESTIMATED FINANCING 2004 Major Sewer Repair Met Council Livable Community Funds PROJECT TOTAL SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION bS- ��` $2,373,973 $497,000 $200,000 $3,070,973 $1,820,973 $1.250.000 $3,070,973 For additional information, contact the Project Engineer, Dan Haak, at 266-6084. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Department of Public Works feels that this is a necessary and worthwhile project, and the Engineering Recommendation is for approval of the project and financing. 3 o�oo � roo � W O O q � m � A t70N N�� w r O � C m ~ ``mm W �U O UW� a W Q � � N W N 0 U � o� M n o r- mo � O m N � �N H � � � LL �. _ no m �m a m r 3 tO O N J F �°—�� U �U � o d � �� a � z U 2 Q Z LL � H Q � � y W . � ` � � " - . � ai � \' �n1i �\' - . � _ '' �.:\�, -C . a% '�i�i�_.�� .' _ _ -'.. . ' . ., i'�ji1'i/� �`��. • �7 � °n: ' � " 97 - .'" :• �� . . i . ��': arµ.'-"��-� ' � :Y �� ..- . .. - ,.' _;�� :: :: - :.:./: -... . - �� _i � � � ■ •�.�_� � �� .�-,-T P �, � , '��.::.c".:.. -_ �`'�..• _ � _. � aalsaN� E1 - � . �� / 2 ..." � 4 .A. 2 O� SjE y �_ _ P. ,�`> S/ � J � �, ` �in lJ o� a -.—� �"� / � i� �� N � � � ,.:• � , � ,' G = .;:: �-4'<_, _ y � �� r � N � � 2 �� a ,� ls Aan ao N O 3 I i- 1 � f tn tn � 1 � y ° F •1 > � ' � O � � — �� 3dOH '1N �� C lg � �� I OA� � I �3 � paK � � t� � � �3�G � C d �y� � u 15 � � ~' W L�1 � � �� ❑ �—! 3 Q G 3X W�N�Y� D o . �':1, ' � � �, L N.` I � I I W -' W p : {__'` ' � �� '• � 3AV � � 5� - - - \ �_: � � J �f = . r��o� � . W w W � �� ,prx�. \� 1 ->v .:tlW�v1W ai�� D �AV _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ ` _ - - r . ' � ' ; I a lltlH 4 y ' - � '� �� o � � "N �z�y�N�o��❑a � ��rriJ _ 3 aa�xals _ � ��-��--� ��y� n n n�� n n�� nH�1 n n � - , � _ .- - :}_��: ' �;J_, .� „a /��' 3"� ��''.�, d � 2 � \�� - �{ � a j^ � � _ _'�- �O� 3,! _' \ Q _ � � � _ p . ; / . � � / :�e� � `i �'' - � � / / / r "e � �✓ �. � y ,.°: . . y i 3: }-- � � ,� P� C,�'� u �� '. c \+p .. 5 v� � � � � a � � 41 � 1 � , : . � �� Council File # � _ a J� Green Sheet #3o257s5 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Presented Refened To Committee Date Remembering the Life ofBen Doran, Resident of the North End 1 WHEREAS, Ben Doran was a kind, vibrant young man who lived in the North End, attended Como Senior High School, and 2 had a strong interest in science and the arts; and 3 WHEREAS, Ben's life was talcen from him through a senseless murder as he was walking home from a basketball game with 4 his friends on March 31, 2003; and 5 WHEREAS, the murderers admitted it was a case of mistaken identity, and they had murdered an innocent 15-yeaz-old boy; 6 and, 7 WI�REAS, his mother, Mazgueritte Doran, and family friend Rome Hanson have started the Ben Doran Foundation as a 8 way to remember Ben and extend the beauty of his life to others; now, therefore be it 9 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul CiTy Council wishes to extend its condolences to the family of Ben Doran; and be it 10 FURTHERRESOLVED,thattheSaintPaulCityCouncilextendsitsappreciationtoBen'sfamilyandfriendswhohavetaken 11 this tragic incident and sought the positive side of it through the creation of the Ben Doran Foundation, with the purpose of 12 organizing aquarium clubs, a passion of Ben's, and other acfivities for children and youth, and be it 13 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council passes this resolution in memory of Ben Doran and in support of 14 those who, through Ben's memory, are having a positive influence in the community. Requested by Depariment oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Adoption Certifie�by Council Secretary Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council � Approved b� I�a�or: DatB � � Adopted by Council: Date ��/i�� , OOS �— � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � tY�- asi DepartrnenUotfice/council: ' Date Initiated: � -�,�� ,s.M„R� Green Sheet NO: 3025785 Contact Person 8 Phone: Lee tielgen G-8650 Must Be on Council Agenda CoMractType: RE-RESOLUiION �� Assign liumber Far Roufing Order 0 'CO ocil � � 1 ouncil D artment ' or 2 erk Gti Clerk 3 4 I 5 Totat # of Signature Pages _{Clip All LocaGOns for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution remembering the life of Ben Doran, resident of the North End idations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts MustMswerthe Following questions: Plannirg Commission 1. Has this persoNfiim eeer worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Ciwl Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm e�r been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why): AdVantages If ApproVed: Disadvantapes IfApproved: DisativanWges if Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Fundinp Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosNRevenue Budgeted: ActivitV Number. March 16, 2005 9:09 AM Page 1 Council File # �J' �,32.- Green Sheet #�_� Presented bv � Referred l RESOLUTION C1TY OF SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee `� 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. WIIEREAS, Ben Doran was a young man who lived with his family in the Northend and attended Como Senior High School, and; WHEREAS, on March 31, 2003, the life of Ben Doran was taken in a senseless act of violence, and; WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Police Department wishes to honor the memory of Ben Doran, and; WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul Police Department'desires to rename the Law Enforcement Center located at 1169 Rice Street after Ben Doran, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Police Depar[ment extends its support and commitment to the family of Ben Doran. Requested by Departmem of: By: Adoprion Certified Council Secretary By: .�i'L•rISOJ. Approvedby y : Date=��, By: � for Adopted by Council: Date �//.J� 073. ��OS . .....,"__.. .. . . _ ...... .,.. _,., ..,,_ . .. ._..,-. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ��; ,�.,. 1'X� -'1'2'1 DepartmenVOffice/council: Date Initiated: v `� P � w FD — pa��Depanment »-�R_o5 Green Sheet NO: 3025802 Contact Person 8 Phone: Deoartrnent Sent To Person InitiallDate Chief John Ha[rington � 0 lice De artment P Iic e rtment ✓ 266-5588 A55ign 1 olice De artment De a eot Direct r ✓ Must Be on Council Agenda by (pate): Number y i Attome i ttom ✓ Foi Routing 3 a or's O �ce Ma or/Assistant O�der 4 oun il Council 5 i Clerk Ci Clerk 6 olice D artmen[ P lice De artment Total # of Signature Pages �(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Signatures requested on the attached Council Resolution. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contracks Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1 Has this person/firm ever worked under a contraci for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � The Saint Panl Police Department wishes to honor the memory of Ben Doran by dedicating and naming the Saint Paul Police Law Enforcement Center at 1169 Rice Sh�eet afrer him. Advantages If Approved: The memory of Ben Doran, who had a positive influence in the community, will be recognized. Disadvantapes If Approvetl: None. DisadvanWges If Not Approved: [nabiliry to rename the Saint Paul Police Department Law Enforcement Center at 1169 Rice Street afrer Ben Doran. TotalAmountof CostlRevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Pundinp Source: AcCivity Number. �s49AF'� ,�5�^ yBgaF^�} z'� �^.?^� Fi nancial Information: (Explain) ' �•�� 5�� ;R Council File # b5- Z33 Green Sheet # 3do�J' RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul recognizes the stellar achievements of combining education and community enhancement to improve the quality of life in our prolific Saint Paul; and 3 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Public Schools Service-Learning and Leadership of Fresh Force combines learning and 4 servingfortheadvancementoFstudentandcommunitylearningforimprovedacademicachievementandcommunity 5 building; and WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul Public Schools are Preparing Students for Life and Engaging the Public through its Strategic Plan, and the City of Saint Paul recognizes efforts of community, school and neighborhood groups; and 8 WHEREAS, Area Learning Center at Unidale is practicing "collective efficacy" of strengthening community ties 9 through its Peace Sanctuary by creating a community garden at Aurora Street and Victoria Avenue; and 10 WHEREAS, the Peace Sanctuary provides recreational, educational and social activities which build healthy 11 relationships between school and community to reduce crime and to improve the quality of life in this neighborhood; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the Peace Sanctuary Initiative is a recipient of the Outstanding Service-Learning Project Award from 14 the Minnesota Community Educarion Association; 15 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul recognizes and lauds the youth, adults and partners 16 who are the creators of the Peace Sanctuary—Area Learning Center at Uuidale, residents Metric Giles and Melvin 17 Giles, Artist Seitu Jones, Sabathani Community Center, Aurora-St. Anthony Neighborhood Development 18 Corporafion,DaleStreetGreenhous�fortheir"collectiveefficacy"andgainingpositivecommunityperceptionsand 19 realities. Requested by Deparhnent o£ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Appi � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Q Adopted by Council: Date �s2G<i o7.3, a70O5 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � t�5-a33 Departmentlofficelcouncil: Date Inrtiated: co -��il ,�-�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025741 Contact Person 8 Phone• Deoariment Sent To Person Initial/Date Debbie Mon�qomery � 0 ancil 266-8610 p�ign 1 mcit De artmentDireMOr Must Se on Council Agenda by {Date): 4lumber Z - �� Citv Clerk 23-MAR-05 For 3 ROUting Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Honoring the leadership of the Fresh Force program in the Saint Paul Public School system, and for their work in creating a community garden at Aurora Street and Victoria Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Pfanning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contrad for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm passess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? _ Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, OPPartunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why�: Advanqqes If Approved: Disadvanta5�es If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosHRevenue Budgeted: Transaction: - FundinSt Source: Activity Number: Fi nancial Infortnation: � (Explain) Council File # OS-234 SUBSTITUTE - MARCH 23, 2005 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 2 In 3 WHEREAS, the Apprenticeship Opportunities Project has successfully assisted women, minorities and those facing barriers 4 to employment in establishing cazeers in the building and construction trades; and 5 WHEREAS, the YWCA of St. Paul is offering to pay the plane fare, food and ovemight lodging expenses for the Learning 6 Tour for interested stakeholders like trade union officials, city officials and others; and 7 WHEREAS, to represent the City of Saint Paul, the YWCA of St. Paul has o£fered to pay the plane fare, food and overnight 8 lodging expense for Councilmember Debbie Montgomery and for Beadus Rletcher ofthe Minority Business Development and 9 Retention Program in the Department of Planning and Economic Development on behalf of Director Susan Kimberly; and 10 WHEREAS, the Council hereby determines that participation of the City of Saint Paul in the Learning Tour serves a public 11 purpose. 12 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul accepts from the YWCA of St. Paul, the gift ofthe plane 13 fare, food and overnight lodging expenses for Councilmember Montgomery and Mr. Fletcher to participate in the Learning 14 Tour; and 15 BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheCouncilherebyappropriatesthisgiftforparticipationofCouncilmemberMontgomery 16 and Mr. Fletcher in the Learning Tour; and 17 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council hereby expresses its thanks to the YWCA of St. Paul for its generous gift to 18 the City of Saint Paul. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav �/ Bostrom � Harris ,/ Helgen � Lantry ✓ Montgomery ,/ Thune ✓ � Requested by Department o£ Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date �,�n�/r �3 �7OD� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Green Sheet # 3025796 Approved tJ� �iL'�or: Date W�IEEREAS, the Northwest Area Foundation is providing a grant to the YWCA of St. Paul to conduct a Learning Tour to Seattle, Washington, on March 24-25, to observe a pro�ram called Apprenticeship Opportunities Project; and Council File # �' .7, Green Sheet # 3025796 Presented By Refened To Committee: Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, the Northwest Area Foundation is conducting a Leaming Tour to Seattle, Washington, on Mazch 24-25, 2005, to observe a pro�am called Apprenticeship Opportunities Project; and WIIEREAS, the Apprenticeship Opportunities Project has successfully assisted women, minorities, and those facing barriers to employment in establishing careers in the building and consiruction hades; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Foundation is offering to pay the plane fare, food, and overnight lodging expenses for the Leaming Tour for interested stakeholders like trade union officials, city officials, and others; and WHEREAS, to represent the City of Saint Paul, the Northwest Area Foundation has offered to pay the plane faze, food and overnight lodging expense for Councilmember Debbie Montgomery and for Readus Fletcher of the Minority Business Development and Retention Pxogram in the Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development on behalf of Director Susan Kimberly; and WHEREAS, the Council hereby determines that participation of the City of Saint Paul in the Learning Tour serves a public purpose. NOW Tf�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul accepts 8om the Northwest Area Foundation the gift of the plane fare, food, and overnight lodging expenses for Councilmember Montgomery and Mr. Fletcher to participate in the Learning Tour; and BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby appropriates this gift for participafion of Councilmember Montgomery and Mr. Fletcher in the Learning Tour; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council hereby expresses its thanks to the Northwest Foundation for iu generous gi8 to the City of Saint Paul. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by Mayor: Date By: RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Adopted by CouncYl: Date Requested by Department of: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet co -co�N ContactPerson & Phone: Crnmalmember Mo�rtyon�ety 26G8610 Must Be on Counal Agenda by (Date): 23-NIAR-0S Contrac[Type: RE-RESOLUiION n-nnnR-0s � , ��9� Number For Routing Order Total # MSignaW re pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3025796 Denartrnent SentToPerson - 0 wvdl 1 oa�l t ' ecto 2 3 A 5 � �- a3�{ Accepting a gift of plane faze, food, and ovemight lodging expenses from the NortLwest Fowdation for Councilmember Montgomery and Readus Fietcher to participate in the Leaming Tour in Seattle, Wastrington on March 24 and 25, 2005. datiais: Appm�e (A) w R Planning Commission qB Committee Civl Senice Commission Personal Service Contracts 1. Has this persorJfirtn eeer worked untler a contract forthis department? Yes No 2. Has this personlfirtn e�er been a ctty empoyee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill rwt namally possessed by any curreM city enployee? . Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and atlach to green sheet Iniliating Problem, Issues, Opporlunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why): AdvanWges tFApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages ff NotApproved: � oiai nmoun� oi Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: March 97, 2005 8:39 AM Page 1 Council File # � Green Sheet # 3025794 RESOLUTION CITY OF Presented PAUL, MINNESOTA i� 1 Whereas, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Ayd Mill Road was released for public review in 2 February 2005, with a 30-day comment period, which expires on Mazch 21, 2005, and 3 Whereas, the future of Ayd Mill Road is of major importance to the entire city and directly affects the flow of 4 traffic in four of the city's seven wards, and 5 Whereas, residential neighbors of adjacent neighborhoods have requested a 30-day e�ctension of the public 6 comment period for the Final EIS, and 7 Whereas, such an extension should be granted by St. Paul policymakers, as long as such an extension will not 8 adversely impact the city's future plam�ing for Ayd Mill Road, therefore be it 9 Resolved, that the City of Saint Paul extends the public comment period on the Ayd Mill Road Fina1 10 Environmental Impact Statement from Mazch 21, 2005, until Apri122, 2005. Requested by Department of: Benanav Bostrom Hazris Helgen Lanhy Montgomery Thune ✓ J v ✓ ✓ ✓ � Adopted by Council: Date // ///il �-r of'�, �?00� Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by May r: Date By: ��i//�e✓ %1�S��a�r� ��02 O � Form Appraved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � d5-a �5 CTTY OF SAIN'T PAUL Randy C. Ke11y, Mayor 390 Ciry Hall IS West KeLlogg Boulevard Sairzt Pars1, MN 55102 Telephone: 651-266-8510 Facsimile: 651-266-85/3 April l, 2005 Council President Kathy Lantry and Members of the City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council President Lantry and Councilmembers: I am returning unsigned Council Resolution OS-235 relating to an e�ension of the comment period for the Final Impact Statement for Ayd Mill Road. As the "Responsible Government Unit" for the EIS process, federal law provides the Mayor the sole authority for determining any extensions of the comment period. At the request of Councilmember Benanav and four members of the public, on March 17, 2005 I ordered a fifteen day extension of the comment peziod. In my judgement, the fifteen day ea�tension that was published in the newspaper, was appropriate. Therefore, as of Apri15, 2005, the public comment period will close. Sincerely, C� ��j �`, ��rC/.e2 andy C �Kelly � Mayor � � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � c�- a� DepartmenUofficeleouncq: Date Initiated: co -� ,�-�-� Green Sheet NO: 3025794 Contact Person 8 Phone: �� 266�8640 Must Be on CounW Agen 23-MAR-05 ContractType: RE-RESOUJiION -, uena�unem aeni �o refson 0 aocSl Assign 1 ouncl ar� t' r Num6er 2 Clerk ' C1erk For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI LocaUons for Signature) Resolved, that the City of Saint Paul extends the public comment period on the Ayd Mill Road Final EnvirontnenTal Impact Statement from March 21, 2005, until Apri122, 2005. Planning Commission 1, Has this persoNfirtn e�er waked under a contract for this department? CIB Cwnmittee Yes No ' Citil Senice Commission 2. Has this persoN6rtn e�erbeen a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this pe�sadfim} possess a skill not fannally possessed by afry current city employee? Yes No 6cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Inifiadng Problem, lssues, Opporlunity (Who, Whaf, When, Where, Whyj:- AdYanfages If ApproVed: DisadvantagesVFApproved: Disadvanfages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transacfion: Funding Source: Financial lnfarmation: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: ActivlW Number. 4Aa�ch 17, 20058:27AM Page 1 Council File # �fj- aJ10 Green Sheet # 30a5gU RESOLUTION � OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA I Z Presented by, Referred To Committee Date Impact of Proposed PERA Increases on the City of Saint Paul 1 WHEREAS, there are now proposals before the Legislature to increase the coniribution rate for both employees and 2 employers for the PERA Coordinated Plan and for the Police and Fire plans; and 3 WHEREAS, under the current employer contribution rates and state pension aids, in 2005 the City of Saint 4 Paul will absorb $10.65 million in employer pension costs to PERA, and state pension aids (police, fire, and 5 coordinated) will equal $5.85 million; and 6 WHEREAS, the difference of $4.81 million will come from city taspayers, or it will represent resources that have 7 to be diverted from other city services—including public safety functions. In the police and fire plans comUined, 8 city pension costs are $6.18 million tlus year, against expected state police and fire pension aids of $533 9 million; and 10 WHEREAS, under the proposed employer contribution rates (to 13.5% in 2006 for police and fire plans, and 6% ll initially in the coordinated plan beginning in 2006, and increasing by another .25% annually thereafter), the City 12 will be forced to absorb an additional estimated $33 miilion in pension contribution costs in 2006, and increasing 13 amounts in following years. Of this total amount, about $2.9 million per year in additional costs are for the police 14 and fire plans; and 15 WHEREAS, to put a$3 3 million cost-increase in perspective, covering that amount within the city's general fund 16 budget (where virtually all of current and prospective costs fall) would mean: 17 1. A 5% increase in the city's total properiy tax levy, with no increase in services provided to the public; or 18 2. A 3.2% reduction in the combined general fund budgets of the police and fire departments; and 19 WHEREAS, local government employer contribution costs for PERA are designed to be offset, at least in part, by 20 state appropriations tluough the various state pension aid programs identified on the attachments. T'hese pension 21 aids are appropriated from the state general fund, and under current law are distributed through complex formulas 22 that limit the total pension aid payments to the total collections from certain state taxes on insurance premiums; and 23 24 WHEREAS, increasing the funding for the PERA coordinated and police(fire plans without increasing employer 25 contribution rates and forcing additional local tax increases ar spending cuts would require state actions such as: 26 • Increasing the state appropriation for pension aids, either by reallocating funding from other programs, 27 ar by increasing some state tas or other revenue. Increasing state insurance premium taxes would be one 28 option for this, but it would not be required. 1 . Reallocatfng the existing state pension aids program to ensure a better balance between actual employer 2 pension costs and state aids for individual cities; and �_ a �/ �0 3 WIIEREAS, two tables aze attached. The first table shows historic and projected costs to the city for employer 4 contributions to the PERA plans under the current rate structure, compazed with state pension aids that aze 5 intended to offset these costs. The second tabie shows the additional costs to the ciTy budget if the proposed rate 6 increases aze adopted; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul urges the Legislature to be sensifive to the unpact this proposal will have on local governments; and be it fiuther 9 RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul would like to seek a reasonable compromise that would prevent this 10 situation from falling disproportionately on Saint Paul taspayers a11 at once, while recognizing that there is a 11 problem with the Fund that needs to be resolved ideally with some combination of increased revenues and 12 decreased spending growth that would support the State's pension system into the future. Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Adoption Certifiec}�by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Approved or: Date c By. �-� ;9L.iL,��Cij Adopted by Council: Date /i //j//�r �..�, v7QOS 7 l6 a � � O U N a+ v m �O L a � O U � N _ � a d d O O. W T c 0 N U T 0 a E w � �nmmvMONO y tD N O t0 F� O �O � N O C7 O.� df M N t0 � tp � W O O�t V Ur � � v" a a a v" w" w w" �o" �o" z us us us u� us e9 us u� us us rn N N M �f N 01 � P M � O> C7 � M�D N OI e- 00 b O� N M N t0 W O f� W N W Of CO M OD Q t0 N� W h Nf' � � et N O� P 10 �� af t0 t0 00 O M � af Of � W A CO Q� O � M� O eFv"w w a"w"b m m ao m �— ut us as vi us us as us vs vs us �mar�mao�v� �aa NNtDN�O o��o O N N �� N M O ��' M N �•� �� CO r h N N O N a 1� O C N O� N � tO W tD O�f Q1 �O � � O O O O' � e- �- N' N �� T r T T r� r T � � � � � � � � � � � N N N N N N N N N N N � Nla N W N W N W N a�N � �� 1+ 1� P P' !� I� t� 1� t� h A O Q r T l'� r l� r T!' T T r V u��www�uwww�n u> us ds u� vi asen en us vs us NN �onvn�ocomo� � O r h CI O b W P V W M '� O a M O'e} O N O tD O e0 A � V1 iD 1� O' Of 00 M t� b' 00' d' Y� 0 caaorrr�rnoaoo�noo yoovav�<onaoo.- Va w�� y � tD t0 CO A 1p Oi N� N M �� Uf t0 t0 t0 t0 N N N N ��.-aomooNnoc� Q ri o o ri � o ri .= v v o> NPhe-�OtOt01� W ON � N� �! � W O � N M W t0 e- � � � a- N N' N N N N V- 1A 4�1 M tl! V! �H V� fR fR 4'l fR � W O N h t0 W O M W M C Q W N Of O 01 eT � CO � N O�� T Q� W N 00 h O Of M ��y t0 O O t0 N CD 1C P r�O N � 00 �q � h Qf r W t� �O V' M ll- � r N M N M t0 tD f� 0D Ol O a � � � � � � � � � � � Of W CO N O t0 t0 01 W W 00 O Of W � O t� � N O 00 �� O 00 M V' � t� Of N W 00 O V'al tD '7 t0 M t0 Qf N t0 Of N i0 b 00 1� � t0 tD h h h �0 CO a Q N Q� r M N N N N N N N M N M NS M M t7 M M M M f9MfA MMWVlY�V� f9f9 �V' M �D Of eP O iD Of Q� Of N � C O 1� N t0 h h t0 h Ir t0 �tf Ot�w<oa�Mnt�ma�n� - y r� ti w a�o o ri t0 N N t0 fl� d' b� Of W tO t0 h Qf e- M a � O� a- N N 7 W 1� CO Q� � N d c�i rS ri ri ri ri ri ri ri v" a" fA Vl iN dlfH 1A tl! 4! V! M tl? � O � N{7 � 1p t0 tr 00 01 O Q O O O O O O O O O O � (,(� O O O O O O O O O O O } N N N N N N N N N N N a 0 0 N d � R � N V � � s 0 � � A m � W O N �. c m � � a n � o M � � O � � � � a � � � V o �` a ° O C� d a B m r A O U O N Q r � � U c m � C « C 0 � N a v � m W � U c T W N � O C 0 v C w � d L .. � rf �D 0 � h 0 O C ° v � � L e M � O C � � C � U N O h O T O �� C 0 :r ' � � C�' V c O v O O � u G O. 05- a� ��"�?_ A ' �i P � /'' N J� / / 7' p� � ��S � � � � '� '� �,.:� � � G �� - � �,�'� � , ' q � � L�t / /�' /'1'l �� j '�� - �.,�' " f c-�,r- -.�-°a• m�=,' w .. = .... �;�' � /Q' � r�" f Y / ` e �..✓ � j X y �^ � y,�'/ , l' b5� �3� d N eo L V _ � d H Q O a 3 N T aoo �r� �� m U � � m �ao �oW UV C N c m a d d � a W oQ,« «°« ««��°°° � �eooan � �oaor�� Ne�1�QfM ��fA O O O O O O OI N9 N 00 N O C MV)Y! N tl!M O N b 01 t0 I " ' Q1 M t0 Qf N t0 a M M M � � � � H � � � N 0 QI U C O y o � Ua NNhNC�O b OD C7 I � tr �r�n"On M t0 CD � M � � � � � � � lL Q C N � � C N a O OD N W r � �o o �o o� Of �! � 00 h n"ac�ioo" r W Of M P N N N M M r r r T T .Aa,.R.A�, U N . $ �a c U y p C a� a wao�o�� o �o ao n o f�I�NM� Of O t�'f 1� t+J a�wow� ronaoaom �� O�NM V'btOhCOdfG w000 } N N N N N N N N N N N � o� �s t� �, _ �o �o �� _ � � y C a o C R � d r V � �p O a � e tl1 N C�f a f0 � r N 0 0 � 7 r y a � N �- �p � O R � � o C � N o ,o � C M Q a= s d N N r � R � � i � � R � '� � � d N W C � y � � = d O Q � Z ��a a ._ � w - O L � O p, V O €�e , a � �' o .. 0 0 � �: m � C C O 0 0 � V p T " '� _ •a ai o � � e a o ,°�� m � n m � m F O� M � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet co -c�� Confact Person & Phone: Ken Smith Must Se on CouncN Agen ContractType: RE-RESOLUTION Date Initiated: 17-MAR-OS � , Assign (Daffi): Number For Roufing Order ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3025801 Deparhnent p �n..�rii I I 1 oun ' De ar�ent D'u r 2 " C7erk C5 Clerk 3 I 1 4 5 Resolurion concerning the impact of pmposed PERA increases on the City of Saint Paul Recommendations: Appio�e (A) or Reject Planning Commission qB Commiltee _. _. CiHI Service Commission Following Questions: 1. Has this persoNfirm eeer woiked under a contract fw this depertment? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm e�er been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlBrm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtelrt city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separste sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � p5-a3b AdvantaqeslfApproved: Disadvanta5tes If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Fundinq Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: March 17, 200511:44 AM Page 1 AMENDED - MARCH 23 Zoos Council File #� -2,3'1 Green Sheet # �a 5 � 0 5 RESOLUTION CITY OF Seitir on� �� IIAIAIWC�`/�'rA �� Presented by �'l/' _ �!'7G21— Referred To '�07� ��sf T/� Committee Date ��4A//ir�Gj �G'/Y/�6'r'. ; // Resolution Egpressing Concern o� U �—� �e Changes in Saint Paul 1 WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee of the Metropolitan Councii has released, far public consideration, 2 proposed changes to transit fares and service levels as part of a broader package of solutions to cope with a proj ected 3 funding gap over the next two years; and 4 WHEREAS, the fare increase and service change proposal will be considered by the full Metropolitan Council on 5 March 23, 2005 and then be discussed at public hearings in April; and WIIEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is scheduled to take final action in Mid-May 2005 with fare increases, if approved, implemented on July l, 2005 and service changes, if approved, taking place in September and in , December, 2005; and 9 WHEREAS, it is proposed that neazly 70% of Metro Transit and Metropolitan Council regional routes operating 10 on weekdays would be impacted by a proposed 10 percent reduction of regulaz-route service; and 11 WHEREAS, of the proposed reductions, 50 percent would be made on local routes in Minneapolis and St. Paul; 31 12 percent of the cuts would be made on suburban local routes and 19 percent on express routes; and 13 WHEREAS, some routes would be eliminated entirely, while others would have specific reductions, such as cutting 14 weekend services or reducing hours of service or the frequency of buses; and 15 WHEREAS, reductions were determined based on ridership and comparing operating cost to ridership revenue; and 16 WHEREAS, transit bus service in, out and through Saint Paul is a vital quality-of- life service, that allows our 17 residents, workers, students, seniors, tourists and disabled persons to move in and around the metropolitan area at 18 all different hours; and 19 WHEREAS, this mobility is essential to the employee/ employer relationship that maintains and spurs economic 20 growth in an azound Saint Paul; and 21 WHEREAS, these types of bus service changes always affect the most vulnerable in our society, including the 22 working poor, seniors and disabled persons; now therefore be it 23 RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul requests the Metropolitan Council to rej ect this proposal and not undertake 24 transit bus changes that will negatively impact or impede our residents, workers, students, seniors and disabled 25 persons who must use mass transit to travel in, out and through the City of Saint Paul; and 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to review specific bus service cuts and make recommendations back to the City Council. ��a3�t Requested by Department oE I� Adopted by Council: Date �� DGL>� Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Certified by Council Secretary : � Approved Date �� pproved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � �,GreenShee# Green Sheet Gteen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �. (�,Q �oimcit Contact Person & Phone: Ken Smith ContraM Type: RE-F2ESOLUiION Date In"rtiated: 17-MAR-OS � ' Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3025805 05- �3'� 0 Coancil 1 nncil r[mentDirector 2 Cti Clerk 3 I 4 5 Tofal # of Sign re Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution expressing concem over proposed hansit service changes in Saint Paul Recommendations: Appro�e (A) or Reject Plannirg Commission CIB Committee _ ___. . Cnil Service Commission 1. Has this persoNfirtn e�er worked urWer a coMrect fur this depaAment? Yes No 2. Has this personlfirm e�er been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by arry current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aitach to green sheet Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantapes IfApproved: Disadvanpges If Not Approved: Trensaction: FundinA Source: Financiat Information: (Explain) Following QuesGOns: CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: March 17, 2005 4:42 PM Page 1 Page 1 of 1 o5-a 3� . .. - From: Allen Lovejoy To: Smith, Ken Date: 3/23/2005 1129:43 AM Subject: Bus Service Cuts I cannot be at the City Councii meeting this afternoon. However, you might want to add a RESOLVED: "AND BE if FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to review specific bus service cuts and make recommendations back to the City Councii" file://C:\Documents and Settings\Moloney\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00003.HTM 3/23/2005 d5-a3�[ City of Saint Paul City Council Research Room 310 City Hall 651-266-8588 MEMORANDUM March 23, 2005 To: Councilmembers Fr: Bob Kessler, Council Reseazch `� Copy To: Trudy Moloney, D'uector of Council Operations Susan Kimberly, PED Director Larry Soderholm, PED Allen I,ovejoy, PED Kenneth Smith, Council Research Re: Effect of Potential Transit Cuts on Saint Paul and Minneapolis Several Councilmembers have requested background information on the impact that the proposed cuts in transit services and faze increases would have on Saint Paul residents and businesses as a companion to the resolution expressing the Council's concern which is on the Council's Agenda today. As you know, the Metropolitan Council begins the formal review process today to consider the options that have been proposed by Metro Transit Officials to address the $60 million funding shortfall projected for the next biennium. It is important to emphasize at the outset that cuts and increases proposed by staff will affect the cities o£ Saint Paul and Minneapolis to a far greater degree than the rest of the metro area combined. � To put it another way, the Cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis comprise approximately 22.6% of the totai population of the Twin Ci6es Metro Area but the two cities together are scheduled to absorb 5�% of the progosed cuts in services. The inequity in the proposed cuts for Saint Paul and Minneapolis is even more egregious because the two cities are home to the majority of low and moderate income workers and families in the metropolitan area, precisely those who depend on transit the most to get to work. And, it is also important to emphasize that the majority of transit riders in Saint Paul use the bus to go to and from work everyday. �' It is also important to look at there proposed cuts in the conteat of what has been happening to transit services in the last five years. In the recent past, Saint Paul and Minneapolis have disproportionately received more decreases in services than the rest of the metro area. Overall, bus rider ship has been decreasing since 2001 largely due to the service cuts enacted between September 2002 and December 2003, (the majority of which were focused on Saint Paul and Minneapolis) and the three consecurive faze increases which were approved in July 2001, D�-a.37 August 2002, and August 2003. These disproportionate cuts to Saint Paul and Minneapolis have been ` justified" by transit officials by pointing out that they reflect the changing transportation patterns and populafion demographics of the Twin Cities. There are more suburb to suburb work trips everyday than there are commutes to the two downtowns. However, officials fail to account for the fact that the two central cities contain more transit dependent residents today than in the past and tl�at service cuts affect the transit dependent population more directly because they have fewer transit oprions. In addition, past experience has proven that service cuts have resulted in the overall decrease in ridership, wkuch is directly contrary to all the goals and plans that have been developed for trausit over the last five years under both the Ventura and the Pawlenty Administrations. Officials are guick to point out that the dire situarion is the result of a change in the funding source for transit approved during the Ventura Administrarion. T'he obvious solution is to find a more reliable and predictable source for transit funding other than the motor vehicle sales tas. Of course this solufion runs contrary to the "no new taYes" pledge, and is another consequence of budget impasses of recent years. �' On personal note, I would like to point out that the proposed cuts include the elimination of Route 350 (McKnight Road) the only bus service that serves my neighborhood in Highwood Hills. The remaining altemafive for me is to walk one and quarter miles to catch a bus thax will take twice as long to get me downtown. That is not a very amactive altemative for anyone. Allen Lovejoy from PED is preparing a more in depth analysis of the potenrial effects of these proposed cuts for the Piacmiug Commission on Apri16, 20Q5. In the meantime, it is import�wt for interested citizens to let Metro Council and Metro Transit officiais know how the proposed cuts will affect them. There aze scheduled public hearings in the coming weeks. However, the only two hearings scheduled during normal business hours aze for Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The hearings in the suburbs are scheduled in the evening. Again it will make it disproportionately more difficult for Saint Paul and Minneapolis citizens to be heazd than their counterparts in the suburbs and beyond. A complete list of the scheduled cuts in service is available at; httro://www.metrocouncil.org/ plannin transportation/2005/routechanges.�df. Council Reseazch also has hard copies for your convenience. Please let me lmow if you have any further questions on this important topic. (My thanks to Ken Smith for gathering much of the background material for this briefing memo while I was out of town the last two weeks.) G:IS}iazed\CC�I.e�slanve Operarions�Researoh Fwctions�Policy Analysis�policy ussions�FsonomicDevelopmemz�.m;�\aansitcuts2005aemo.wpd �5.-a � � �-�3_da ... -. �� •. Nearly 70 percent of Metro Transit routes and Metropolitan Council regional routes operating on weekdays would be impacted by a proposed 10 percent reduction of regularvroute service. Some routes would be eliminated entirely, while others would have specific reductions, such as cutting weekend service or reducing hours of service or the frequency of buses. Reductions were determined based on ridership and comparing operating cost to ridership revenue. Unless othervvise noted, implementation would take place in September or December 2005. Route Descriotion of chanaes Minneapolis - Como Ave. - Maryland - Rice St. - St. Paul Weekday — Service east of Como & Cleveland would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 10 a.m. and 330 p.m. These trips would be eliminated: the eastbound trips that leave Como & Snelling at 6:10 a.m. and 638 a.m.; the eastbound trips that leave 5th St. Garage at 11:50 p.m. and 12:42 a.m.; and the westbound trip that leaves 5th & Cedar at 11:46 p.m. Saturday — These trips would be eliminated: the eastbound trip that leaves Sth St. Garage at 11:43 p.m. and the westbound trip that leaves 5th R Cedar at 11:44 p.m. JUNE 2005 Implementation Richfield - Lyndale Ave. - Johnson St. - New Brighton Weekday — Northbound rush-hour service between 38th & Bryant and Silver Lake Village wouid be reduced from every 10-12 minutes to every 15 minutes beiween 430 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., and after 6:30 p.m. northbound and 8:00 p.m. southbound. Evening service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes between downtown and 50th & Bryant. Route 4F and 4K service would be reduced from every half hour to hourly south of downtown only. Mall of America - Chicago Ave. - DT Mpls. - Fremont/Penn - Brookdale Weekday — Southbound morning and northbound afternoon rush-hour service would be reduced from every 6-9 minutes to every 7-9 minutes on the main portion of the route. Northbound service would be reduced from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. JUNE 20051mplementation Southdale - Xerxes Ave. - France Ave. - Hennepin Ave. - Uptown - U of M Weekday — Service on Hennepin Ave. would be reduced from every 4-8 minutes to every 6-8 minutes between 7 a.m. and 930 a.m. and between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Service on Xer�ces, France, south of Southdale and north of downtown would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Saturday — Hennepin Ave. would be reduced from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. Service on Xences, France, south of Southdale and north of downtown would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 7 p.m. and 6 p.m. Northbound morning service would start after 530 a.m. These trips would be eliminated: Northbound trips that start at 423 a.m., 4:53 a.m., 5:13 a.m., 5:18 a.m. and 5:53 a.m; and the southbound trip that starts at 523 a.m. The northbound trip that leaves Southdale at 5:13 a.m. would start at 36th St. & Hennepin, no Ionger serving Southdale, Xerxes Avenue or Linden Hills. Page 1 of 19 3/14/2005 �5-� � 7 Plymouth Ave - DT Mpls. - Cedar/Riverside - 27th Ave. Weekday — There would be no P(ymoufh Ave. service after 7 p.m. Saturday & Sunday — There would be no Plymouth Ave. service. Altemate service is available on routes 5, 19 and 24 on Plymouth Ave. and on Route 14 on Washington. Franklin Ave. - University Ave. Weekday, Saturtlay and Sunday — This route would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on Route 2 west of 27th Ave., and on routes 16 and 50 on University Ave. Cedar Lake Rd. - St. Louis Park - Glenwood Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — This service would be eliminated: Route 9N (Cedar Lake Rd. west of Louisiana), Route 9H (Novartis, 26th St., France/Ewing), service on Cedar Lake Rd. between Penn and Glenwood between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., and ail service after 7 p.m. Service would be reduced from every half hour to hourly between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday — This service would be eliminated: Route 9N (Cedar Lake Rd. west of Louisiana) and Route 9H (Novartis, 26th St., France/Ewing), service on Cedar Lake Rd. between Penn and Glenwood, and all service before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. All trips to downtown would end at 7th St. Garage; trips from downtown would start at 7th St. Garage. Saturday service would operate every 60 minutes. Alternate weekday rush-hour service west of Louisiana Ave. is avaiiable on routes 643 and 663. 11 4th Ave. S. - DT Mpis. - 2nd St. NE - Co�umbia Heights Transit Center Weekday, Saturday and Sunday — This service would be efiminated: Service on 4th Ave. after 10 p.m. and service north of downtown after 11 p.m. Altemate service for 4th Ave. is available on Route 5 on Chicago Avenue. 12 Opus 11 - Hopkins - Excelsior Blvd. - Uptown - DT Mpis. Weekday — Service would be reduced ftom every half hour to hourly between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. artd after 8 p.m. These trips would be eliminated: eastbound trips that leave Opportunity Court at 12:05 a.m. and 1:05 a.m.; the westbound trip that Ieaves Uptown at 1129 p.m. and the westbound trip that leaves Hennepin & Washington at 12:09 a.m. Saturday — Service would be reduced from every half hour to hourly. Service to Hopkins Care Center and 11 th Ave. (Westbrook) and Opus south of downtown Hopkins would be eliminated. These trips would be eliminated: the eastbound trips that leave Mainstreet & 17th Ave. at 5:09 a.m. and 6:11 a.m., and the westbound trips that leave Hennepin 8 Washington at 5:07 a.m. and 12:13 a.m. Sunday — Service would be reduced from every half hour to houriy. Service to Hopkins Care Center and 11 th Ave. (Westbrook) and Opus south of downtown Hopkins would be eliminated. The westbound trip that leaves Hennepin 8 Washington at 523 a.m. would be eliminated. 14 Ro6binsdale - West Broadway - DT Mpls. - Bloomington Ave. S. Weekday — Route 14E service to 38th St. Station would be eiiminated. Service between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes. Page 2 of 17 3/14/2005 05-�3� Saturday — Route 14E service to 38th St. Sfation would be eliminated. Service between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes. Sunday — Route 14E service to 38th St Station would be eliminated. Service would operafe every 30 minutes between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., with hourly service before 10 a.m. and after 7 p.m. Altemate service is available on Route 46 on 42nd St. and on Route 19 on 28th Ave. 17 Knollwood Mall - St. Louis Park - Uptown - DT Mpls. - Washington St. Weekday — Service north of downtown Minneapolis after 8 p.m. and Route 17F (Beltline, Park Glen), 17L (Lake Street) and 17K (Amhurst) trips would be eliminated. Saturday and Sunday— Service north of downtown Minneapolis after 8 p.m. would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on routes 10 and 11. 18 Bloomington - Nicollet Ave. - Grand Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service on Nicollet Ave. would be reduced from every 5-7 minutes to every 6- 8 minutes between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Service would be reduced from every 10-15 minutes to every 12-15 minutes between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. JUNE 2005Implementation 19 VA Hospital - Cedar Ave. - Minneapolis - Penn - Golden Valley Rd. Weekday — These northbound trips would end at Xerxes & Golden Valley Rd.: Route 19D at 5:14 a.m., Route 19R at 627 a.m., and Route 19 D at 7:46 a.m. The southbound trips that currently leave Robbinsdale Transit Center at 5:46 a.m. and 829 a.m. and Lifac & Duluth at 7:04 a.m. would instead start at Xences and Golden Valley Rd. Southbound service would be reduced from every 14-16 minutes to every 20 minutes between 8:15 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. on the main portion of the route. Northbound aftemoon rush-hour service would be reduced from every 71-13 minutes to every 13-16 minutes. Service would be reduced from every half hour to hourly starting at 9:30 — rather than at 10:30 — northbound and starting at 10 p.m. — rather than at midnight — southbound. 23 Minneapolis - Uptown - 38th St. - Ford Pkwy. - St. Paul Weekday — Service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes between 6 and 9 a.m. and between 3 and 6 p.m., and from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Service leaving tlptown after 11 p.m. would be eliminated. Saturday and Sunday — Service would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Service leaving Uptown after 11 p.m. would be eliminated. JUNE 20051mplementation 24 Brooklyn Center - Brookdale - Lyndale - Minneapolis - 36th Ave. - 46th St. Station Weekday, Saturday and Sunday — South of downtown, route would be restructured with Route 27 between downtown and Franklin Ave., traveling on Park and Portland. Service on 11th Ave. would be eliminated. South of downtown, service between on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and on Saturdays between 17 a.m. to 530 p.m. would be reduced from every 20 minutes ta every 30 minutes. Alternate service available on Route 14 on 11th Ave. Page 3 of 17 3/14/2005 as��3� 25 Northtown - Silver Lake Rd. - DT Mpis. - Dougias Ave. Weekday — Service would travel on Silver Lake Rd. between Co. Rd. H and Co. Rd. H2. There would be no service north of Co. Rd. 1Q. These trips would be eliminated: the southbound trip that leaves Silver Lake �Ilage at 3:58 p.m.; the northbound trips that leave Leamington Ramp at 2:02 p.m., 3:03 p.m. and 4:56 p.m.; and trips that begin at Oak Grove & Spruce at 724 a.m. and 7:59 a.m. Saturday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service for customers north of Co. Rd. 10 would be available on Route 854 from the Northtown Park & Ride, or on Route 250 aT the Co. Rd. H& I-35W, Atonement Lutheran or Salem Covenant Park & Ride lots. Altemate service on 89th Ave. is available on Route 831. 27 DT Mpls. - 26th St. - Minnehaha Ave. - 34th Ave. S. Weekday — Service north of 26th St. would be eiiminated. Service north of Franklin Ave. would be available on Route 24. Route 27 would travel between Hiawatha and Nicoliet on 26th and 28th streets. Service would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 9 a.m. and 330 p.m. Saturday & Sunday — Service on Park and Portland between 26th St. and Franklin Ave. and service west of Hiawatha Ave. would be eliminated. Service north of Franklin Ave would be available ort Route 24. Route 27 would be a shuttte traveling on Minnehaha between 62nd St. and Lake St. Service would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Altemate service north of 26th Street is available on Route 5 on Chicago Ave., and on Route 24 on Park and Portland beiween Franklin Ave. and downtown. 32 Robbinsdale - Lowry Ave - Washington Ave - St Anthony - Rosedale Weekday— Service between downtown and Lowry via Washington would be reduced. The 5:25am and 821am eastbound trips to downtown, the 339pm westbound trip from downtown, and the 6:04am and 6:25am westbound reverse commute trips would be eliminated. Service between Rosedale and Robbinsdale would be reduced to hourly, rather than every 30 minutes between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Altemate service to downtown Minneapolis is available on Routes 5, 19, and 24. 46 Minneapolis - 50th St. - 46th St. - Ford Pkwy. - St. Paul Weekday and Saturday — Service after S p.m. would be eliminated. Sunday— Service before 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. would be eliminated. 61 DT Mpls. - Hennepin Ave E. - Larpenteur Ave. - Arcade St. - DT St. Paul Saturday — Hours of operation would be reduced to beiween 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. These trips would be eliminated: eastbound trips that leave at 6:05 a.m., 7:05 a.m., 7:03 p.m., and 8:04 p.m.; and westbound trips that leave at 526 a.m. and 625 a.m. 62 Shoreview - Rice St. - DT St. Paul Weekday — These trips will be eliminated: northbound trips that leave 4th & Wabasha at 5:04 a.m., 11:17 p.m., 12:17 a.m. and 1:17 a.m.; and southbound trips that leave Camelot 8 California at 4:31 a.m., 10:50 p.m., 11:50 p.m. artd 12:50 a.m. There would be less service between Little Canada Transit Center and Larpenteur before 9 a.m. and between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Service north of Larpenteur would be reduced from every half hour to hourly from 9:20 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 530 p.m. to 7:31 p.m. Page 4 of 17 3/14/2005 05 � �7 Saturday — These frips would be eliminated: northbound trips that leave 4th 8 Wabasha at 630 a.m. and 1:17 a.m.; and southbound trips that Ieave Calrfomia & Camelot at 5:58 a.m., 6:58 a.m. and 12:50 a.m. All service north of Larpenteur would be eliminated. Sunday — These trips would be eliminated: northbound fips that leave 4th & Wabasha at 1:06 a.m. and southbound trips that leave Califomia & Camelot at 12:41 a.m. Altemate service from downtown to Maryland Ave. is available on Route 3 on Rice Street. 63 Grand Ave. - DT St. Paul - 3rd St. E. Weekday — Service on Grand Avenue between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. The trip leaving Lower Afton & McKnight at 12:46 a.m. would be eliminated. Sunday — Service along Grand Avenue would be reduced from every half hour to hourly. The trips that Ieave McKnight 8 Lower Afton at 1135 p.m. and begin at Summit & Finn at 12:35 a.m. would be eliminated. JUNE 2005 Implementation 64 DT St. Paul - Payne - Maryfand - Maplewood Mall Weekday — Route 64C would be eliminated. Service south of Maryland and Prosperity would be reduced from every 7-15 minutes to every 10-15 minutes between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The trips leaving Hillcrest at 4:59 a.m. and 5:12 a.m. would be combined into one trip. Altemate Route 64C service is available on routes 64H and 64N. 65 Rosedale - Co. Rd. B- Dale St. - DT St. Paul Weekday — Service after 6:30 p.m. would end at Selby & Dale. Service would end at 9:30 p.m.ratherthan at11 p.m. Saturday — Morning service would start two hours later, at 10 a.m. Sunday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on routes 3, 16, 21 and 67 with transfers to Route 84. 67 Minnehaha Ave. - DT St. Paui - Smith Ave. - Signal Hills Shopping Center Weekday — Rush-hour service would be reduced from every 20-30 minutes to every 30 minutes. Evening service would end at Gilbert & Prior at 9:35 p.m. rather than at 12:38 a.m. Route 67H service on Moreland Ave. would be eliminated. Saturday and Sunday — Service would end at Gilbert & Prior at 6:38 p.m. rather than at 838 p.m. Alternate service is available on Route 68 for some areas. 68 Jackson St. - DT St. Paul - Robert St. - Inver Grove Heights Weekday— Rush-hour service north of downtown St. Paul would be reduced from every 20-30 minutes to every 30 minutes. Service to Richmond and Syndicate, the loop through Signal Hills, and Route 68G limited stop service would be eliminated. All but rush-hour service south of 5th Ave. 8 South St. would be eliminated. Service beiween 70th St. and 75th St. would travel on Dawn Ave. Service on 70th St. east of Dawn, on Concord Bivd., on 80th St. and on Dawn Ave. between 75th and 80th St. would be eliminated. Page 5 of 17 3/14/2005 os-a �� Saturday and Sunday — All service south of 5th Ave. & South St. would be eliminated. 70 St C(air Ave. - W. 7fh Sf. - DT St. Pauf - Bums Ave. - Ruth St. Weekday — Service west of downtown would be reduced to rush-hours only, with , eastbound trips arriving at 5th & Minnesota between 6:45 a.m, and 8:15 a.m. and beiween 3:47 p.m. and 6:17 p.m., and westbound trips leaving 6th & Cedar between 5:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., at 2:45 p.m., and between 3:43 p.m. and 5:15 p.m.. Service east of downtown would be reduced from every 30 minutes fo hourly beiween 9:15 a.m. and 230 p.m. (downtown times). The trips starting at Sun Ray at 9:49 p.m. and at 5th & Minnesota at 10:17 p.m. would be eliminated. Saturday— Service wouid operate from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. rather than from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (downtown times) Sunday— Service would be eliminated. Altemate service for Highland, Cretin, St. Clair and W. 7th St. customers is available on Roufe 63 or Route 74. Alfernate service for some customers east of downtown is available on Route 63, 71 Little Canada - Edgerton St. - DT St Paul - Concord St. - Inver Grove Heights Weekday — Eliminate service north of Skiliman and south of Concord Exchange & Concord. Eliminate midday service fo Brainerd and Edgerton and reduce service north of Cayuga and Mississippi from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes . The trips that leave Sloan & Roselawn at 10:43 p.m. and 6th & Robert at 11:'IS p.m. would be eliminated. Saturday — Service north of Skiliman and south of downtown would be eliminated. Frequency north of Cayuga & Missississippi would be reduced from every 30 minutes to hourly to Westrninster 8 McMenemy. Sunday— Service would begin later, starting with the southbound trip leaving Sloan & Roselawn at 934 a.m. Altemate service in some areas is available on Route 68. In Inver Grove Heights, Route 68 would provide aitemate service rush hours only. 74 Minneapolis - Ford Pkwy. - Randolph Ave. - DT St. Paul - 7th St. E. - Maplewood Weekday—i�ush-hour service (downtown times) would be reduced from every 10-15 minutes to every 15-20 minutes. Service between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Service from 9 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 30 minutes to hourly. Sahrrday — Service between 8 a.m. and 6:45 p.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Service between 9:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 30 minutes to hourly. The trips that Ieave 46th St. Station at 428 a.m. and 6th & Cedar at 5 a.m. would be eliminated. Sunday— Service between 7 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. (downtown times) would be reduced from every 30 minutes to hourly. 75 DT St. Paul - Wabasha St. - Mendota Heights - Robert St. - Inver Grove Heights Weekday — Route 75D service to Park Vew Plaza would be eliminated. Service to Lake Cove Apts. and Cenex would be eiiminated. Route 75F rush-hour service to 54th and Alta would be reduced from every 20-50 minutes to every 60 minutes. Midday service to Livingston and Mendota wouid be reduced from every 30-60 minutes to every 60 Page 6 of 17 3/14/2005 d5-a3� minutes. AII midday service south of Livingston and Mendota Rd. would be eliminated. Service would end at 6:30 p.m. rather than at 1:30 a.m. Saturday and Sunday — All service would be eiiminated. Altemate service is available on routes 67 and 68. 76 St. Paul - Midway Shopping Center - Concordia Ave. - DT St. Paui Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on routes 76, 21, 50 and 65. 87 Rosedale - Fairview Ave. - Raymond Ave. - Cleveland Ave. Saturday — Service would be eliminated. 94 DT Mpls. - I-94 - DT St. Paul Weekday — Route 94B service to the Capitol would be eliminated. Service to River Park Plaza would be eliminated. Service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes between 9 a.m, and 3 p.m. Saturday — Route 948 service to the Capitol woufd be eliminated. Sunday — Route 94B service to the Capitol would be eliminated. Alternate service to the Capitol is available on routes 16 and 50. River Park Plaze service is available on routes 68 and 71. 133 38th St. E. - Cfiicago Ave. S. - Bloomington Ave. S. - DT Mpis. Weekday —These trips wiil be eliminated: northbound trips that leave at 6:20 a.m. and 827 a.m. and southbound trips that leave at 334 p.m. and 4:54 p.m. Alternate service is available on routes 5 and 14. 135 Grand Ave. S. - 35/36th St. W. - DT Mpls. - U of M Weekday — Service to and from the U of M would be eliminated. Moming service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes. Altemate U of M service is available on routes 3, 16, 50 and 113. 144 Snelling Ave. - U of M- DT Mpls. Weekday — The trip that leaves Edgcumbe and Snelling at 638 a.m. would be eliminated. 146 Vernon Ave. - SOth St. W. - DT Mpis. Weekday — Service west of Eden & Vernon would be eliminated. Service would be reduced from every 10-30 minutes to every 15-30 minutes. 156 56th St. W. - 60th St. W. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be reduced from every 1030 minutes to every 15-30 minutes. The southbound shuttle trip that leaves i-35W and Diamond Lake Rd. at 6:24PM would be eliminated. Southbound morning and northbound aftemoon trips beiween downtown and I-35W & Diamond Lake Rd. would be eliminated. 219 Maplewood Mall - Century Ave. - Sun Ray Shopping Center Weekday — Route would be restructured with Route 234 to serve Century College West and East. Page 7 of 17 3/14/2005 05-�31 Saturday — Service would be eliminated. 223 Rosedale - Co. Rd. C- Little Canada - Maplewood Mall Weekday & Saturday — Service would be elimi�ated. Alternate service is available on NEST Dial-a-Ride and new Roseville Dial-a-Ride services. 224 Rosedale - Snelling Ave. - Lexington Ave. - Shoreview Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on new Roseville Dial-a-Ride service. 225 Rosedale - Co. Rd. C- Northwestern College Weekday & Saturday — Service would be eliminated. Some service east of Sneliing Ave. will become part of revised Route 22�. Some altemate service is available on new Roseville Diala-Ride service. 226 Rosedale - Co. Rd. E- Lexington Ave. - Shoreview Community Center Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Some altemate services is available on new Roseville Diala-Ride service and revised Route 227. 227 Rosedaie - Victoria St. - Lexington Ave. Weekday — Service would be combined with portions of Route 225 to operate hourly beiween Target (Shoreview) and Rosedale. Current route service beiween Rosedale and Victoria & Co. Rd. C would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on new Roseville Dial-a-Ride service. Saturday — Service would be eliminated. 234 Century College - Maplewood Mall Weekday — Service would be eliminated and replaced by Route 219. 250 95th Ave. P 8 R Co. Rd. H P 8 R- DT Mpls. Weekday — There would be no service north of 95th Ave. Park & Ride. There would be Iess service on Naples between 95th and Lake Dr. These trips would be eliminated: northbound trips ihat leave at 9:16 p.m. and 11:'16 p.m. and southbound trips that leave at 5:06 p.m., 6:41 p.m. and 10:07 p.m. The 6:19 a.m. northbound and 8:02 a.m. southbound fips would no longer stop at Wells Fargo. Service to downtown Minneapolis would be reduced from 415 minutes to 7-15 minutes southbound between 5:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and from 430 minutes to 8-30 minutes northbound beiween 2:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and operafed with articufated buses. 260 Rosedale - University Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday— Service would be eiiminated between 9:50 a.m. and 2:50 p.m. (7th St times). Service arriving 7th & Marquette between 630 a.m. and 8 a.m. would be reduced from every 5-15 minutes to every 8-20 minutes. The trips now leaving 7th & 2nd Ave. S. at 8:41 p.m. and Rosedale at 9:18 p.m. would be eliminated. Altemate service to Rosedale is available on Route 84 with transfers from Route 16, 50 or 94; customers along University 8 4th St. SE would transfer from Route 6. Page 8 of 17 3/14/2005 �-�3� 262 Shoreview - Rice St - DT St Paul Weekday — Service wiil travel on Hodgson Rd. and Rice St. between Shoreview Community Center and downtown St. Paul. Service north of Tanglewood Dr. would be eliminated. Also, would be reduced to three trips moming and three trips aftemoon. 265 White Bear Lake - Mapiewood Mali - DT St. Paut Weekday — Service north of Maplewood Mall would be eliminated. These trips would be eliminated: southbound trips arriving at 6th 8� Cedar at 8:07 a.m., 9:06 a.m. and 10:02 a.m., and the trip leaving 5th 8 Minnesota at 5:44 p.m. Northbound morning and southbound aftemoon service also would be eliminated. Altemate service from White Bear Lake to Maplewood Mall is available on Lake Area Bus Dial-a-Ride, and between Maplewood MaII and downtown St. Paul on Route 64. 270 Mahtomedi - Maplewood Mall - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service northeast of Maplewood Mall would be eliminated. Frequency of service to downtown Minneapolis would be reduced by one trip in the morning and one in the afternoon, and times adjusted. Altemate service to Birchwood, Willemie and Mahtomedi is available on Lake Area Bus Dial-a-Ride. 275 Centerville Rd. - White Bear Lake - DT St. Paul Weekday — Reduce to operate two trips morning and afternoon between Lino Park and downtown St. Paul. 294 Stillwater • Hwy. 5- 3M - DT St. Paul Weekday — Service east of the St. Croix Park & Ride lot would be eliminated. Service would serve Sun Ray Transit Center. Service would be reduced to 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. trips to/from downtown St. Paul. Two reverse commute trips in the morning and afternoon would continue. 301/304 Woodbury - Weir D. - Valley Creek Rd. - Tamarack Rd. - Radio Dr. Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on routes 352, 353 and 355 from Park & Ride lots. 302 Woodbury - Woodlane Dr. - Tower Dr. Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on routes 352, 353 and 355 from Park & Ride lots. 303 Woodbury - Afton Rd. - Valley Creek Rd. Weekday— Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on routes 352, 353 and 355 from Park 8 Ride lots. 322 Cottage Grove - SOth St. - Jamaica Ave. Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service available on Routes 361, 364 and 365 from Park & Ride lots. Page 9 of 17 3/14/2005 o5-a3 7 350 Maplewood - McKnight Rd. - DT St. Paul Weekday — Route wouid be replaced by a Maplewood shuttle route connecfing with Route 294 at Sun Ray Transit Center. There would be no service on Upper Afton or Londin Lane. 361 Cottage Grove - St. Paul Park - Newport - DT St. Paul Express Weekday— Eliminate midday service between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., and after 6 p.m. and adjust schedule with elimination of Route 362. 362 Cottage Grove - DT St. Paul Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Alfemate service is availab(e on Roufe 361 from the Cottage Grove Park & Ride. 415 Mendota Heights - Eagan - Mall of America Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service to some destinations is available on MVTA Route 446 or on DARTS Diala-Ride. 417 Mendota Heights - DT St. Paul Weekday — Service would be eiiminated. Altemate service is available on DARTS Dial-a-Ride. 452 Mendota Heights - West St. Paul - DT Mpls. Weekday —These trips would be eliminated: the westbound trips arriving at 7th & Hennepin at 6:51 a.m. and 7:50 a.m. and the eastbound fips leaving 6th & Hennepin at 4:31 p.m. and 5:48 p.m.. Other trip times may be adjusted slightly. Service fo the U of M would be eliminated. 515 Southdaie - 66th St. - Richfield - VA Hospital - Mall of America Saturday — Service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes between 8:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. eastbound, and between 8:30 a.m. and 10 a.m. westbound. Service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes between 7 p.m. and 830 p.m. eastbound, and between 6:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. westbound. 535 Bloomington — I-35W — Richfield — Minneapolis — DT Mpls. Weekday — Service leaving downtown after 8 p.m. would be eliminated. Altemate service is availabfe on Route 18. 538 Edina - Southdale - York Ave. - 86th St. - Mall of America Weekday — Service would be reduced from every half hour to hourly between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Service after 7:00 p.m. would be reduced from every 30 minutes to hourly. Saturday — All service after 6:30 p.m. would be eliminated. Sunday — Moming service would start later — at 8:30 a.m. rather than at 6 a.m. — and evening service would end earlier — at 7 p.m. rather than at � 0 p.m. 539 Best Buy — Normandale College — Oid Shakopee Rd. - Mall of America Sunday — Moming service would start later — at 8 a.m. rather than at 6 a.m. Evening service would end earlier— at 6:30 p.m. rather than at 10 p.m. 540 Edina Industrial Park - 76/77th St. - Mall of America Weekday — Service leaving Mall of America after 7 p.m. would be eiiminated. Page 10 of 17 3/14/2005 o5-a�� Saturday — Service leaving Mall of America after 6 p.m. would be eliminated. Sunday— Service leaving Mall of America before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. would be eliminated. 542 Normandale Lakes Office - American Bivd. - Mall of America Weekday — Shuttle service between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and service after 6 p.m. would be eliminated. 553 Bloomington - Richfield -102nd St. - Portland Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service south ot 98th St. would be eliminated. Service would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 554 Bloomington - Richfield - Nicollet Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. 557 Richfield - Lyndale Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Route would be extended on Lyndale Ave. to South Bloomington Transit Center, replacing Route 597A service. Service frequency would not change. 576 Richfield - Penn Ave. - 76th St. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be reduced from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes. 578 Edina - Southdaie - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service south of Southdale would be eliminated. These trips would be eliminated: southbound trips that leave at 622 a.m. and 7:22 a.m. and northbound trips that leave at 4:19 p.m. and 5:06 p.m. Altemate service is available on Route 6. 587 Edina - Valiey View Rd. - DT Mpls. Weekday — The northbound trip that leaves at 6:05 a.m. would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on Route 6. 588 Edina - Cahill Rd. - Benton St. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on Route 578 from the Southdale Park & Ride. 589 Bloomington - Normandale Rd. - Bloomington Ferry - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be restructured to combine Route 5S9C service on Old Shakopee Rd. with Route 589A service on Nesbitt Ave. and 84th St. Route 5896 service would be combined with Route 597. Service would be reduced from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. Moming trips to Bloomington and afternoon trips to downtown Minneapolis would be eliminated. 597 Bloomington - Old Shakopee Rd. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service would be reduced from every 10-15 minutes to every 15-20 minutes. Route 5976 service would be combined with Route 589 on 98th and 102nd streets. Route 597A service would be replaced by Route 557. 604 St Louis Pk. - Wayzata Blvd. - Louisiana Ave. - Excelsior Blvd. Weekday — Service would be eiiminated. Page 11 of 17 3/14/2005 05-�3� Altemate service is available on routes 9 and 12. 605 Hopkins - St Louis Pk. - Sth Ave. - Waiker St. - Wooddale Bivd. - Excelsior Bivd. Weekday & Saturday— Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on Route 17 and Hopkins Hop-a-Ride. 612 Minnetonka — Co. Rd. 10'I - Excelsior Bivd. - Main St - Hopkins Weekday 8 Saturday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on Hopkins Hop-a-Ride and Minnetonka Dial-a-Ride,. 614 Minnetonka - Wayzata Blvd. — Co. Rd. 73 -12th Ave. - Hopkins Weekday & Saturday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on Hopkins Hop-a-Ride and Minnetonka Dial-a-Ride. 641 Minnetonka Bivd. — Hwy. 7— Co. Rd. 101 - Plymouth Rd. - Ridgedale Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Alternate service is available on new Dial-a- Ride service. 661 Eden Prairie - Shady Oak Rd. — Hwy. 62 - Opus II -11th Ave. - Hopkins Weekday — Route would be eliminated. Aitemate service is available on route 12 and 665. 664 Minnetonka - Excelsior Blvd. - Main St. - Hopkins - St. Louis Pk, - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service east of Hopkins would be combined with Route 665, offering three moming and three aftemoon Vips. Service west of Hopkins would be combined with Route 670, offering four moming trips and four aftemoon trips. 665 Opus 11-11th Ave. - Hopkins - DT Mpls. Weekday — Combine with Route 664 to travel on Excelsior Blvd, Hwy. 100 and I-394, offering three morning trips and three afternoon trips. 667 Co. Rd. 701 - Minnetonka Blvd. - 36th Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service between on Co. Rd. 101 between Porter & Hutchins and Minnetonka Blvd. would be eliminated. Route 667E service would be combined with Route 671 to provide service on Minnetonka Blvd. west of Co. Rd. 101. These trips would be eliminated: the eastbound trips arriving at 7th 8 Nicollet at 6:09 a.m and 9:46 a.m. and the westbound fips that leave 8th & Nicollet at 8:06 a.m. and 620 p.m. Departure and arrival times on Route 667B and 667E trips would be adjusted. 668 Hopkins - Texas Ave. - Walker St. - Lake St. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service on Library Lane would be eliminated. 670 Orono — Co. Rd. 19 — Hwy. 7- Hopkirts - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service wouid operate current routing between Spring Park and Porter/Hutchins, traveiing on Excelsior Blvd, Shady Oak Rd, Mainstreet, 5th Ave., Hwy. 7, and express to downtown Minneapoiis. Service on Hwy. 7 belween Hwy. 101 and Sth Ave. would be eliminated. There would be four morning and four aftemoon rush-hour trips. 671 Co. Rd. 19 - Minnetonka Blvd. - Plymouth Rd. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service woultl be eliminated. Route 667E would be rerouted to operate on Minnetonka Boulevard west of County Road 101. East of County Road 101 service would Page 12 of 17 3/14/2005 �5 �3`7 continue along Minnetonka Boulevard to Highway 100 and then Highway 100 to I-394 to downtown. There will be no service along Plymouth Road. Altemate service is available on routes 672, 675 and 677 from Plymouth Rd. Transit Center. 674 Orono - North Shore Dr. - Brown Rd. - Wayzata Blvd. - Carlson Pkwy. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service west of the Wayzata Park & Ride Iot would be eliminated. 675 Mound - Co Rd 15 - Wayzata Blvd. - Ridgedale - Louisiana Ave Transit Center - DT Mpis. Weekday — Rush-hour service west of Wayzata Park 8 Ride would be eliminated. Service along Shoreline Dr. and to Mound Transit Center is available with a transfer to Route 677. Midday service west of the Plymouth Rd. Transit Center would be eliminated. Service to Wayzata Park & Ride and along Shoreline Dr. is available on revised Route 678. 678 Mound - Wilshire Blvd. - Spring Park Weekday — Route 678 would replace Route 675 west of Plymouth Road Transit Center. Route 67S would connect with Route 675 at Plymouth Road Transit Center every two hours between 8:52 a.m. and 3:55 p.m. and would provide current Route 675 service to Co. Rd. 15 & Co. Rd. 19 before becoming a flex route (as it does today). 712 U of M- Brookdale - 36th Ave. — W. Broadway - Washington Ave. Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available via local and express service to downtown with a transfer to Routes 3, 16 and 50 on 4th Street. 775 Brookiyn Park - Broadway - Winnetka Ave. - 42nd Ave. - Robbinsdale Saturday —These trips will be eliminated: the northbound trips that leave at 6:15 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. and the southbound trip that leaves at 6:37 a.m. 716 Brooklyn Park - Zane Ave. — W. Broadway - 42nd Ave. - Robbinsdale Saturday — These trips would be eliminated: the northbound trip that leaves at 8:15 p.m. and the southbound trips that leave at 7:37 a.m. and 7:45 p.m. 723 85th Ave. P& R- 85th Ave. - Zane Ave. - Brooklyn Blvd. - Brookdale Saturday — These trips would be eliminated: northbound trips that leave 8rooklyn Center Transit Center at 636 a.m., 7:34 a.m., and 8:34 a.m., and southbound trips that leave North Hennepin Community College at 5:45 a.m., 7 a.m., and 7:58 a.m. 755 Winnetka Ave. - Golden Valley Rd. - Douglas Dr. — Hwy. 58 -DT Mpls. Weekday — Route 755C service would be eliminated. Route 755A service would be reduced to four trips during rush hours. There would be no rush-hour service on 36th Ave., Louisiana Ave., 32nd Ave. or Olympia Ave. Between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. and after 6 p.m., buses would travel on Winnetka Ave. between Louisiana Ave. Transit Center and 45th Ave. & Xylon Ave. There would be no midday service on Golden Valley Rd., Douglas Dr., Olson Hwy. or Glenwood Ave. 756 Boone Ave. - Mendelssohn Dr. - Golden Vailey Rd. - Douglas Dr. — Hwy. 55 -DT Mpls. Weekday — Rush-hour express service would be reduced to two trips. There would be no rush-hour service beiween 69th & Magda and Boone Ave. & 42nd Ave., on 10th Ave. or on Golden Valley Rd. west of Winnetka. Midday service would be eliminated. Page 13 of 17 3/14/2005 05-a3� 758 Crystal - Douglas Dr. - Duluth St. - DT Mpis. Weekday — Service would be combined with Route 765 to provide service north of 42nd Ave. along Dougias Dr., W. Broadway and 63rd Ave. to 67th & Idaho. Service south of 42nd Ave. would not change. Service on 41sY Ave., Brunswick Ave. and 42nd Ave. would be eliminated. 761 Brooklyn Park - Noble Ave - Shingle Creek Bkwy - Xences Avr 49th Ave - DT Mpis Weekday — These trips would be eliminated: the southbound trips that arrive at 6:38 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. at 7th & Marquette and the northbound trip that leaves at 339 p.m, at 7th St. 8� 2nd Ave S. The Route 762 trip arriving 7tFi & Marquetfe at 7:48 a.m. and departing 7th St. 8 2nd Ave S. at 4:41 p.m. woufd operate to Brooklyn Center Transit Center. 762 Crysta� - 65th Ave. - Bass Lake Rd. - Humboldt Ave. - 49th Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Downtown service would be consolidated with Route 761 and shuttie trips and service north of Brooklyn Center Transit Center would be eliminated. The 7:48 a.m. trip that arrive at 7th & Marquette and the 4:41 p.m. trip that leaves 7th St. & 2nd Ave S. would begin or end at Brooklyn Center Transit Center. Altemate service is available on routes 724 or 760. Would retain the two downtown trips as a part of Route 761. 763 85th Ave. - Brookdale Dr. - Humboldt Ave. - 66th Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — These trips would be eiiminated: the southbound trips that leave at 6:42 a.m. and 7:14 a.m. and the northbound trip that leaves at 6:10 p.m. Moming service would be operated with articuiated buses. 764 New Hope - Broadway Ave. - Winnetka Ave. - 42nd Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — These trips would be eliminated: the southbound trip that leaves at 7:09 a.m. and the northbound trip that leaves at 532 p.m. 765 Crystal - 63rd Ave. - W. Broadway - Douglas Dr. - 36th Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service on Oougfas Dr. soufh of 36th Ave. would be repfaced by Route 755. Service on 36th Ave would be eliminated. The northbound trip that leaves at 6 p.m. would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on Route 19. 766 Champlin - W. River Rd. - Noble Ave. - 97th Ave. - Hwy. 252 - DT Mpls. Weekday — Northbound service on W. River Rd. would be reduced from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. Some morning and evening reverse commute service southbound before 10:00 a.m. and northbound after 3:30 p.m. and all service to Target North Campus would be eliminated. 801 Brookiyn Center- Brookdale - Columbia Heights - Sliver Lake Viliage - Rosedale Weekday — Service would be eliminated. 805 Anoka - Main St. - Northdale Bivd. - Egret Blvd. - University Ave. - Northtown Weekday — Service would be consolidated with Route 818, following the current Route 805 between Northtown and Northdaie & 119th. Buses would travel on Northdale Blvd. to 124th Ave., then follow current Route 818 routing to the Riverdale shopping areas and downtown Anoka. Service to Rum River Human Services, 119th Ave., Riesling Dr., Wedgewood Dr., Main St. east of 7th Ave., and west of downtown Anoka would be eliminated. Saturday — Service wouid be replaced by new routing. The route would operate between downtown Anoka and the Riverdale shopping areas only. Buses would travel on 3rd Ave., Page 14 of 17 3/14/2005 o�-a� Monroe St, 1st Ave., Madison St., 4th Ave., Grant St., 9th Ln., and North St. to Riverdale Village, Riverdale Crossing and Riverdale Commons. Altemate service would be provided by Anoka Traveler Dial-a-Ride. 8'18 Anoka - 4th Ave. - Riverdale Crossing - Riverdale Commons Weekday & Saturday — Route would be combined with Route 805. 824 Northtown - University Ave. - DT Mpis. Weekday — Service north of 53rd & University would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on Routes 10, 831 and 854. 827 DT Mpls. — E. River Rd. - Fridley - Coon Rapids Blvd. - Anoka - Main St Weekday — Route would be replaced by revised Route 852. Service south of I-694 would 6e eliminated. Hourly service on E. River R. north of 1-694 would 6e available on Route 852. Rush-hour service north of Foley Park 8� Ride would be available on Route 850, with limited service every 30 minutes to Anoka Metro Center and Anoka Hennepin Technical College. Service beyond Anoka Metro Center along 7th Ave., Bunker Lake Blvd. and Round Lake Bivd. would be eliminated. Altemate service south of St Anthony Pkwy. is available on Route 11. Alternate service north ot Anoka Metro Center is avaifable on Route 851. 829 Coon Rapids - University Ave. - Central Ave. - DT Mpls. Weekday — Service north of Hwy. 10 would be eliminated. Service would end at Northtown. Alternate service beiween Universiry & 117th and Northtown is availabie on Route 831. 831 Blaine - University Ave. - Poik St. - Northtown Saturday — Service would be eliminated. Altemate service is available on Anoka Traveler Dial-a-Ride. 850 Coon Rapids - Hanson Blvd. - Coon Rapids Bivd. - Foley P& R- DT Mpis. Weekday — Service on the 850N and 850R branches would be eliminated. Rush hour service at Foley Park and Ride would be reduced southbound between 630 and 9:00 a.m. from 3-18 minutes to every 5-18 minutes. Northbound service would be reduced from 2-11 minutes to 4-15 minutes between 3:15 and 5:00 p.m. Service would be reduced north of Foley to every 30 minutes rather than every 20 minutes. North of Foley, select trips would be restructured to include Route 854 service to Paul Parkway. Service beyond the Anoka Metro Center would be eliminated. Altemate service on Northdale and Robinson is available on Route 505. Service beyond Anoka Metro Center is available on Route 851. 852 DT Mpls. - East River Rd. - Fridley - Coon Rapids Bivd. - Anoka - Main St. Weekday — Route 852 would be combined with Route 827 to provide houriy service on Coon Rapids Bivd. and limited service to Anoka Metro Center and Anoka Hennepin Technical College. Service beyond Anoka Metro Center on 7th Ave., Bunker Lake Blvd., and Round Lake Bivd. would be eliminated. Saturday — Service south of Northtown would be eliminated. Aitemate service north of Anoka Metro Center is available on Route 851. Alternate service between Northtown and downtown Minneapolis is available on Route 10. Page 15 of 17 3/14/2005 c�5-a3� Altemate service between Northtown and I-694 is available on Anoka Traveler Dial-a- Ride. 854 Coon Rapids - Blaine - University Ave. - Northtown - DT Mpis. Weekday — All service north of Northtown would be eiiminated. Route 854C service north of 105th to Paul Pkwy. would be combined with Route 850. Page 16 of 17 3/14/2005 05-a �7 Dial-a-Ride reductions: 246 Stillwater, Bayport, and Oak Park Heights. Weekday — Service would be reduced to provide less service to current area. One bus would serve the same area and hours. 300 Woodbury Weekday — Service would be reduced to provide less service to current area. One bus would serve the same area and hours. 320 Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, Newport Weekday — Service would be reduced to provide less service to current area. One bus would serve the same area and hours. 641 Navarre, Tonka Bay, Shorewood, Excelsior, Deephaven Weekday — Service would be eliminated. Metro Mobility and other ADA services: Pick-ups and drops would be available within one mile of a remaining regular bus route that provides primarily, all-day, fixed route service. Under the proposal, the service area would no Ionger follow municipal boundaries. The one-mile service area remains well within the federal guideline, which requires that service be delivered only within'/<-mile of a regular bus route. Page 17 of 17 3/14/2005 Council File # • a�� GreenSheet# 3025770 Presented By Referred To RESOLUfiION CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA C �uu �-- ��T�= ►y 1 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council consents to and approves the appointments and 2 reappointments, made by the Mayor, of the following individuals to serve on the Mayor's Advisory Committee 3 for People with Disabilities. 4 5 Name 6 Francis Bazbosa 7 Sister Frances Benz 8 Scott Coleman 9 Lee Lo 10 Sandra Rausch 11 Keith Schmalzbauer 12 Timberly Williams 13 14 Name 15 Timothy Benjamin 16 Michelle Bergman 17 Lori Dowell 18 Thomas Heinl 19 Mark Hughes 20 Jean LaClaze 21 Daniel Reed 22 Rachel Wilcox Anuointments Term Ex�res June 30, 2006 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2007 June 3Q, 2006 June 30, 2007 Rea�ointments Term Expires June 30, 2007 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2006 June 30, 2007 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � n� 1'2 Ct DepartrneMloffice/council: Datelnitiated: VJ— nno ��0{5�� ,�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025770 Cor�ct Person & Phone- DeoarhneM Se�k To Person Initial/Date KurtSchul� � 0 a or'sOffice 266-6590 p��yn 1 or'sOffice De rtmentDirector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number y me Por Routing 3 a or's Office Ma or/Assistant Ofder 4 ouncil 5 ' Clerk (,7 Clerk Totai # of SignaWre Pages _(Clip All Locations for SignaWre) Action Requested: Approval of the appointments, made by the Mayor, of Francis Bazbosa, Sister Frances Benz, Scott Coleman, I,ee Lo, Sandra Rausch, Keith Schmalzbauer and Timberly V✓illiams and the reappoinhnenu of Timothy Benjamin, Michelle Bergman, Lori Dowell, Thomas Heinl, Mazk Hughes, Jean LaClare, Daniel Reed and Rachel Wilcox to serve on the Mayor's Advisory Coxnmittee for People with Disabiliries. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm everworked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirtn ever been a city employee? Yes No � 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No 6cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantapes If Approved: Disadvantaqes If Approved: Disadvanqges If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosUR2venue Budgeted: Transaction: �!g!�$� ��?�^c`YP�'i �'sE?Tl�'$f Fundinq Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: MAR 1 �/ ° ZQUJ (Explain) (Y,- a3� CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor 390 Ciry Hal1 IS West Ke[[ogg Bou[evard Sairzt Pau1, MN 55102 To: Saint Paul Citv Councilmembers Council President Kathy Lantry Councilmember Jay Benanav Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Pat Harris Councilmember Lee Helgen Councilmember Debbie Montgomery Councilmember Dave Thune From: Kurt Schultz Date: � March 16, 2005 TeLephone: 657-266-85I0 Facsimi le: 651-266-8513 Mayor's Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities Mayor Kelly has recommended the appointment of Francis Barbosa, Sister Frances Benz, Scott Coleman, Lee Lo, Sandra Rausch, Keith Schmalzbauer and Timberly Williams to the Mayor's Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities. The terms of Mr. Barbosa, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lo, and Mr. Schmalzbauer shall expire on June 30, 2006. The terms of Sister Benz, Ms. Rausch, and Ms. Williams shall expire on June 30, 2007. Mayor Kelly has also recommended the reappointment of Timothy Benjamin, Michelle Bergman, Lori Dowell, Thomas Heinl, Mazk Hughes, Jean LaClare, Daniel Reed, Rachei Wilcox to the Mayor's Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities. The terms of Ms. Bergman, Ms. Dowell, Mr. Heinl, and Mr. Reed shall expire on June 30, 2006. The terms of Mr. Benjamin, Mr. Hughes, Ms. LaClare, and Ms. Wilcox shall expire on June 30, 2007. Attached is a copy of the resolution nominating these individuals as well as applications for the new appointments. Please remember that certain information on the applications is classified as private and should not be released to the public. Feel free to contact me at 266-6590 if you have any questions regarding these appointments and reappointments . Attachments cc. Karen Divina � Council File # ��, Resolution # Green Sheet # ✓U� lD(L�" Presented By Re£erred to RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �5 Committee: Date 1 WHEREAS, the City and Allied Management Company 2 entered into an agreement, dated January I 8, 2001, allowing Allied 3 Management Company to provide management and operation of Wategate 4 Marina, and 5 W HEREAS, the City and Allied Management Company wish to 6 amend the agreement to permit Allied Management Company to provide 7 dockage and/or storage within Watergate Marina to vessels licensed by the 8 City to provide cruise and/or charter service, now, therefore, be it 9 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council authorizes City 10 officials and staff to amend the January 18, 2001, agreement with Allied 11 Management Company to permit Allied Management Company to provide 12 dockage and/or storage within Watergate Marina to vessels licensed by the 13 City to provide cruise and/or charter service. �. - � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � -a3� DepartmenUoffice/council: Date Initiated: PR -p��andR�b� 10.MAR-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025664 ' CoMact Person & Phone: ' Unce Giilespie 266-6408 ' Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): y Assign Num6er For Routing Order Deoaftment SentTOPefSOn IMUaWate � � � 0 arlcs aod Recreafion � � � e "'� � 1 itv Attomev � � � 2 i �vor's Office � �' 3 ouocil 4 �Parks aod Recrea6on . �� r � 6 �� ', MAR 11 2005 Total # of Signature Pages � (Clip Ali Locations for Signature) Authorize the Division of Parks and Recreation to amend a January 18, 2001, agreement with Allied Management Company to permit Allied Management Company to provide dockage and/or storage within Watergate Marina to vessels licensed by the City to provide cruise and/or charter service. xecommentlaflons: Approve (a) or rte)ec[ �tt): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service CoMracts 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Dces this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by a�y current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet �'�, Initiating Probtem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): l Saint Paul Pazks and Recreation wishes to amend a January 18, 2001, agreemem with Allied Management Company to pemut Allied I Management Company to provide dockage and/or storage within Watergate Mazina to vessels licensed by the City to provide cruise ; and/or charter service. The City believes that a crnise and/or charter service would be a beneficial amenity to Watergate Marina. Advantaaes If Approved: Saint Paul residerns and visitors would have a new cruise and/or charter service and recrearion amenity available in Watergate Marina. The City believes that a cmise and/or charter service would be a beneficial amenity to Watergate Marina. Disadvantaqes If Approved: None Disadvantages If Not Approved: A new, Watergate Maiina cruise and/or charter service would not be available to Saint Paul residents and visitors. 'otal Amount of � � Transaction: Fundina source: License Fee CostlRevenue Budgeted: N Activity Number: 330-23160 Financial Information: $S,OOO license fee paid to the City of Saint Paul. (Explain) � �"�� R�scG�.�,,.s. ,rmn,.x,.t : . r. � ;. ��.. � 1�.., � �� „ � � � �� „ � �o . ROUTII�F RBEIt. ,� � � �� , � Below sre coirect routin for th � most frequenttypes of documenfs: ° &s e s�' 1. genc L Depac�ent ec � budgets! CT5 (sssumes aufhoriz.ed budget exists) COFTNCIf. BESOk; ON amend aecept grents) , , , ��Ou6stde A � y � � ' � . 'D"s tor � � � � , , ' , � �� 2. 'Bepa"r�entD¢�r � � � 2 Offiee ofEmancial Services�Director , ., „ � � 3, ' CdA Affo,meY�' � � � � � � � 3. C' AtCOme9 � ' � � � �4. MayorFAssistanY (forcontrects over $Z5,000) � 4- MaYodAssist�t � � � � � � � � � � � � , 5. F3�anRigSts(forcbntracts,over$50;000), 5. CiFy;Conncil " 6. O�ce o€Ei�naociai Secvicps - Accounting � ' � 6 Offibe'of�mancial �Services� - Accounting � � � , ADMSNISTRATiVE ORDERS,(BudgetRevision) COUNCII. RES(7Li7TION (all othas and Ordinances� ' ' 1. ActivitylvfanagerorDeparfinentAccoimtmmt 1. Department,Direcfor , 2. Departmedt D'sector .` 2. , City Attnmey f � � 3.,OffceofFinancialSecvices,Directot ' � 3. Majror%A:ssistant .', � � 4 � � 4. City C1erk 4 Citp'CounciI ' 5. O�ce ofFinancial Services'-.Accoimtmg , �iymais�rxn� oxDEas (au o�j . ' ' �c�rrivE oxnIIi , 1 �Dep'�tmentD;iedoz��, � �l.,Depa�encDfrectoi , � �' Z i CityAttorneY" ., ' '' 2. CitF ,,�AtEox�ey � � � � ' 3 ° OfficeofEin�cistServioesDirector; ' 3 M�orlAssist�t' 4.' 'Ci " Clerk 4. CIe�tc �Y C� nF „ ; TOTAL NUMBER OR SIGNATURE PAGES „ 7ndicate the# on wht`ch si ere' aadi a emit orfla eacli o[ ' e a of, thea „ � � � .�Y F,, P S P�,.� � � � , paSas , gnatrses re4¢�red _,. , „ , , „ , , ACTIONREQUESTED ' Descnbe whaY,the Pro,j�fce4uest seeks to accomplish ia erther cbeonologicat order or,oider �i�poxtance,,,w3uchever is ' most appropriate fortfie issae. Do �t write complefe sentences. Begm each iEem m'po� tist witfi e vech. � b „. " �1' ° � RECOluA4ENDATIONS Completeiftbeissueinquestionhasl�eenptesentedbeforeanY'�Y Publicorprroate. PER$ONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This ivformstion witI'be used to dekeimine the city's liahi2ity�or workers aompensatiaa cl�ims, taxes and proper ctvil � � sexvicehiring�iules. � � � � �� created a nced for ois 3 4� � T7NGPROBI��ISS{7E OPPO � � � � �� Explsin the situarion or conditions that y pro'ect or re est � �, , ADVANLAGES IF APPROVID Indicafe whether tLis is simQly � affinai budgetproced}ue zequired by Iaw/c , hartec or whetfier there are specifi'c ways in . �chtfieCi acid ProJ � ' , wiu fyofSaintPani, itscitizenswillbenefitfromthSs' ect/sction: , „ D egeh changes' -'„ � ISAD�kANTAGESIFAP�RGV�D�� ,'�� "� � �� ( g.` � ts�c' ' , ' ' , , � � , , Wlistn' ve effects or ta e:osbng or P�PF�$ �8hf f�C ProJeck/zequestP=oduce if rt�s passed , e ,�tiafficdelays,no�se �acreasesoressessments)7 Towhom2 When7Forhowlon�2 � WhatwiIt;befSenegati N wnsegaences' promised Lsn app veii7Iuah�7itytodeliver � � DLSADVANf T t1PPROV�'D � , ve if the ackon ' of ro seivice? Continne , Irigh t�c, noise; accident iate?' I.oss of revenue7 — , FINANCIAL 1MPACT , Alth " om m�st'tailor tfie iuformafion rovide here to tfie issiie u are'addr in" eneral on must answer �X , Y�P �� , �� 8.� 8,,,. �„Y. '' ucstions How.much is oing go g to twoq it'g to'coSt7 SVfio'is� m paj�?' , . , � , � � ' � 1I � � � �� „ i ��S'n � � � �� . �� ,,� p5-a3� FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of the day of March, 2005, by and between the CITY OF ST. PALTL, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the "City") and Allied Management, a corporation registered in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "ALLIED", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the ALLIED have entered into an Agreement, dated as of January 18, 2001 (the "Agreement°) in connection with the Management and Operation of W ategate Marina by ALLIED; and WIIEREAS, the City and the ALLIED wish to amend the agreement to permit ALLIED to provide dockage and/or storage within the Marina to vessels licensed by the City to provide cruise and/or charter service; NOW, THEREFORE, Parties, in consideration ofthe promises and covenants herein, agree as follows. Subsection 6.2.7 of the Agreement is amended as follows: 6.2.7 To not rent dockage or storage to any individual or entity whose primary purpose is to conduct business at that location, or knowingly allow any of its customers to temporarily or permanently conduct retail or commercial transactions within WATERGATE marina except as provided in 6.2.71. This does not preclude slip holders from entertaining guests, nor does it prohibit slip holders from conducting personal business or work related to their employment while on their boat. 6.2.7.1 To allow ALLIED to enter into an agreement to rent dockage and(or storage within WATERGATE marina to a cruise vessel operation having a license with the City of Saint Paul to operate as a cruise and/or charter service using the Watergate Marina location. Any such dockage/storage agreement must contain a provision which allows for terxnination of the dockage/storage in the event of termination of the license by the City to operate the service from that location. 2. Except as herein amended, all terxns and provisions of the Management Agreement as originally executed as of January 18, 2001 sha11 remain in full farce and effect. 45'a3°t IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this document to be executed on the date first written above. FORM APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney President ADied Management Company CITY OF SAINT PAUL: Mayor Director of Parks and Recreation Director of Financial Services Louncll H'lle # � -aa� Green Sheet # 3025529 RESOLUTION OF S�INT PAUL, MINNESOTA Pxesented Refeued To Committee Date � (� 1 2 3 4 5 RESOLVED, ttiat the rate of pay for the classification of Golf Worker III be established at the rate set fozth in Grade 15U of Bazgaining Unit 72, Groundsworkers Local #132, Salary Schedule, and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shail take effect and be in force on the first pay period following its passage and approval. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav r/ Bostrom ✓ x� ✓ Helgen i/ Lantry ✓ Montgomery ✓ Thune ✓ � d � � ... -. . . . �. - �/ � o � ��• - � -� � • - ,�i%� � � i ... ..��..- � '�i� � �, ��-�� Requested by Deparhnent oE Office of Human Resources By: � Form Appro by ttorney g ` `--"/' for '� DEPARTMENT/OI+FICEICOUIY.CII.: . I DATE INITYATED � GREEN SHEET Human Resources 3/15/OS _ CONTACI' PERSON & PHONE: :vlichelle LeBow 266-6514 I.eeAnn Turchin 266-6517 Mi1ST BE ON COUNCII. AGENDA BY (DATE) ASSIGHED NUMBEAFOR ROUTING ORDER 3MAYDR(ORASSC.) TOTAL#OFSIGNATURE ALL LOCATIONS FOR INPCIAI/DATE t DEPAItTMENI DIlt � 2QiYA1T0&NEY (�VC . FQJpNQAL SE2V D@ c� No.:3025529 �-a�tD� < crrc�oN+�u, r.�.�:. I�`ITTAI/DATE ncrioN �QvESren: Approve the attached resolution establishing the rate of pay for the new ciassification titled Golf Worker III in Grade 15U, of Bazgaining Unit 72, Crroundsworker Local #132 Salary Schedule. RECpD Appmve (A) or Reject (R) _PLANNING COMMISSION _Ci6 COMM[T[EE CIVIl. SERVICE COhfMISSION PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWIhfG QUESTIOn'S: 1. Yas this pe�sodEvm ever worked under a contract for tltis deparm�enCl Ya No 2. Has tLis pecsrn✓f¢m everbern a city employee? Yes No 3. Doesthispersod5[mpossessasldllmtnom�allyposscssedbyanY�urtentcitYemployee? Yu No 4. ls this person/ficm a targeted vrndoCl Yes No Ezplaiu all yes answus on separate Sheet and atteCh to g�¢en Sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who� What, When, Where, Why): The Division of Pazks and Recreation requested that Huxnan Resources study the composite duties of a group of positions to determine the appropriate classification within the Groundsworker job group. Our office deternuned that the positions should be allocated to the new classification titled Golf Worker III. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Appropriate compensation will be assigned to the new classification in accordance with the City's job evaluation system. � � DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Salary cost is $1,549.60 biweekly and $40,444.56 annually. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: MAR 11 2Q05 1 �� :� � . Appropriate compensation will not be assigned to the new classification. This may limit the City's ability to successfuliy recnut, lure and retain qualified candidates who possess the laiowiedge, skills and trauung required to effectively maintain, provide care and improve golf courses. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: FUNDING SOURCE: FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIl� COST/REVENUE BUDGETED: Yes ACTIVITY NUMBER: Ctass Work\Golf Worker lIDGolf Worker III Green Sheet.wpd , ROUTiNGORDER ' .. � � � , . , . . , cocrect for the suc most � �Beloware routing, Sreqaeeotfy�esofdoc�ents. � CONTRAC,TS (assumes �thorize�l budget ezosts) ' COT)NCII. RF�SOLULION Camevd bud8etsla�Pt g�ti�), � � 1�, Outside'Ag!eac.9 ' ' , 1 ��'�� . " � , � ��t� � � � 2 Office�a€E'�n�eiat'ServicesD�rector � � C1tyt�ttpaney� 3. C� ' 4lv7apor/A�sntlTorconhecisov�'$2 4 : �Assistaut � , , s: x�anRig�,(rorca�ovee$Sa,000) s_ cityy�co�1 ' ' ' � . 6. Office ofBin�ciaL Services - Accowrtmg . b: Office ofFinancisl Savices -.4ccomtinB '„ � � � �� an�usi�z.a� oizv�s ��cx�s��> ; courrei� x�soiu�orr,<an oii� �a ora;��},, 1: 2,ctivityMsnegerorDepa�enY:Aeco�tmmt 1. Depa�ntD,rector , 2 I�paztraentDirectar; 2. Cit�tlitomey � � 3: ,OtF�ceofFm��cial5e�vicesDuector� �� 3. Maya'/,�A, s�s� "' � � � `4. CitgCTerk 4:'CitpGwnc� , 5. O�ce ofFina�al Se�vices Accounhng . .„ " ,,' ADMIPIISTRATiVE ORDIILS (all ofl�ers) ' EXECUITVE ORDER 1.' Depathn�ttl�irectoi' , 1 DePaz�mtDmeebor , hII � � ' � � � � '' ,�,. � � C , . �� , , ��i � Z''L''i�.y��` , ' ,' , � �� ,' , p � 3� O�ceofFio�cialSavicesDi�ector, 3 1�Y�� r � 4. Ci Cle.dc ', � 4' ', Cikg,Clak ' $` �� - � � � , � '£OTAf.NUMSE20FSIQU'ATURFIPA(�ES " ' ' " � , „ 7ndicate the #'a�p� on wlucfi signatures, are req�?.d a�d PaPe��P oTfl?S �, �,��PaS�^ „ :. ., . , , ,�, ,,,� , „, ' , �r,�� ,',, �, ',i , , �-,, , , , ; , � � . � "' i. ' � ACTIONRE�UESTID,��' �� ' � � , � � ��, � , �� De�a'be cvhat ti� prcyecF/r� seeTcs to ace�mp1ishm either chrOaologiest order�,ordeS a�'import�ce, vchicLever �s , most,appaopc�te „` , ' camp � , Y� � . , ,, , ' fa� �e issue. Do not wcite lete sentence.s.' eacfi'rtem m ]istwrth a vecir � � � AECOMIvv�33I7ATION3'�' ', �� ,' � � � �� '' � c,�� i�� g�� r� � ��r r�r�� . r M NAL pII2S0 SERVICE CQ2�'t1tACTS; � I I '1Lis iafcxmati�w�l bensadto dete�ine �e ci4p's liabtl[LXfor wo�keis co�easahon clams„t�ces and ptopa c1vi1 ' � �� . � �� , , � r, birmgiates• „ savice INII7ATINCrPROBLEL� IS3UE, OPPORTUNITY 1�n'the: staafi� � coaditi�s'ttiat created a ffiedf�yc�pm}ect orieqoest �, ,,, I„ , , AD VAN1'AGE S' SF' APPItO VED . , . , m Indicafe wh�'flvs �s s�ply an a�al bi�get pinc:ed�ne�ieqmred bp IawAchmter �wliefherthere �e spec�c,ways„ " �S�tP�Imditscitaenswt7lbenefiCfrom9tis ' 'ect/acfi�. , which the C�ty Prol , D7SADVANTA4�SIFAPPRO�ID ' ' j , � I� �� assed m or ast mi t,t1u� P 'or PI� ' e e�Cts �' �S , P P�, Sh P�J� E��4� japs nrn�,�mc�orassessments}? Towfiom7 W�ert2Fonbow`I�g�l i „ . . DISADVANT?,GES IF NOT APPROVID if the sdion ig nof � dehver service4 Coahnue , �VftatwHlbe�aegahQe'c.onseq�s Pro�s� L ePPm�ed2 �nabil�tY �ha�c,noi§e�accid�trste7 LossofFevenueY � FII3ANCT:4I, II4IPACT, " �� ou mast answer � I 'dehece to the �ssne Y, Alth?ughYonmusttailorU}erofo�aha�nyoapcovt �ss Yon + 8. ,8�� . w is it ta cost?' Wito is to � hvo �ons.' I�o mach, &P�S P$Y � B��B „� 4�, „' „ � �� ^' , . , „ , i . � � � „ � . „ , „ � � � � . � � � � � � � � � � � ��,, , ��; ,� r ,, „ r ,' i' i ,, ii . , i 1..�1 , w, ., �1'�� i'. L�: . �;P; ��i il�� q i��S, ii i i I q,.;�i1 � a 1 �� . � I ',^ � i i i i { i,�� ,..�� The City of Saint Paul Class Specification Proposed Tifle of Class: DESCRIPTION OF WORK GOLF WORKER III as-a�to CODE: 283B BU: 72 Effective: General Statement of Duties: Performs manual labor related to the maintenance, caze and improvement of golf courses; drives vehicles and operates equipment used for maintenance of golf courses; and performs related duties as required. Sunervision Received: Works under the close technical and general supervision of a unit supervisor; Golf Course Superintendent or Golf Course Assistant Superintendent. Supervision Exercised: May lead the work of lower-level temporary employees as directed. TI'PICAL DUTIES The listed examples may not include all the duties performed by all positions in this class. Perfoixns and works with crews engaged in the maintenance acrivities of a municipal golf course including: irrigating; fertilizing; repairing and mowing turf; pruning trees and bushes; and applying chemicals to turf. PerForms and works with crews engaged in special projects at a municipal golf course including: rebuilding tees, greens and sand traps; aerating tees, greens and fairways; installing and repairing draining tiles and irrigarion equipment; and building and repairing golf cart paths. Assists with inspecring the condition of the golf course; diagnosing turf diseases and applying the appropriate chemical treahnents. Assists with the implementation of a turf management program. Assists with applying the appropriate chemicals and operaring the equipment needed for effecfive turf management. COMPETENCIES Demonstrates an understanding of the appropriate work methods for the safe and proper use of tools, machines and equipment used to maintain the golf course grounds. Demonstrates an understanding of the range of standard methods, pracrices, tools and equipment used to maintain greens on a municipal golf course. Demonstrates an understanding of chemicals used in golf course turf management and their effects, side effects and groper application methods. Demonstrates ability to apply the procedures and techniques of turf management as they relate to a municipal golf course. Demonstrates an ability to follow established safety practices and caze-of-equipment procedures, and demonstrates an ability to physically perform the required maintenance on a municipal golf course. Demonstrates an ability to make minor repairs to equipment, tools and golf course buildings. Demonstrates ability to assist with keeping records and reports related to golf course maintenance operations. Demonstrates ability to drive and operate all specialized vehicles and self-propelled equipment necessary to maintain a municipal golf course. Demonstrates an ability to deal courteously and effectively with the public; and to work effectively with the immediate supervisor, golf shop supervisory staff and Division personnel. Demonstrates an ability to effecrively listen, speak, write and interact within a work group, the public and customers. GOLF WORKER III Page 1 Proposed Title of Class: GOLF WORKER III CODE: 283B BU: 72 Effective: O� �a�D Demonstrates effecrive team work by being self morivated, accepting and complering assi�ments within deadlines, and ability to assist with the training of subordinate staff in turf maintenance procedures. Demonstrates an ability to respond to requests for information or service from customers and citizens. Demonstrates a commitment to established customer service standards. MINIMCTM QUALIFICATIONS Must be at least eighteen (18) yeazs of age. Must have 2080 hours of experience as a Golf Worker (seasonal) or equivalent. Must possess a valid Commercial=s Driver=s License with endorsements for tanker and hazardous materials and no restricfion for air brakes, with no suspensions for driving-related offenses or revocarions within the two-year period prior to date of appoinhnent. License must include sldd loader and truck trailer combinarions that exceed DMV regulations. Must provide proof of Non-Commercial Pesticide Applicatofs License including categories A& E to the hiring authority by time of appointment. Must maintain pesticide license. Must be available to work flexible hours and work when required. GOLF WORKER III Page 2 OFFICE OF HUMAN RFSOURCFS Angvla S. Naleary, Dirumr SAINS PAIIL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rmidy c. Kvl(x Ma�m 400 Ciry Hali Annu TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bob Bierscheid, Director Parks and Recreation Michelle LeBow, Human Resources Consultant Office of Human Resources February 22, 2005 Twenty Day Notice 25 Wesc Fourrh Screec SBncPmd,Mdmesom 55102-7631 fa¢ard7es: � �5-aya TelepFmne: 651-266-6500 JoW"a�e 651-266-6502 4'" Floor: 651-292-7656 652-266-5886 5* Flaor. 651-266-6495 T � c� % 3-: ,. 1 T r , � m m --,�,�, rv �. ; = � c: : _ - c ��, c -� �-. � x �� o c�c_. r t - f`J L. W Pursuant to City of Saint Paul, Civil Service Rule 3. (C), this letter is to infoxm you that a new classification of Golf Worker III will be placed in Grade i5U of L,ocal #132, Crroundsworkers bargainuig unit # 72 salary schedule. Please review the proposed classification specification and contact me ifyou haue any questions or concerns no later than March 11, 2005. The Twenty-Day Notice period ends on March 14, 2005. I can be reached by e-mail at michelle.lebow(cr�,ci.stpaul.mn.us or by telephone at 651/266-6514. I�'e'f,T.�� u - � I haue received this memorandum and wish to waive the time remaining on this Twenty-Day Public Notice. �-�-� -�� - a� -�-� Signature Date G:�Shazed\Org.Design\Consultant-LeBowuVIichelle's Class Work�20 day.firedept.doc OFFICE OF HLMr1N RESOIIRCES Aqqe(a S. Nale�y, DirecTOr SA[NT CTI`Y OF SAINT PAUL PAUL � RaadyC. Ke!!y, Mayo� IIAAA February 22, 2005 440CryHallAanex 25WestFourrh Sueet SamtPaul, M'mnero� S5IOE1631 Fa�vmiler. Gazy Reed, Business Manager Tom Besaw, Business Agent Laborers L,ocal #132, Groundsworker 346 Larpenteur Avenue West St. Paui, MN 55113 Re: Twenty Day Notice Deaz Mr. Reed and Mr. Besaw: � -a� Telephone: CSI-266Cv00 jobGne 651266G502 4° F7oor. G51 E727C56 C512658886 S F7oor. 651-266£�95 Pursuant to City of Saint Paul, Civil Service Rule 3. (C), this letter is to inform you that a new classification of Golf Worker III will be placed in Grade 15U of Local #132, Crroundsworkers bazgaining unit # 72 salary schedule. Please review the proposed classification specification and contact me if you have any questions or concerns no later than March 11, 2005. The Twenty-Day Notice period ends on Mazch 14, 2005. I can be reached by e-mail at michelle.lebowna,ci.stpaul.mn.us or by telephone at 651/266-6514. Attachment. Sincerely, Michelle LeBow Human Resources Consultant Office of Human Resources t�i 3 � 3 i � 7_ , � �: i� w �.. _: < �:.� .-- � � -��. - � C�r rr,.- � �� I haue received this letter and wish to waive the time remaining on this Twenty-Day Public Notice. ��r/ 02^�^0� Signature Date G:\Shazed\Org.Design\Consultant-LeBow�Michelle's Class Work�20 day.Loca121.signature.doc councu r ue � n5 -a� 1 Green Sheet # 3025531 OF Presented Referred To RESOLUTION NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee Date l� RESOLVED, that the rate of pay for the classification of Golf Program Outreach Coordinator 2 0 be established at the rate set forth in Grade 021 of Bazgaining Unit Ol, AFSCME Clerical #2508 Salary Schedule, and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that tUis resolution shall take effect and be in force on the first pay period following its passage and approval. : ..-�= . '- � :. � . �� --� ��-- - =��-- . . , �-- .. _... �-- '— — �'', AdoptedbyCouncil: Date //�//�lPli o�3,0��1/.i Requested by Department of: Office of Huwan Resources By: Form Appro by C' By: _ Appxov d Mayor for By: � � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary �� , . . DEPARTMENP/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INITfATED _/ ` � HumanResources 3/15/OS GREEN SHEET No.: 3o2s531 �j-a�' CONTACi' PERSON & PHONE: l[�i'fWUnATE Irv117ai✓nATE " Michelle LeBow 266-6514 f DEPA[tibfENf DIIt �_ < c,,Y�o�,�,cg. LeeAnnTurclvn266-6517 ,�� Zcrr�Ana� �,� c�c� NUNffiERFOR MUSTBEONCOUNCII.AGEYDABY(DATE) gOVLING �,v.tc�p�sncvnm ta+a�cw[.ssev/acct� � ORDE2 � 3MAYOR(ORASSC.) TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CL7P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) acrcoiv xxeQVesxEn: Approve the_attached resolution establishing the rate of pay for the new classification titled GoLf Program Outreach Coordinator in Grade 021, of Bargaining Unit Ol, AFSCME Clerical #2508 Salazy Schedule. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Rejecc (It) PERSONAI. SERViCE CONTR.AC75 MOSS ANSWER TFIE FOLLOWING QUESITONS: t. HasthispersrnJfumeverworkedwderaco¢tractforihisdepamcent? � PLANNING COMMISSION - Yes No CIB COMMITCEE 2. Has d6s perso(dfvm everlxen a city wployeel C[VII.SERVICECOMMiSS[ON Yu No 3. Dcesthispessodfiimpossessaskiii�rotnmmallypossessedbyany�w[eutcityemployee? ' Yw No 4, is tlus peisod5rtn a ta,gehd vendor? Yes No Exptain a11 yes aoswers ou separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIAI'ING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, Whay When, Where� Why): , The Division of Pazks and Recreation requested that Human Resources study the composite duties of a group of , positions to determine the appropriate classification. Our office determined that the positions should be allocated to the new classification titled Golf Program Outreach Coordinator. „` ADVANTAG&SIFAPPROVED: Appropriate compensation will be assigned to the new classification in accordance with the City's job evaluation system. ' DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: Salary cost is $1072.47 biweekly and $27,991.47 yearly. MAR � 1�� DISADVANTAGES IFNOT APPROVED: , r Appropriate compensation will not be assigned to the new classification. Ttus may limit the City's ability to successfully recruit, hire and retain qualified candidates who possess the lrnowledge, sldlls and training required. roTatangoux�roa�sncrioN: COST(REVENUE BUDGETED: Yes , FUNDING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NUMBER: " FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIl� G:�Shared\Org.Design\Consultant-I.eBowV�lichelle's Class Work\GolfOuheach Coordinator\Crolf Program Outreach Coordinator Cmeen Sheet.wpd _ . - � � � � �. � � �� ROIJTII3G ORDER: , . . . , � . ' Belaw are coaect roubngsfor tI� sixmostfreqoenCtypes ofdowmeats , , - budSe[ � ), amend t. � CONFRACTS(assumesauthonzed e�sts COUNL'IC.RESOLE7`1'ION( �budgefs/accep gams), � � � � � �1. Wt4ide�Ag�cY �� 1 � Dep��tD�xdct4r ; „ " � � � � � �, �p�p�or � Z Offc�cffF�za�';5ervicesD'sedor � � � " 3':, Cit�'AltomeF., 3 �Y�,,,'�Y . ovec$25'OW 4_, Assistmmt' � 4. Assist�t for caahacts �9� C ) � r�� 6. � � Cf�' , , � ) 6 Office ofFinanaal ' , . conhscts ovei $SO;OQO 5 C � m�alSecvices 'ticcounting Services ':�ccwmhn$', i a�hmusxxAx�v� o��s �soa�x�� ' courrcu, �soL ,tr�ox E�t� � ,'o�a,�) , T, �f9M�8�'��P��Acc°ffita�t f Dep�D'uector . , . 2 I�pac{m�YDicector Z CrtY'Atta�� 3. O�fficeofF'msncialServicesDireda� 3, MayorlA�.s� ttai � 4 ��,' . , q '�y�, „ ' . ; ., ' CitY, �, . -, � . , � n , , � � � � �5.' O�ce ofFm�cial Seidices -'P.c�nnting , � _ ADMGrIISTRATiVE ORDII2S (a}I o4fiecs) E�LITLVE ORD�R I � ' ,�� ' 2. 'CityAttomey� , , � 2 C � , ��,�� „ � � � � �` � 3° �ceo��E'manc�lSavicesDaector � � 3 i Mey�%�ssist�t �� ' ,� � i u 1 i i I 4: ' CYe�c", . I 4 C „' �' � � „ , � , � s� � � �, � � " , i TOTAL �IUMBER; OF SIGR�7ATURE FA(�S . �� . � �� ! ��' �� Indicate �� of peges,oa wldch'signadnes are reqmxecl audpapercLp urflag each oft&ese pages. , AC'FIONREQifESTED , . i W Hsb3n.e�ther ' orikr�or�rof whichevervs I��bewlts[the,Pro7�Ur�u�s�s ,�s�P, ��&�, �• most�isoef�,flde�. Do�wciteco�mplete'�t�:',,g�eac6iteatmyo�l�withaqe�b, ^''' „ . s � '" RECONlMEL!IDAI�ONS I � � ' I�e ifthe issae m qaesliau hes been P�� ffiY�Y P�� P�� , „ � „ � � � ��CONIRACT9:, � � �� " � � � � � PFd2SOI�AL' SELtVICE � Thisi�a�skionwillbensedhodetemtinethe ' s ` for,V,rotYas o , �?�9', � � seivicetimngtul�s ° ' � � �� II�A,TIe1T1NGPROBLIIv�'ISSF7E,OPPORTUNfL,X, , ; � � r I r! , eed for ect ot h�tion �hans that cieeted a n . � lainffie,s� i ' i � F,x� aaC 9�P?'oJ �t „ + � �, � ADVAN�AC�S IE APPROVED ' � ` � � ' , ' Indicate wfiether'this �s �PtY an a�oal ,b°a8'et Ploce�ne rec�med by lswfcharker or whetherlhe�e'are �a wags m � „', whichEhe�City�Ssmt,Panfamdits!citiz�s'wi7lbenefiEi'camthis,;prigectfachen. ' i , ' ' w71 , � ,. , , DISAbVt1I3TAGES,IF'APPROVED' , �Vhaf'' e�`e�a�r" taewshag�P� �t�ProJ ,��'PmdIICe�fi rsPas�d " �e,&>tr�Cde189s�no�se„t�c'�mcaessesa�assessments�T Towhom T �T^Forhoi�iIon'g7 � � � � � ° � DI§ADVAt1TAC�S 1F I30T APPROVED ,� ; I � !� � � � 'i€�e acfronis'not' ? iAdefiverseraicc?:C,�me i :GPLs�wi7lbetl� P�� aPProyed� Inebilii.Y LG�fcaffic,�ise,accidentxate? I.ossofrevewe7' i �,', FII�TANC7AL IIviPACT , Le�e��ottieissu'e unaiei �m oumast �swer " �Y�mu�ta�the�nf�hau;ywxpro�i�e Y ,,, � �Y � , Lwo q�ieshons: How m�fi is it gomg to co�! Who,LS,gomg,�ko payZ � h � , , . . „ , � „ ' � „ � „ i � „ _ i � . , � ��,� , ,j� ,� , �„ „ � „ � . � � � � � � �� ,F, � � � ,, � � � ' � � ,, � ' ' I I,,., „i' ;i,;� '.�I�r , I. � � � , i,i• „ { i 'll I� �,��. i i . , �'i,, � `. � � l �� i I I � I, � i r r� r i i �i�_ c�";� I ��. �I w.i'�.�li�. '.�.��^' .,.i F�� i. I..nl�' � i i�',f!�� i�. l..iPU� i.i�l.� 'J�. ,I �„ .i��i:�.�.,,.aNi��lu �.1��;iinK� � ��II�i�6:1. Il,i,l.l 'aA'll , �...,� Proposed Title of Class DESCRIPTION OF WORK The City of Saint Paul Class Specification GOLF PROGRAM OUTREACH COORDINATOR c�,-a�� CODE: 2$4B BU: O 1 Effecrive: General Statement of Duties: Under direcrion, develops, organizes, implements and markets golf to under-served popularions; assists with operarion of club house and concession sales. Assists with enforcement of rules, regulations and procedures of a municipal golf course, performs light maintenance and related dufies as required. Sunervision Received: Works under the supervision of a golf pro/manager or Golf Course Superintendent. Sunervision Exercised: Provides technical direction to volunteers, temporary workers, intems and other staff as assigned. TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED The listed examples may not include all the duries performed by all positions in this class. Develops, plans, coordinates, and markets outreach programs with underserved communities including non - English speaking communities regazding the City's golf program. Assists in the set-up and operation of special events. Creates promorional material and acriviries for the golf program. Assists with business development of golf programs including prepazation of financial reports and maldng necessary cash deposits. Acts as a liaison with community groups to include recruiting and marketing golf outreach programs. COMPETENCIES Demonstrates an understanding of the game of golf including rules, conduct and eriquette. Demonstrates a basic understanding of xnaintenance activities involved in a municipal golf course including: irrigating, fertilizing, repairing and mowing turf, pruning trees and bushes, and applying chemicals to turf. Demonstrates ability to operate small mowers, trimmers, small utility vehicles and golf carts. Demonstrates the ability to assist in sales and in the rental of all available concessions, equipment and merchandise; assist with selling tickets and merchandise and assists with registrarion for lessons. Demonstrates ability to plan and organize own work and to adapt quickly to change. Demonstrates ability to plan proj ects involving organization of tasks and to identify appropriate materials and resources necessary for programs. Demonstrates an ability to effecrively listen, speak, write and interact with public and staff customers including community groups and other private and non-profit agencies. Demonstrates the ability to influence and advocate for business development of a municipal golf course. Demonstrates the ability to learn the operations of a municipal golf course including the policies and procedures and ability to impart the lrnowledge to others. Demonstrates the ability to use a broad range of job-related softwaze such as e-mail, word processing, spreadsheet, and database management applications. GOLF PROGRAM OUTREACH COORDINATOR Page 1 Proposed Title of Class: GOLF PROGRAM OUTREACH COORDINATOR CODE: 284B $U: o� �, Effective: Demonstrates an ability to be an effective team member by accepting assignments willingly and completing assignments within agreed upon fimelines. Demonstrates leadership qualiries such as fle�cibility, dependability, punctuality,and accountability. Demonstrates an ability to idenrify and respond to the needs of customers and citizens and acts as resources to other coworkers in order to resolve customer service issues. NfIl�TIMUM QUALIF'ICATIONS High School graduarion or GED equivalency. Must possess a valid Minnesota Class D driver's license or equivalent out-of state driver's license with no suspensions or revocations witrrin the two-year period prior to the date of appointment (suspensions for pazldng- related offenses excluded). Facperience worldng with non - English spealdng popularions setting up recreational, education or social programs. Certain positions may require reading, writing, and spealdng fluently in a second language. Specific language fluency will be identified by particulaz vacancy. GOLF PROGRAM OUTREACH COORDINATOR Page 2 OFFtCE OF HUMAN RESOURCES Angela S. Nalemy� Direaor SAINY PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rmidq C. tCe¢y. Mayo* 400 Ciry Hall.4mws TO: 25 Wuc Faurrh Sceec SenzPavl, M'vmuom .i5t02-1631 Faa"vrtiles: Bob Bierscheid, Director Pazks and Recreation �5-a�� Trlepterie: 651-266-6500 JoWfrie 651-266-6502 4 651-292-7656 651-266-8886 5`"F7oor: 657-266-6495 FROM: Michelle LeBow, Human Resources Consultant Office of Human Resources o o c �� 3 —: Y-C�� DATE: February 22, 2005 m =`- �. N �'' _ l37 `�"' .. .'� RE: Twenty Day Notice y c--. `r_ : � y� � � c� N r-r cn Pursuant to City of Saint Paul, Civil Service Rule 3. (C), this letter is to inform you that a new class�cation of Golf Program Outreach Coordinator will be placed in Grade 21 of the AFSCME Clerical bargaining unit # 2508 salary schedule. Please review the proposed classification specification and contact me if you have any questions or concems no later than Mazch 11, 2005. The Twenty-Day Notice period ends on March 14, 2005. I can be reached by e-mail at michelle.lebownn,ci.stpaul.mn.us or by telephone at 651/266-6514. : S. 11/ I have received this memorandum and wish to waive the time remaining on this Twenty-Day Public Norice. ��.� a-�� ignature Date G:\Shazed\Org.Design\Consultant-LeBowVVlichelle's Class Work�20 day.firedept.doc Michelle�LeBow - RE� Golf Program Outreach Coordinator ____ ____ _ rage i_ { From: "Kurt Errickson" <Kurt.Errickson@afscmemn.org> To: "Michelle LeBow" <Michelle.LeBow@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 3/9/2005 4:13:41 PM Subject: RE: Golf Program Outreach Coordinator Hi Michelle, Your email and reminder are very much appreciated. I discussed the proposed title with �nce Gillespie and the 2508 Executive Board. AFSCME is unopposed to the new position. You can move forward with the Council Resolution as soon as you like. Thanks again - Kurt Errickson Business Rep. AFSCME Council 5 --Original Message-- From: Michelle LeBow (mailto:Michelle.LeBow@ci.stpaul.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:58 PM To: Kurt Errickson Subject: Fwd: Golf Program Outreach Coordinator Dear Kurt, i am contacting you to sign the Golf Program Outreach Coordinator. Please see attached. The 20 day notice ends March 14, 2005. If I do not hear from you, I wili move forward with the Councii Resolution. Thank you, Michelle Michelle LeBow City of Saint Paul Phone 651-266-G514 Fax 651-292-7656 michelie.lebow@ci. stpau I. m n. us www.ci.stpaui.mn. us/jobopen ings Council File # v,' �Z Green Sheet # 3025683 Presented Refeired To Committee Date 1 WAEREAS, the City Council and Yhe Mayor of Saint Paul deem it an appropriate public purpose to recognize City employees 2 for their commihnent and dedicarion to public service through an annual Employee Picnic, and 3 4 5 6 7 II 11 � 12 13 14 15 16 17 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor aze desirous of recognizing City employee efforts, dedicarion, and service commitment, believing that it promotes positive employee morale and results in excellent public and customer service for Saint Paul cirizens, and WHEREAS, the City Employee Services Committee is preparing for the annual Employee Picnic to be held the evening of August 09, 2005, at Como Pazk, and WHEREAS, it is traditional for local businesses and unions to contribute funds, goods or services to be awazded to employees who attend the picnic and make their names available to be selected through random drawings in order to encourage employees to attend the picnic; and RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council requests and accepts donations from area merchants, unions, and others to have available for random drawings at the Employee Picnic to be held on August 09, 2005, and that such donations shall be deemed to be gifrs to the City of Saint Paul; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that such donarions shall be deemed to be donations to the City within the meaning of section41.03 of the Administrative Code, and in compliance with all the requirements of chapter 41 of the Administrarive Code. WHEREAS, expenses will be incurred for picnic faze and some vendors request payment upon delivery of goods, therefore be it 18 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council authorizes the Employee Seroices Committee members to act on behalf of the 19 City, to pay vendors for expenses incurred for the Employee Picnic August 9, 2005, to be paid out of General Fund, Activity 2 0 00165 Requested by Depathnent o£ �w�,� �n,,;vt� � By: ; � Form Appr ved by City Attomey By: �� Approveryb ayor for Submiss�� Adoplion Certified by Council Secretary � Appi � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA \� Adopted by Council: Date �q�� 3�UU.5� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Shee# � 7�5- �Li?. DepartmeMloffice/council: Date Inifiated: � Hu -�„�„��„� 'li-MAR-0S Green Sheet NO: 3025683 Contact Person 8 Phone• Deoartrnent SeM To Person InitiaVDate Mgie Naleary � 0 u n urces r 266-65�5 0.uign 1 uman eso De entDirec[or -;� Must Be on Councl /�enda by (DaM): Number Z � For Rauting 3 a r's Offitt Ma or/ASSisfant Ofde� 4 nncil 5 i Clerk i lerk Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Request that the City Councvil approve the public pwpose for the annual City Picnic; and, gant permission foi the City Employee Services Committee to solicit for and accept donations on bet�alf of the City, which will help finance the 2005 City Picnic, scheduled for August 09, 2005 at Como Regional Pazk. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does Uiis person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by �ny cunent city employee? � yes No Euplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The City Picnic is an annual even wiuch has been held as a recognition for City employees for approximately 20 years. All City employees and their families aze invited to attend, demonstrating.the City's appreciation for their employees' commitment and dedication on behalf of Saint PauPs residents and business owners. Advantapes If Approved: When an employer takes the oppoxtunity to recognize the quality work, dedication, and service commitment made by its employees, the resuiting rehun are employees who display a sense of pride in providing excellent public and customer services for Saint Paul's citizens and business owners. DisadvanlaS7eslfAppcoved: ' None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: � � Employees will have limited acknowledgment that their employer is awaze of or appreciarive of their personal conhibutions in serving the public. _ . _. � - -, Total Amount of 5500 CosURevenue Budgeted: �� Trensaction: Q � �� Funding Source: qctivity � ��a � 9 C � Financial Information: p � � 1 �H� i� 20 � ° � (ExPlain) I�s�:� �, � LUU,S � �°/� p� Qall��§ R@1�9V�� 3i� 3� QS Council File # �J' � �3 1 Green Sheet # 3025764 Presented By RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA lq Refened To ' Committee: Date: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. PAUL, NIINNESOTA, SETTING CABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION WHEREAS, under Section 623 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 543, as amended ("Cable AcY') the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota ("Cit}�'), is permitted to regulate rates for basic cable service and equipment (including installations); and WHEREAS, the Comcast of St. Paul, Inc., ("CotncasY') submitted a filing on or about February 27, 2004 purporting to justify its equipment and installation rate for the period 7une1, 2004 through May 31, 2005 (the 2004 Form 1205 Filing); and submitted a filing on or about the same date purporting to support basic service rates for the same period (the 2004 Form 1240 Filing); and WHEREAS, the City has one year from the filing date to issue a fmal order with respect to those filings, except as the deadline for action has been extended to April 1, 2005 for action on the 2004 Form 1205 Filing; and 4VHEREAS, the City has worked with the firm of Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC to review the 2004 Form 1205 Filing, and has received from that firm a letter Final Report (January, 2005), an Addendum to Final Report (January 18, 2005), and an Errata to Final Report, regazding that review; has received Comcast's written comments (February 11, 2005) regarding the reports; has received a responding Supplemental Report from Ashpaugh & Sculco (February, 2005) pertaining to Comcast's comments; and has considered those and other comments received during the course of the review of the Comcast filing; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The attached, "ORDER SETTING CABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR EQLTIPMENT AND INSTALLATION PURSUANT TO FCC FORM 1205 FILED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 2004," is hereby adopted as if fully set forth herein, and shall govern the equipment and installation rates charged within the City of St. Paul by Comcast. 2. This Resolution, including the Order incoxporated by reference herein, shall be effecrive immediately upon passage. 3. This Resolution and the Order incorporated herein are based on infonmation provided to the City by Comcast. If the information provided Comcast proves to have been false, misleading or incomplete, the City reserves the right to make such further adjushnents to rates as it may find appropriate. p5-aa3 Requested by Office of Technology: Yeas Nays Absent �.. Benanav � �,,,�j By: G.l��t�zr�,,. �... Bos�om f / I Harris �/ Form Approved by City Attorney Helgen � I,antry I Montgomer Thune Adopted by C Adoprion Cez By: Approved by By: \ Referred To . , , � % OF Council File # (�" �''� 3 Green Sheet # _3025764_ RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA 19 Committee: Date: Y2ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. PAUL, MINI3ESOTA, SETTING C�ABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, under Section� 3 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 543, as amended ("Cable AcY') the City of Sain Paul, Minnesota ("Cit}�'), is permitted to regulate rates far basic cable service and equipment (including instal tions); and WHEREAS, the Comcast of St. Pau�Inc., ("ComcasP') submitted a filing on or about February 27, 2004 purporting to justify its equipment and�installation rate for the period Junel, 2004 through May 31, 2005 (the 2004 Form 1205 Filing); and submitted� �filing on or about the same date ptuporting to support basic service rates for the same period (the 2004 Form 1�,40 Filing); and WHEREAS, the City has one year from the filiitg date to issue a final arder with respect to those filings, except as the deadline for action has been extended to A�il 1, 2005 for action on the 2004 Form 1205 Filing; and WHEREAS, the City has worked with the firm of AsPtpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC to review the 2004 Form 1205 Filing, and has received from that firm a letter Final Report (7anuary, 2005), an Addendum to Final Report (January 18, 2005), and an Errata to Final Report, regardimg that review; has received ComcasYs written comments (February 11, 2005) regarding the reports; has reeeived a responding Supplemental Report from Ashpaugh & Sculco (February, 2005) pertaining to Comcast�comments; and has considered those and other comments received during the course of the review of the Com�ast filing; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The attached, "ORDER SETTING CABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR EQUIPMENT ANID INSTALLATION PURSUANT TO FCC FORM 1205 F1�,ED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 2004," is hereby adopted as if fully set forth herein, and sha govern the equipment and installation rates chazged within the City of 5t. Paul by Comc ,t. 2. This Resolution, including the Order incorporated by reference he�n, shall be effective immediately upon passage. \ \ 3. This Resolution and the Order incorporated herein aze based on information provided to the City by Comcast. If the information provided Comcast proves to have been false, misleading or incomplete, the City reserves the right to make such further adjustments to rata� as it may find appropriate. � Benanav � Bostrom Harris Helgen �� Montgomery Thune Yeas II r'aY% Adopted by Council: Date _ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Approved by Mayor: Date By: 45- ��,3 Requested by Office of Technology: Absent $y: .��.,n � it=e ' � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved b} � Y�'i.k� �• �.�,C�l C75-ay3 Executive Summary 1205 Rate Order for Setting Equipment & Installation Rates Background In late February, 2004, Comcast filed with the City FCC Form 1205, "Determining Regulated Equipment and Installation Costs," (1205) that sought the City's approval of a change in the company's equipment rates; i.e., converters, remotes, etc., and installation rates. This same 1205 filing was submitted to all Comcast communities nationwide, using the same data for setting the same rates for all communities. The City of St. Paul joined 19 other local governments entities, which represent over 1'h million Comcast subscribers nationwide, and retained financial consultants (Consultants) to review the 1205 rate filing. The 201oca1 government entities represent almost 1 Q� cities, townships and counties, including Los Angeles, Denver, the District of Columbia, and eight cable commissions, including six commissions in the Twin Cities metro area. After a lengthy review of support materials submitted by Comcast, including detailed discussions and analysis of the issues raised by Comcast, the Consultants developed recommendations and conclusions as to the recalculations of ComcasY s equipment and installation rates, and which are contained in their voluminous Final Report, addendums to the report and attachments (Consultant Report). Rate Order Findings and Action Based on the findings from the Consultant Report, the Consultants determined "that ComcasYs filed rates far equipment and installation are unreasonable and do not comply with the FCC rules and applicable law." The Consultant Report fiu found the rates should be lowered as listed on Page 3 of the attached Rate Order, based "upon the best information made available to them." The Consultant Report and subsequent Rate Order were issued nationally to the joint rate review government entities. The Rate Order requires that Comcast within 60 days from the effective date of the Order, "make all rate reductions and refunds that are necessary based on the rates" as listed on Page 3 of the Rate Order. Furthermore, Comcast shall refund all amounts charged to subscribers for equipment and installations that exceed the rates as listed by the Consultants. FCC Involvement Comcast has the legal right to appeal the City's Rate Order by appealing it to the FCC within 30 days of the Rate Order adoption. In the likely event that Comcast does appeal, the City has 15 days to submit their comments to the FCC. As this 1205 rate review process and Rate Order has been conducted by the City's Consultants on a national level, any appeal by the CiTy will be submitted jointly with the other rate review partners. Depending on how the FCC elects to review the Rate Order, appeals and reply, the Rate Order may be allowed to take effect within the 60 days, or stayed pending fixrther review by the FCC. �5-a�3 ORDER SETTING CABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR EQITIPMENT AND INSTALLATION PURSUANT TO FCC FORM 1205 FILED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 2004 March 23, 2005 C�-a�3 Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND ..............................................•--.............................. A. The City's Review of ComcasYs National Form 1205 .................. II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................. A. Bonuses and Commissions ............................................................ B. Maintenance and Repair — Plant and Equipment ........................... C . Payroll Ta�zes ................................................................................. D. Property Taxes and Insurance ........................................................ E. Miscellaneous Regulated Hours .................................................... 1. Wazehouse Personnel ................................................................. 2. Office Personnel ......................................................................... F. Installation Activity Hours ............................................................. G. Annual Employee Labor Hours ..................................................... H . Inside Wiring ................................................................................. I. Weighted Installation Times .......................................................... J. V CR Connections .......................................................................... K. Customer Trouble Calls ................................................................. L. DVR Converters ............................................................................. M. Llnreturned Equipment Charge ....................................................... III. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATTONS OF CONSULTANTS. A. ContractLabor ............................................................................... B . Sampling Issues ............................................................................. C. Responses to Data Requests ..................................................�........ IV. ORDERING CLAUSBS ................................................................ .......................... 1 .......................... 1 .......................... 3 .......................... 4 .......................... 6 .......................... 7 .......................... 7 .......................... 8 .......................... 8 .......................... 8 .......................... 9 ........................ 11 ........................ 12 ........................ 13 ........................ 14 ........................ 15 ........................ 16 ........................ 17 ........................ 18 ........................ 18 ........................ 19 ........................ 20 ........................ 21 ATTACE3MENT 1: FINAL REPORT BY ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC ANID FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO THE PARTICIPATING LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 FILED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMLTNICATIONS, INC., IN 2004 (WITH APPENDICES) ATTACIIMENT 2: AADENDUM TO FINAL REPORT BY ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC AND FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO THE PARTICII'ATING LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORTTIES REGARDING THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 FILED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMCAVICATIONS, INC., IN 2004 (7anuary 18, 2005) ATTACHMENT 3: ERRATA TO FINAL REPORT ON THE COMCAST NATIONAL FORM 1205 ATTACI�IENT 4: COMCAST CONIMENTS ON CONSULTAN'I'S' REPORT ATTACHNIENT 5: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF ASHPAIIGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC AND FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO THE FEBRUARY ll, 2005 CONIMENTS OF COMCAST CABLE COMM(INICATIONS, LLC ON THE FINAL REPORT AND ADDENDUM REGARDING THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 (February 2005) 65- a�3 ORDER SETTING CABLE TELEVISION RATES FOR EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION PURSUANT TO FCC FORM 1205 FILED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 2004 I. A. The Citv's Review of Comcast's National Form 1205 1. The City of Saint Paul ["Cit}�'] has lunited authority to regulate cable operator equipment and installation rates under applicable law and Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulations. The FCC has developed forms that an operator subject to regulation must file to justify equipment rates. 2. Comcast Cahle Communications, Ina ("ComcasY'), filed with the City FCC Form 1205, "Determining Regulated Equipment and Installation Costs, Bquipment Form"' ("2004 Form 1205"), on or about February 27, 2004, seeking the City's approval of a change in the masimum permitted rates for equipment and installation. 3. The filing Comcast made in the City was also submitted to other communities nationwide. Comcast relied on the same data in setting equipment and installation rates for all the communities that received the national filing. The City joined with other communities to hire financial consultants Ashpau� & Sculco, CPAs, PLC, and Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("Consultants"), to review the national Form 1205 filing. 4. After review of the materials submitted by Comcast, and detailed discussions and analysis of the issues raised, and using best available information when necessary, the Consultants developed recommendations and conclusions as to the recalculation of ComcasYs equipment and installation rates, which are contained in (a) the Final Report by Ashpau� & 1 t�5-��3 Sculco, CPAs, PLC And Front Range Consulting, Inc., to the Participating L,ocal Franchising AuYhorities Regazding The National FCC Form 1205 Filed by Comcast Cable Communicarions, Inc., in 2004 (January 2005), appended to this Order as Attachment 1("Final Report"); (b) Addendum to Final Report by Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc., to the Participating L,ocal Franchising Authorities Regazding the National FCC Form 1205 Filed by Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., in 2004 (January 18, 2005), appended to this Order as Attachment 2("Addendum"); and (c) Errata to Final Report on the Comcast National Form 1205, appended to this Order as Attachxnent 3. 5. Comcast submitted comments on these documents on February 11, 2005 ("Comcast Comments"). The Comcast Comments are appended to this Order as Attachment 4. The Consultants submitted a response to these comments in February 2005 ("Supplemental Report"). That response is appended to this Oider as Attachment 5. The four Consultant documents aze referred to collectively herein as the "Consultant Reports." 6. FCC rules place the burden on the cable operator to prove that its existing rates for basic service and equipment are reasonable under applicable federal law and regulations. 47 C.F.R. § 76.937(a). The City has provided Comcast with ample opportunity to provide the necessary support for its rates. _ To the extent Comcast has failed to carry its burden of proof, the City may reject ComcasYs rates, set rates itself based on the best auailable information, and order refunds. See, e.g., Comcttst Cablevision of Tttllahassee, Inc.: Appeal of Local Rate Order of City of Tallahassee, Fla., DA 95-1561, 10 FCC Rcd 7686 at ¶� 28-29, 37, 48-49, and 54 (1995) ("Tallahassee"). 7. Having considered the record before it, the Consultant Reports, comments made by Comcast, and any comments made by the public, the City finds, based on the best 2 r�-a�3 information available to it, and for reasons set forth below and in the Consultaut Reports, that ComcasYs filed rates for equipment and installarion aze unreasonable and do not comply with FCC rules and applicable law. It furfller finds, for reasons set forth below and in the Consultant Reports, that the rates should be no higher than the rates in Column B, below. The rates in Column A are those proposed by Comcast. Remote Control Basio-Only Converte Addressable or Di�t; (Converter 2) I-IDTV Converter (C Installation Rates Hourly Service Char; Unwired Installation Prewired Installation Additional Outlet (S Additional Outlet (S Move Outlet (Converter 1) Converter or DVR A B Comcast Rates as Filed Rates A $ 033 $ 130 $ 4.83 $ 833 � $ 0.29 $ 0.49 $ 4.10 VCR Connect (Same T: VCR Connect (Separat� Customer Trouble Calls II. F'INDING5 AND CONCLUSIONS $ 35.17 $ 52.23 $ 31.40 $ 17.15 $ 2531 $ 23.60 $ 17.12 $ 15.55 $ 1.99 $ 8.79 $ 16.10 $ 23.27 '.�17 $ 30.10 $ 37.88 $ 19.83 $ 12.28 $ 19.72 $ 14.14 $ 12.61 $ 12.58 $ 1.99 $ 13.78 $ 9.95 8. As shown in the Supplemental Report, the Consultants identified a number of errors in the Form 1205 that Comcast neither disputes nor corrects. Supplemental Report, Part III. City adopts the undisputed adjustments made by Consultants, for reasons set forth in the 3 _ , � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet - rE �recnaologyaaaManagemencsec•, Cunhct Person 8 Phone: Ka2n .lohnsm 6-8910 Contract Type: RE-RESOLUTION by Date Initiat 15-Iv1AR-05 � , Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3025764 � Q`�-a�13 Departrnent SentToPerson InitiaUDate 0 echooloQV aud Manaeement S _�� 1 TecLnoloevsndMa eem tS IDeoarhneotDirector T�C 2 �,CSriAt[ornev Lisa VeiW i % �� 3 a r's ce � Ma or/ASS" fant 4 !CoauN l 5 'NQerk CtiNClerk ToWI # of Sig P ages _( Clip A JI Loc for Signature) Action Requested: � Resolution Setting Cable Television Rates for equipment and installarion by Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. Pursuant to FCC form 1205 filled Febrnary 2004 wanons: r�pprrne ln� or n Plannfng Commissio� CIB Committee Cidl Service Commission (R): 1. Has this person/firm eaer wo�iced under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn eeer been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not normaity possessed by arry current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and atfach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, OppoKUnity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): OdvantaAes PF Approved: DisadvanWqes IfApproved: Disadvantaqes If Not Approved: Total Amouot of Trensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Ezplain) March 15, 2005 11:41 AM CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 05 - a� The complete Comcast document is available for review in the City Coimcil Offices, Room 31Q. C�•a�3 Final Report. These errors alone justify a finding that the Comcast proposed rates are unjust and unreasonable. 9. The Consultants proceeded to recommend rates based upon the best information available to them. The specific adjustments proposed (and resulting recommended rates) are reasonable in light of the informarion auailable. More specifically, Consultants made the following adjustments that Comcast disputed. A. Bonuses and Commissions 10. Comcast included as costs in its Form 1205 bonuses and commissions paid to its employees. Final Report at 15-16. The Consultants eliminated these wsts because Comcast failed to provide to provide proof that the bonus and commission payments were in fact related to Form 1205 regulated activities, despite requests that it provide such support. Final Report at 15-16. 11. Comcast argued in response that a general "Step A" factar based on salaries and wages was sufficient to properly allocate bonuses and commissions between regulated and unregulated equipment. Comcast Comments at 15. But there is no reason to suppose that any of the bonuses and commissions aze actually paid for acrivities properly recognized in the Form 1205, a predicate for allocation of any costs to the equipment basket. The company withheld inforxnarion the Consultants requested in order to determine under what circumstances bonuses and comxnissions were paid. Even if one assumed that some bonuses or commissions relate to equipment, there is no reason to suppose that the proportion in which bonuses or commissions are paid on regulated equipment is related to the proportion in wkrich overall salaries and wages relate to regulated equipment. The Comcast Comments do not justify ComcasYs allocation methodology, or justify rejection of the Consultants' recommendations. � (�•�y3 12. The Consultants also eliminated the bonuses and commission in light of unbundling concems. As the Consultants' Supplemental Report explains at 3-4, a series of FCC decisions has made clear that costs can be claimed in the operator's equipment basket "only if they were unbundled from the regulated progr3mming service rates or aze new costs incurred since the operator unbundled its equipment costs." See, e.g., TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. d/b/a TCI of Tualatin Valley, Inc., DA 99-2227, 14 FCC Rcd. 17685 at ¶ 6(Cab. Serv. Bur. 1999); .Tones Communications of Georgia/South Carolina Inc. d1b/a Jones Communications, DA 04-2448 at ¶ 4(Au�. 4, 200G). 13. The Consultants' review of a number of 1994 Form 1205s indicated bonuses and commissions were not included in Form 1205s by a substantial number of systems covered by ComcasYs national filing. Final Report at 15. 14. The Comcast Comments do not dispute the fact that FCC rules prohibit Comcast from importing into the equipment basket any costs that were not inirially unbundled from the Basic Service Tier (`BST") rate without mal�ng a conesponding adjushnent to the BST rate to prevent double recovery. Rather, Comcast azgues that due to "changing business practices," the FCC's unbundling rules should not be applied. Comcast Comments at 8. Similaz azguxnents were raised and rejected in the Tualatin proceeding, and we conclude that they should be rejected here as well, for reasons indicated in the Tualatin decision and in the Consultants' Reports. 15. Comcast also suggests that "it is possible" that these costs are new costs not incurred at the time of the 1994 unbundling, and that it is possible that the costs were unbundled as part of some other adjustment, and not separately accounted for. Comcast Comments at 8. Comcast, however, provides no evidence to support either supposition, and hence fails to satisfy 5 D 5-� �3 its burden of proof, particulazly in liaht of its failure to provide informarion regarding past system unbundling. See Final Report at 15; Supplemental Report at 4-5. 16. The problems identified by Consultants, considered separately or together justified elisnination of the bonuses and commissions from rates. B. Maintenance and Bepair — Plant and Equipment 17. The Consultants' review of prior 1205s for systems covered by Comcast's filing indicates that many of the systems had not included Maintenance and Repair — Plant and Equipment ("M&R-PlanY') costs in the equipment basket, as would have occurred had the cost been unbundled from service rates. Comcast did not claim or show that M&R-Plant costs had been unbundled from service rates far all or even most of the systems covered by its filing; some of its responses to data requests indicated unbundling had not occurred uniformly. Comcast opposes the Consultants' unbundling adjushnent concerning M&R-Plant primarily on policy grounds. Its arguments are rejected, for reasons stated in Section II.A above and in the Consultants Reports. 18. Setting aside the unbundling problem, the M&R Plant costs Comcast included in rates were not supported. As explained in the Final Report, Section VIII.C, M&R-Plant costs are associated with both regulated and unregulated activities. Comcast developed an allocafion methodology for dividing costs among activities, and argues that its methodology was appropriate. Comcast Comments at 13-15. The Consultants argue, however, that the methodology in fact over-allocates costs to regulated equipment. Supplemental Report at 9-10. The City concludes ComcasYs methodology was not supported, and over allocates costs to the equipment basket, for reasons set out in the Consultants Reports. The unbundling problem G 05 a�3 identified by Consultants, considered separately or together with the allocation problem, justified elinuuation of the M&R-Plant costs from rates. C. Pavroll Ta%es 19. Since it was necessary to remove bonuses and commissions from Comcast's costs, the Consultants also eliminated a pro-rata share of payroll tases conesponding to the bonus and commission payments. Final Report at 17. The Comcast Comments do not appear to address this issue. D. Property Taxes and Insurance. 20. The Consultants disallowed certain property tases and insurance costs based on unbundling concerns similu to those discussed above, and Comcast opposed the unbundling adjustment for similar reasons. ComcasYs arguments are rejected, for reasons stated in Section II.A and B above and in the Consultants Reports. 21. In addition, the Consultants' review showed that Comcast had over-allocated property tas and insurance costs to regulated services. The issues (and ComcasYs comments) are identical to those discussed in connection with the M&R-Plant. For reasons suggested above, and in the Consultant Reports, see particularly Supplemental Report at 9-10, City finds ComcasYs allocations were unreasonable, even setting aside unbundling concerns. The unbundling problem identified by Consultants, considered separately or together with the allocation problem, justified elimuiation of the property taz and insurance costs. 7 osa�3 E. Miscellaneous Regulated Hours 1. Warehouse Personnel 22. The Consultants disallowed wazehouse personnel costs based on unbundling concerns similar to those discussed above. Comcast provides no reasonable ground for including costs it failed to unbundle, see Section II.A and B above and the Consultants Reports. 23. In addition, the Consultants initially concluded that the personnel costs had been included twice, once in Schedule B(recovering it in the Howrly Service Charge ("HSC")) and once in Schedule C(as a capitalized cost). The Comcast Coxnments state that Comcast did not in fact include any warehousing costs in Schedule C, but only on Schedule B. Comcast Comments at 16-17. The Consultants do not disagree. However, Consultants also state that the warehouse personnel cost estimate is not adequately supported. The City agrees, far reasons indicated in the Supplemental Report at 13-14. 24. Elimination of the costs was appropriate given the unbundling problems, considered separately or together with the failure to adequately support the costs. 2. Office Personnel 25. The Consultants identified a similaz unbundling concern with respect to office personnel costs. Final Report at 19. Comcast provides no reasonable ground for including costs it failed to unbundle, see Section II.A and B above and the Consultants Reports. 26. The Consultants also noted that Comcast had failed to adequately support the time estimates used to arrive at the office personnel costs. Comcast was asked to provide support for these estimates, including any studies performed, and to idenrify the individuals making the estimates. The Consultants noted that Comcast did not provide any of the requested infonmation, but merely stated that the company had used "past experience" — in effect, 0 �� d�G3 demanding that the City take ComcasYs estimates on faith. Final Report at 19. Thus, even assuming that office personnel costs had not been disqualified by the unbundling issue, Comcast failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to those costs. 27. Comcast aza ed that it had pxovided documents related to the office personnel costs in question. Comcast Comments at 17. The Consultants noted that Comcast broke down its office converter maintenance hours into three components, but failed to provide any supporting studies or detailed explanations, and failed to identify an individual responsible for ComcasYs brief estimate. The Consultants specifically asked Comcast to explain the high number of hours associated with this personnel category, but Comcast did not provide any support. Supplemental Report at 14-15. 28. Eliminarion of the costs was appropriate given the unbundling problems, and the failure of proof, considered separately or together. F. Installation Activity Hours 29. The Consultants' analysis of the 2004 Form 1205 revealed two problems with respect to the employee time required for installation activities: (1) a general lack of consistent support for ComcasYs employee tune estimates; and (2) failure to distinguish between tixne related to installation of subscriber premises equipment (inside the demarcation point), which is relevant to Form 1205 rates, and time related to activities outside the demarcation point such as installation of subscriber drops, which is not. The second problem resulted in an adjustment both to employee time and to contractar time reported by Comcast, and is discussed below in Section II.I. 30. With respect to the lack of support for employee installation times: fhe Consultants' Requests for Information ("RFIs") requested Comcast to provide support for the 7 � o�-a � 3 employee installafion times used by each of the sample systems. Final Report at 19-20. For most of the sample systems, Comcast provided a table of work tasks that used a point system. ComcasYs sample systems claimed that the work task tables were used by its technical personnel to develop the estimated times. Final Report at 20. In addition, Comcast supplied each sample system with a sheet showing the approximate installation times used by Comcast in the previous yeaz's rate filing, which was only for the former AT&T Broadband systems. It asked personnel to provide their own estunates of install time (although in more than half the cases, the guidance from corporate was accepted). Comcast also had data regarding contractor install times, which should have served as a check on the employee data. 31. This data pointed in varying directions. The Comcast Comxnents note that install times aze stable from year to year, yet Comcast's install time estimates in some cases varied significantly from historical data. The times resulting from use of point system data varied from local field estimates, even though the point system is used to schedule field work. Consultants sought information to explain the variance, and it was not provided. In short, as explained in the Final Report at 23-24 and the Supplemental Report at 5-8, given the significant problems with the data, ComcasYs failure to explain the variations from estimate to estimate, and the failure to separate out tasks properly included in the Forxn 1205 from those that are not properly included in the Form 1205, Comcast's install estimates could not be used without adjushnent. 32. The adjustments made to the install time were reasonable in light of the data available, and particularly in light of the company's failure to adequately explain its own data. Where point system data was sufficiently detailed, the Consultants used that data to adjust the tune for employee installations. The Consultants explained why that data appeazed most reliable, Supplemental Report at 7, and that explanation appears reasonable. ComcasYs 10 o5-a�3 objections to use of the data are not convincing: it claims that point system data was not sufficiently detailed for some systems, but the Consultants make it cleaz that only point system data that was detailed was used in maldng the adjustment. Comcast clauned its point system iypically excluded drive time, but there is evidence to the contrary. Supplemental Report at 7. Finally, Comcast complains that the point system was not designed for rate regulation, but fails to explain why this makes it less reliable. Even assuming that there are problems with the point system data, it appears to be the best data available for developing mare reasonable installation time estimates, and City therefore adopts the adjushnents recommended by the Consultants. G. Annual Emnlovee Labar Hours 33. Comcast reduced annual employee labor hours in the sample systems by 373 hours to reflect non-productive hours, such as sick leave, holidays, safety meetings, and general paperwork. Addendum at 1. The Consultants found that the support provided by Comcast for this component was out of date and was based on another operator's labor policies. Comcast admit as much. Addendum at 1-2, Comcast Comxnents at 12. 34. The Consultants included 224 non-productive hours, based on historical data from Comcast systems. Addendum at 1-2. Comcast argues this is unreasonable because under its policies employees may take between 224-304 paid hours off, depending on seniority. But as the Consultants explain, historical experience indicates less than half this tune is typically taken. Comcast also seems to complain that the Consultants estimate does not adequately account for administrative/training time, but the problem for Comcast is that it has not supported any time for those activities. The Consultants' historical data actually includes more time for trauung and administrative activities than did the TCI estimates on which the filing was based. The City finds that Comcast has failed to cany its burden of proof with respect to its claimed non- 11 05-��3 productive hours, and that the Consultants' adjustment to this figure is based on the best auailable information. H. Inside Wirin2 35. Comcast included in its 2004 Form 1205 calculation time spent on trouble calls related to inside wiring maintenance. But Comcast provides wire maintenance services in two ways: on an individual call basis, and pursuant to a wire maintenance plan program. The Consultants point out that under wire maintenance plans, Comcast does not simply maintain cable lines. It also maintains telephone and home network computer wiring. As far as the record shows, Comcast has made no effort to distinguish between calls related to its cable television plant and other inside wiring — it has included all wire maintenance trouble calls in the Form 1205 calculation. Comcast bills subscribers monthly for this service but has made no adjushnent to reduce inside wire costs by the revenue collected, even though Comcast has included the costs of services provided under the wire maintenance plans. 36. The record suggests that a substantial portion of ComcasYs subscribers may be taking the wire maintenance plans, and calling on Comcast to maintain non-cable wiring. Comcast does not claim that its trouble call reports included only cable-related calls. ComcasYs inclusion of non-cable related calls was error. The Consultants were therefore required to adjust ComcasYs estimates in order to ensure that Comcast did not include wire maintenance costs unrelated to regulated cable equipment. The Consultants elvninated fifty per cent (50%) of the i trouble calls from the Comcast data. Comcast does not propose an altemarive, or suggest that there is a more rational correction that could be made in light of the available data. Supplemental Report at 16. 12 05-�y� 37. Accordingly, the City finds that Comcast failed to support its estimates, and that the Consultants' adjustment to those estixnates was proper. I. Weighted Installafion Times 38. Tn dete*m�ning the average installarion times used in the Form 1205, Comcast used the installation tisne estimates only for Comcast in-house technical personnel, omitting the time estimates relating to ComcasYs contractors, even though ComcasYs infoxmation reveals that contractors perform approxixnately 54% of all of tl�e instzllation activities for the twenty sample systems. Final Report at 29. The Consultants proposed to adjust installation times to reflect a weighted average of time spent on installs by employees and time spent on installs by contractors. They concluded this adjushnent was necessary because contractor install times were substantially shorter than employee install times in most cases, Final Report at 29, so that a failure to average would overstate the normal time required to complete an installation, and over-recover costs. Final Report at 30 39. Comcast objects to inclusion of contractor installation rime because (it claims) contractor reported times do not include drive time. However, as the Supplemental Report points out, (a) the difference in times cannot be explained by drive time alone; and (b) elsewheze in the Form 1205, Comcast has treated its reported contractor install times as if those included drive tisne. For that reason alone, an adjustment appears to be appropriate, and given the treatment of the contractor hours elsewhere in the Form 1205, the Consultants' approach appeazs reasonable given the informarion available. 40. The Consultants made another adjustment to contractar-related instali costs (and employee-related install costs) to which Comcast objects. Under FCC regularions, regulated equipment — customer premises equipment — includes equipment inside a"demarcation poinY' 13 05-a�3 twelve inches outside the connection to the home. Installarion and other equipment costs outside that demazcation point belong to the network and cannot be charged to the subscriber as an equipment rate; rather, such costs aze recovered by Comcast through its rates for services. Final Report at 20-21. ComcasYs data responses indicate that its installation calculations included cost related to activities outside the demarcation point. Final Report at 25. 41. In order to remove these costs (and associated hours), the Consultants used the ratio of drop-related costs to total contractor labor costs from the review of ComcasYs 2003 Form 1205 filed with Montgomery County, Maryland. The Consultants modified the contractor labor costs in the 2004 Form 1205 based upon this eazlier Comcast data. Final Report at 27. 42. In its comments, Comcast appears to azgue that drop-related labor costs outside the demarcation point can be included in the Form 1205 under Comcast Cablevision of Tallahassee, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd. 7686 (1995). Comcast Comments at 16. Aowever, that decision at best permits an operator to choose between capitalizing drop labor costs in service rates, or recovering them through the Form 1205. Tallahassee at ¶¶ 34-37. As the Supplemental Report shows, Comcast has chosen the former approach, and cannot now seek to recover the costs through the Form 1205. See Supplemental Report at 11-13. Thus, under the Tallahassee rule, exclusion of drop labor costs was appropriate, and the Consultants' adjusUnent appears reasonable based on the information available. J. VCR Connections 43. Comcast included in its 2004 Form 1205 time esrimates for making VCR connections for the subscriber, both at the same time as an installation and as a separate trip. Final Report at 31. 14 05 a�3 44. The Consultants found that Comcast appeared to have included the activity of making VCR connections as part of its normal installation process, and thus no separate chazge is warranted. Comcast also failed to provide sufficient support for its clauned charge for a VCR connection as a sepazate installation. On that basis, the Consultants initially recommended that Comcast not be permitted to make a separate charge for VCR connections. Final Report at 31. 45. The Comcast Comments azgued that the company had in fact provided some lunited information about VCR connection costs and time estimates, and hence that the City should not eliminate any charge for VCR connections. Comcast Comments at 18-19. 46. The Consultants' Supplemental Report did not disa� that in principle subscribers could be charged for VCR connection, but noted that Comcast had not addressed the factual issue as to the inclusion of VCR connecrion costs in the normal installation rates charged to subscribers and hence the potenrial for double recovery. However, the Consultants noted that installers would be likely to incur some costs not otherwise recovered when they made separate trips for VCR connections. Thus, the Supplemental Report recommended a maximum permitted rate of $13.78 far VCR connections requiring a separate trip, but disallowed an additional charge as part of the normal installation process. Supplemental Report at 17. 47. The City finds that Consultants' revised recommendarions are reasonable in light of the record and ComcasYs failure to show that an addirional charge is warranted at the time of installation. However, Comcast may charge for VCR connection on a sepazate hip at the rate stated in the Supplemental Report. K. Customer Trouble Calls 48. ComcasYs 2004 Form 1205 included a separate charge for service calls where customer-owned equipment is at fault. Comcast estimated that such a service call averages 40 �5 o5-a�G3 minutes to complete. The Consultants, however, concluded that Comcast had provided no support for this activity either in its "point" system data or by specifically idenrifying time for the activity. Final Report at 31. 49. Absent some supporting information, the Consultants concluded it was only possible to include an amount that included drive time and a short time for customer interaction. Accordingly, the Consultants reduced Comcast's estimate by half. Final Report at 31. 50. The Consultants also identified a fiuther problem with ComcasYs "trouble call" chazge. Based on their review of the original 1994 filed Form 1205s, the Consultants do not believe that these costs were originally unbundled by Comcast. If they were not, Comcast is already recovering the costs associated with these trouble calls in its BST rates. However, as a conservative approach, given the absence of further information, the Consultants declined to eliminate this category entirely. Final Report at 32. 51. In response, Comcast suggested that a likely scenario for a trouble call of this type would involve more than twenty minutes' time. Comcast also stated that its technicians sometimes resolve problems for subscribers even when Comcast equipment is not involved. Comcast Comments at 18. The problem is that ComcasYs hypotheticals simply do not provide any substantive support for its result. Given the company's failure to provide any reasonable support for its estunate, and the unbundling issue, the choice is really between allowing no fvne for this activity, or a short time. The Consultants' choice of twenty minutes is reasonable under these circumstances. Supplemental Report at 16. L. DVR Converters 52. In several of the communities participating in the joint review of the national Form 1205, Comcast included a charge on its rate cazd for converters incorporating digital EC o�-au3 video recorders ("DVR"). However, Comcast did not provide support in its 2004 Form 1205 for such a chazge. The Consultants found that the costs of DVR converters were not included in the 2004 Form 1205 filing. Final Report at 32. 53. In its comments, Comcast claimed that the DVR chazge should actually have been classified as a service chazge. Comcast Comments at 19. However, DVRs aze equipment, and aze used to receive basic service. The chazge for the DVR is therefore appropriately regulated pursuant to the Form 1205. (Comcast has not shown that in fact it provides any service over and above the equipment in connection with DVR usage by subscribers. As the Consultants suggest, if there is a separate service, Comcast may be able to charge for it, but it cannot bundle service and equipment charges.) See Final Report at 32; Supplemental Report at 17. In light of the absence of any support for a DVR charge, the Consultants recommend allowing Comcast to charge subscribers the same amount it charges for addressable converters. As this is the equipment closest in kind to a DVR, that approach appears reasonable. 54. The City finds that Comcast has not supported an equipment charge far a DVR converter, and finds that Consultants have reasonably permitted Comcast to charge the same price it charges for addressable converters. Of course, nothing in this Order prevents Comcast from supporting a different charge for a DVR in its next filing. M. Unreturned Eauipment Char�e 55. The Consultants noted that Comcast had introduced, but not supported, a charge of $250 to subscribers for failure to return a CableCard. Final Report at 34. In its comments, Comcast azgued that chazges for unreturned equipment should not be calculated on Form 1205. Comcast Comments at 19. 17 o5-a �3 56. The FCC has recently zuled that a cable operator's fees for unretumed equipment aze not regulated pursuant to Form 1205, although they aze subject to regulation pursuant to local or state laws. Basic Cable Service and Equipment Rates of Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC, St. Louis, MO (CLTID No. M00545): Appeal of Local Rate Order, File No. CSB-A-0720, Order, DA OS-392 at ¶¶ 4-5 (Media Bureau Feb. 14, 2005). Accordingly, this Order will not establish an amount for or othenvise regulate ComcasYs unreturned equipment chazges. See Supplemental Report at 18. However, the City is not endorsing Comcast's charge through ttus Order, and reserves all its rights to address such charges pursuant to state or local law. III. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONSULTAN'I'S 57. The Consultants' investigation of the 2004 Form 1205 revealed a number of apparent errors and improprietieS in ComcasYs filing for which specific adjushnents could not be made. While these fmdings do not directly affect the rates set herein, they are noted below insofaz as they may affect future filings. A. Coutract Labor 58. Along with equipment-related costs incurred by its own employees, Comcast may recover on Form 1205 costs for contract labor. The Consultants found that Comcast did not use actual invoices to caiculate its contract labor costs. Instead, Comcast merely estimated the contract labor costs based on the number of installations contained in certain Comcast reports. It was uncleaz, however, whether all the activiries in this estimate were actually billed to Comcast. Final Report at 16. 18 os-a�3 59. Comcast refused to provide actual invoices for the Consultants' review. The fact that the Consultants were not given any real data to review zaises questions as to the accuracy of ComcasYs estimates. The Consultants recommend that Comcast be required to use actual invoices from the coniractor and allocate those invoices to rea lated and unregulated activities. Regulators would then be able to distinguish between "real" costs and hypothetical costs based upon unverified data. Final Report at 16. The City concludes this recommendation is reasonable, particulazly in light of problems in Comcast data that were identified. B. Samplina Issues 60. Under the pertinent statute and FCC rules, operators may make a single, national filing that sets charges for equipment and installation. But, rather than collect data from all its systems and use that data to set rates, Comcast examines data from a sample of systems. The accuracy of the samplvng methodology is thus critical to the reasonableness of the rates. 61. In its original 2004 Form 1205, Comcast did not provide the general description of inethodology and justification of reasonableness required by 47 C.R.R. § 76.923(c)(1). The Consultants asked Comcast to provide the required information. ComcasYs only response was to claim that its averaging methodology had already been approved by the FCC in TCI of Richardson, Inc.: Petition for Reconsideration of Bureau Order Resolving Loca1 Rate Appeals (CUID TX1228), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideratzon, 14 FCC Rcd. 11700 (1999) ("Richardson"). Final Report at 35. 62. Richardson, however, did not approve the specific methodology used by Comcast in the 2004 Form 1205. Richardson established that a sampling methodology could be acceptable. But the sampling methodology used in Richardson is different from that used in the 2004 Form 1205. The mere fact that a sample can be used, and the FCC's willingness to accept 19 b5-a U 3 the particulaz sampling used in Richardson, does not by itself establish whether Comcast's sample here was statistically valid. Final Report at 35-39. 63. The Consultants identified a number of potential problems with ComcasYs sampling methodology. Among other things, the Consultants compazed the equipment and instaIlation rates in the 2004 Form 1205 with Comcast's equipmeat aad instal2ation rates in other jurisdictions where Comcast did not use the national Form 1205, but rather used special local Forms 1205 instead. The differences found by the Consultants raise serious concerns that Comcast may be over-recovering its costs in converter rates and installation chazges and cast serious doubt on the revenue-neutrality of ComcasYs overall Form 1205 methodology. Final Report at 36, 40-41. Comcast responded to Yhe potential problem regarding the number of sample systems used, but then refused to produce documents that the Consultants requested in order to evaluate ComcasYs claims. 64. Due to the difficulty of obtaining tnnely and complete information from Comcast, as noted above, it does not seem to be practical to address the validity of the sampling methodology in the 2004 Forxn 1205 at this time. Thus, no adjushnents are made to ComcasYs rates in this Order based on the concems described in this Section III.B. The City does, conclude that there is good reason to examine this methodology if its is used in future filings, and to decide based on that exainivation whether to reject it or make any necessary corrections that may be pernutted under FCC regulations. C. Responses to Data Requests 65. A significant portion of the Final Report, Supplemental Report and ComcasYs Comments is devoted to ComcasYs responses — or failure to respond — to the Consultants' data requests. What is clear is that there were many cases in which Comcast failed to produce data, 20 05-a�3 even where it had produced compazable data in response to Form 1205s for other communities in the past (and for the current year). For example, even setting aside disputes with respect to the form in which certain invoices were produced, Comcast appears to have failed to produce even documents it said it would produce. See, e.g., Supplemental Report at 21. It is also clear that the requests were not unreasonable gven appazent problems with Comcast's other bQOks, records and representations, as suggested by the Consultants' discussion of cable modem costs. 66. We recognize that this is Comcast's first national filing. However, the City concludes that ComcasYs responses aze fairly taken into account in deciding whether the recommendations of the Consultants are reasonable based on the best information available. Further, the City puts Comcast on notice that it should respond promptly and fully to requests for information in connection with future filings, in a way designed to pemut the City to conduct a review of documents. It should take steps to ensure that it can perform consistent with this paragraph. If it fails to do so, it may be subject to any remedies permitted under the City's franchise or applicable law. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES TT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 67. Comcast's maaiimum permitted rates for equipment and installation aze hereby set in accardance with the rates calculated in the Consultants' Report and (with respect to VCR Connect (Separate Trip)) the Supplemental Report, as set forth in the table at paragraph 7, above. The rates set herein _will govern Comcasfs equipment and installation rates until Comcast lawfully implements a fiu rate change pursuant to applicable law. 68. Except as otherwise noted herein, the City adopts the recommendations and the rationale for the recommendations made by Consultants. 21 v5-a � 3 69. It is uncleaz whether Comcast has implemented the basic-only converter rate for which it filed in the 2004 Form 1205. To the extent it has not done so, the greater refund due to such failure to implement the filed rate shall be included in the requirements for reductions and refunds established herein. In addition, Comcast shall, along with the certification required by ¶ 72, file a complete explanarion of its failure to isnplement the basic-only converter rate. 70. As soon as possible, but in any event within s�ty (60) days from the effective date of this Order, Comcast shall make all rate reductions and refunds that are necessary based on the rates shown above. Comcast shall refund all amounts charged to subscribers for equipment or installations that exceed the maYimum permitted amounts specified herein in accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 76.942(d), and shall include interest computed at applicable rates published by the Internal Revenue Service for tas refunds and additional taac payments, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.942(e). 71. Any charges for equipment, installation, or other services based on an hourly rate shall reflect an HSC no greater than the maacunum pernussible HSC shown above. 72. Comcast shall file with the City within ninety days from the date of this Order a certification, signed by an authorized representative of Comcast, stating whether Comcast has complied fully with all provisions of this Order, describing in detail the precise measures taken to implement this Order. 73. Comcast may chazge rates less than the masimum rates indicated above for equipment and installation, as long as such rates are consistent with applicable law and are applied in a uniform and nondiscrimniatory way, pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 22 os-��3 74. The rates set herein aze subject to further reducrion and refund to the extent pertnitted under applicable law and regulations, as the same may be amended from time to time. 75. The findings herein aze based on the representarions of Comcast. Should informarion come to the City's attention that these representarions were inaccurate in any material way, the City reserves the right to take appropriate acrion. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that the Gity has accepted as correct any specific entry, calculation, explanation or argument made by Comcast not specifically addressed herein. 76. The City reserves all of its rights with respect to rate regulation, including, but not limited to, any right it may have to reopen this rate proceeding based on new information or rulings by any governing authority, if it appears that such new information or rulings could alter the reasonable rates prescribed by FCC regulations, and any right it may have to "true up" overcharges or undercharges in connection with fizture rate filings pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(3). 77. This Order constitutes the written decision required by 47 C.F.R. § 76.436(a). 78. This Order sha11 be effective March 23, 2005. 79. This Order shall be released to the public and to Comcast, and a public notice shall be published stating that this Order has been issued and is available for review, pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 76.936(b). � Date i 5128',011Q0107495.DflC 23 05-d�13 ATTACHMENT 1: FINAL REPORT BY ASHPAUGH & 5CULCO CPAs, PLC AND FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO TI3E PARTICIPATING LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORITIES REGARDINC� THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 FILED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN 2004 (WTI`H APPENDICES) �� d�3 Final Report � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. To The Participating Local Franchising Authorities Regarding the National FCC Form 1205 filed by Comcast Cable Commanications, Inc. In 2004 05 a� 3 ASHPAllGH & SCULCO, CAFs, PLG GeY.iSeL ?ubtic AEcbun;anu nnd Cmwitana Front Range Consulting, Inc. TABLE OF CONTEiVTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... II. E�cuTTVE SuMM.axY ............................................................................... III. RECOi�A4ENDED RATES .............................................................................. N. SUNL�IARY OF ISSUES IDENT'IFIED .............................................................. V. COMCAST NATIONAL FORM 1205 METHODOLOGY .................................... VI. CONSULTANTS' REVIEW PROCESS ............................................................. VII. UNBUNDLING ISSUES ............................................................ VIII. DISCUSSIONS OF ISSUES IDENTLFIED ..................................... A. BONUSES / COMMISSIONS ................................................ B. CONTRACT LABOR .......................................................... C. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR-PLANT AND EQUIPMENT.. D. PAYROLLTAXES ............................................................. E. PROPERTY TAXES .......................................................... F. INSURANCE ..................................................................... . G. MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED HOURS ............................. l. WAREHOUSE PERSONNEL .......................................... 2. OFFICE PERSONNEL ................................................... H. INSTALLATION ACTIVITY HOURS ..................................... 1 . SUPPORT .................................................................... 2. CONTRACT LABOR ESTIMATES .................................. I. CONVERTER MAINTENANCE AT TIME OF INSTALL........... J. INSIDE WIRING ................................................................ K. WEIGHTED INSTALLATION TIMES ..................................... L. VCR CONNECTIONS ......................................................... M. CUSTOMER'IhOUBLE CALLS .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .............................................................. N. DVRCONVERTERS ............................................................................. ................... 3 ................... 3 ................... $ ................... 5 .................. 6 ................... 7 ................. 13 ................. 15 ................. 15 ................. 16 ................. 16 ................. 17 ................. 17 ................. 18 ................. 19 ................. 19 ................. 19 ................. 19 ................. 20 ................. 25 ................. 27 ................. 27 ................. 29 ................. 31 ................. 31 ................. 32 Page 1 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpau�h & Sculco, CPAs, pLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All nghts reserved. Cannot be used vathout expressed wntten pemussion from both organizations. �5 a �F3 0 ASHPAUGH & SGUlCO, CPAs, PlC Certiied Psbiic Accountamts and Consui:zecs �. X. XI. ' 7 Front Range Consulting, Inc. O. OTHER CONVERTER COSTS ................................................................... 1. CONVERTERREPAIItS ...................................................................... 2. BASIC-ONLY ASSET COSTS ............................................................. 3. �IDTV AssET CosTS ...................................................................... P . CABLE CARDS .................................................................................... Q. FIDTV INSTALLATIONS ........................................................................ R. UNRETURNED EQUIPMENT CHARGES .................................................... SAMPLING CONCERNS AND ISSUES ............................................................. REFUND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. ................ 32 ................ 32 ................ 33 ................ 33 ................ 34 ................ 34 ................ 35 ................ 35 ................ 41 ............... 42 Page 2 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulhng, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used wiffiout expressed writte� pemussion from both organizarions. 05��P3 `t� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccr:iueE Peb:ic p¢uw±antz anC Cor,suitxrz.s I. INTRODLiCTION Front Range Consulting, Inc. Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC ("A&S") and Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC") (collectively "Consultants") are pleased to provide the participating Local Franchising Authorities ("participating LFAs") this final analysis of Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.'s ("ComcasY') nariona12004 FCC Form 1205 (the "Filing"). Each participaring LFA has contxacted with the Consultants to share in the wsts of the Consultants' analysis and review of the Comcast Form 1205 filing, and each participating LFA has been specifically granted the right by the Consultants to use this fmal report as part of and support for its individual rate order. II. EXECLiTIVE SLIMMARY The Consultants have identified numerous issues and concerns with the Filing that are explained in detail below. Briefly, Comcast has included in the Filing costs that were not originally unbundled from service rates in 1994; has included contract labor costs for acrivities outside of twelve inches from the subscriber's residence; has generally not met its burden of proof with regard to the estimated times associated with installarion activities; has improperly eliminated coniractor installarion rimes from the estimated installation times; and has improperly included costs associated with digital converters in the basic-only converter category. The Consultants do not believe that the Form 1205 as filed by Comcast can serve as a reliable basis for setting equipment and installarion rates for the participaring LFAs. Comcast has also ignored Federal Communications Commission ("RCC") precedents and Form 1205 instructions? The Consultants have had to correct these significant enors and omissions in the Comcast filing by using data supplied by Comcast, together with data developed from other reliable sources where Comcast has failed to provide detailed support. The Consultants have spent considerable time and effort in reviewing the Filing by propounding numerous data requests, responding to correspondences from Comcast, reviewing individual invoices supporting the Schedule B operating costs, developing electronic spreadsheets mirroring the Comcast sample system methodology, and responding to ComcasYs Petirion for Declaratory Ruling at the FCC. The Consultants have spent nearly 1,000 man-hours on this review. In large part, this has been due to the need to repeatedly request the same information because of ComcasYs failure to respond to the Consultants' attempts to get some form of supporting documentation for the costs, estimates and procedures used by Comcast in the Filing. As will be discussed below, in many cases Comcast still has not provided the necessary support. ` A complete listing of all of the LFAs participating in this review project is contained on Attachment A to this report. Z For example, Comcast has included subscriber drop costs in the contract labor costs, which is prohibited by the Form 1205 instrucrions. See FCC inshvctions for the Fonn 1205 Schedule C"note." Page 3 of 42 January,2005 � Ashpau� & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All dghts reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written peanission from both organizations. 05 -� �k 3 $ �� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ce:.�SeG Pubik Accoun.zn's aad Lavzulim�s Front Range Consulting, Inc. The Consultants believe that they have spent more time and effort on reviewing the Comcast Filing than would have been necessary if Comcast had: (1) spent the time and effort to review the individual cost components prioz to filing; (2) been willing to provide all documentation necessary to support the Filing; and (3) been willing to work in a cooperative spirit with the participating LFAs and the Consultants in completing this review. Each of these failures by Comcast has required the Consultants to attempt to verify data that should have been done by Comcast prior the Filing and seazch for documentation and support from other sources. In particulaz, the Consultants have had to make extra efforts in attempting to retrieve FCC Form 1205s filed by cable operatars in 1994 in order to assess the unpact of those costs not originally unbundled by the operator in the determinafion of service rates in 1994 — costs that Comcast refused to identify. The rates shown in Appendix B to this report were developed by the Consultants using the same methodology employed by Comcast, namely the use of data for the twenty sample systems selected by Comcast and the sample methodology of used Comcast consultant Dr. Hannum in the deternunation of the Consultants' revised FCC Form 1205. The Consultants still believe that the sampling methodology used by Comcast is itself suspect and may contain staristically invalid results. However, given ComcasYs efforts to withhold much of information necessary to determine if the sample were valid, the Consultants were not able to reach a final conclusion on that point or to use an alternative methodology. The Consultants anticipate that Comcast will be afforded an opportunity to comment on this Report. Such comments may succeed in clarifying some of ComcasYs responses to data requests. But Comcast should not be allowed to provide missing supporting documentation in such a connment period. Comcast has already been provided ample opportunity to provide supporting documentation in response to the Consultants' requests. The company chose not to provide it. Comcast should not be allowed to abuse the rate review process by submitting data during a comment period that it withheld during the Consultants' review. Any additional informarion offered by Comcast in response to this report should be rejected if it represents merely an attempt to "pad" the record and make the review process longer and more cosfly. The Consultants appreciate the openness of our participaring LFAs in joining and sharing in the cost of this review of the Filing. The Consultants believe that this type of cost sharing will benefit subscribers by ensuring a thorough review of the narional Form 1205 and wiIl streamline the regulatory review process. The Consultants hope that Comcast will be more forthcoming in fuhue reviews by preparing necessary supporting detail and providing timely responses to data requests. Page 4 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugt� & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Rznge Consuiring, Ina All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed vmtten peimission from both organizanons. os-a�3 °t� ASHPAUGH & SCtJtCO, tPhs, PLC CMi{y p�bii: Acman:an:s ar.d Coczuitan:s Front Range Consulting, Inc. III. RECOMMENDED RATFS In summary, the Consultants aze recommending the following converter and installation rates: Table 1 IV. SLIMMARY OF ISSi.IES IDENTIFIED The Consultants have identified rivo general issues and fourteen specific issues with respect to the Comcast Filing. The two general issues are: • Comcast has ignored the FCC's precedent on the unbundling of existing costs in the Form 1205 that are currently part of the basic service tier rates; and • Comcast has not provided necessary support and documentation for the many of the costs and estimates used in the Filing and thus has failed to meet its burden of proof. The fourteen specific issues are related to: • Bonuses and Commissions; • Contract Labor; • Maintenance & Repair — Plant and Bquipment; • Payroll TaYes; • Property TaYes; Page 5 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Ra¢ge Consulriug, Ina Nl rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written peimission from both orgamzations. Attached as Appendix B to this Report is a complete lisring of all of the individual installarion rates recommended. Appendix C is a revised FCC Form 1205 and Appendix D is the revised statistical summary fox each of the sample systems. Appendices C and D contain essentially the same numerical information provided by Comcast in the original Form 1205 filing. �5�y3 °t� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccrti'ued ?uS!iz AECOUncan:s and Cans !:z^s ��'`4�� `'� Front Range Consulting, Inc. • Insurance; • Miscellaneous Regulated Hours; • Installation Activity Hours; • Converter Maintenance; • Inside Wiring; • Contractor Drop Costs; • Weighted Installation Times; • VCR Connections; and • Other Converter Asset Costs. The Consultants also identified three other issues pertaining to rate norices and rate cards. Those issues were related to: • Cab1eCARD5; • HDTV Installations; and • Unreturned Equipment Charges. Each of these issues will be discussed in detail below. V COMCAST NATIONAL FORM 1205 METHODOLOGY The Form 1205 Filing was made with some local franchising authoriries on or about March 1, 2004, and with most of the others on or about April l, 2004. The participating LFAs include some that received filings on each date. Comcast prepared its Filing using the FCC's Equipment Averaging Methodology. This is the first rime Comcast has used the FCC Equipment Averaging Methodology for its costs associated with equipment and installarion acrivities from the entire company. In last year's Form 1205 filings, Comcast used both an aggregated filing for the former AT&T Broadband systems and regional/local filings for the old Comcast systems. It should be noted, however, that while Comcast has included costs of its entire company in the Filing, some individual Form 1205s using local or regional data were still filed by Comcast in 2004. Moreover, in New Jersey, no Form 1205 filing was made, since in that state Comcast is under the terms of a rate settlement — terms that Comcast Aas refused to 3 The City of Murfreesboro, TN received its filing based on regional data on 7une 1, 2004. ° See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(n; 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(c); and Implementarion of Secrion 301(j) of the Telecommunicarions Act of 1996, Aggregation of Equipment Costs by Cable Operators, Report and Order, I1 FCC Rcd 6778 (1996) (the "Aggregation Order"). 5 For e�mple, in 2004 Comcast filed a local 1205 in Detroit, Michigan, Muncie and Huntington, Indiana and a regional 1205 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Page 6 of42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All righu reserved. Cannot be used vnthout expressed written perrttission from both organizations. 05-��3 ASHPAUGH & SCF7LCO CPAs, PLC Ccr.iucL Pnotic Acwvnaus and Conznt;ants Front Range Consulting, Inc. share with the Consultants even though two of the sample systems aze in New Jersey. T'he Consultants continue to be concerned that the terms of the set[lement in New Jersey may be inconsistent with the Filing and that the narional filing may be subsidizing the equipment and installation rates in New Jersey. The Consultants believe that Comcast cannot prepare both a regional and national Form 1205 filing for the same test year. This would allow Comcast to potentially over-recover its costs for the equipment and installation rates. In the 2004 Filing, Comcast prepared a narional Form 1205 calculation utilazing data from across ComcasYs entire company. For some of the participating LFAs, this is the first flme Comcast has used a national filing. For others, such as the former AT&T Broadband systems, this is the eighth such narional filing. Nafional filings aze much harder to zeview and analyze than local filings, as each LFA is not just reviewing its own individual Comcast system but rather must consider the combinarion of systems comprising over twenty million subscribers. Comcast prepared this filing by selecting a sample of its systems and using a statistical methodology, developed estimates for the entire company. The starisrical methodology chose twenty sample systems based upon the size of the systems, not on their geographical locations. For these twenty sample systems, Comcast then invesrigated the percentage of time the technical personnel were assigned to regulated activifies such as installations, the costs associated with those activiries, and the average installarion rimes. From these individual sample system reviews, Comcast develops average times for each of the installarion activities and a dollar amount of regulated costs. The latter amount is called an "end amounY' in the Comcast methodology. In developing the "end amounP' Comcast looks at the assignment of all of the sample system costs and assumes that these costs ate consistent across a11 systems contained in the individual subscriber size categories. While this sampling methodology has been used previously by Comcast for the former AT&T Broadband systems, the sampling methodology has never been challenged as to its reasonableness by an LFA, nor has the FCC approved the methodology. The FCC has stated that a cable operator can use a sampling methodology, but has not endorsed the Comcast methodology. The Comcast methodology is significantly different from the former AT&T Broadband methodology with respect to the treatment of contract labor, and also with respect to the items included on Schedule B(Operating Expenses) included in the Form 1205 filing. Therefore, while Comcast's methodology is similar to the former AT&T Broadband methodology, it is not the same. VI. CONSLII,TAIV'TS' REVIEW PROCESS The Consultants approached a number of local franchising authoriries in early 2004 in preparation for the Filing to determine their interest in a joint review. Once several LFAs had committed to the project, ComcasYs legal counsel was advised of this project, and the Consultants were directed by Comcast to send their informarion requests to ComcasYs preparer of the national Form 1205 in Philadelphia. Page 7 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Fmnt Range Consulring, Inc. Al] rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemuss�on from both organizeaons. bsay3 ° t� ASHPAllGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC G•r:i4ed Pubilc Acro¢ntxer:s acd ConsWaacz i Front Range Consulting, Inc. The Consultants began the Request for Informarion ("RFP') process shortly after the initial group of participating LFAs was organized. The initial data request, which was transmitted to Comcast on May 21, 2004, was limited to 22 individual questions basically asldng for fundamental supporting data not contained in ComcasYs initial rate filing. As is common in a rate review, the initial RFI was designed to gather some of the supporting data used by Comcast to arrive at the numbers included in the narional Form 1205. Once the supporting data had been reviewed, it would be possible to submit more detailed follow-up questions addressing the specific responses to the initial RFI. Comcast responded to the initial request on June 21, but did not provide the requested information or support in most of its responses. As a rule, Comcast simply stated that the requested information was not relevant and refused to provide it. In the Consultants' view, Comcast abused rate regulation procedures by not responding to reasonable and necessary data requests issued by the participaring LFAs as part of their review of the Piling. In effect Comcast claimed a right to decide unilaterally what infortnation requests were "reasonably necessary" and/or relevant. In subsequent requests, Comcast was reminded that by not providing the requested informarion and supporting documents, Comcast was waiving any right it might have to challenge the "best available" informarion used by the participating LFAs to evaluate the Filing and to establish rates. In implemenring the rate regulation provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Compefition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Act"), the FCC issued an order specifying how local franchising authorities may seek additional and supplemental information from the cable operators in the course of their review of a rate filing. The Third Order on Reconsideration' specifies that: Franchising authorities are entitled to request information, including proprietary information, that is reasonably necessary to make a rate determination ... Each request should state clearly the reasons the informarion is needed, and where related to and FCC Form 393 (and/or FCC Form 1200/1205), indicate the question or section of the form to which the request specifically relates. This specificity will enable franchising authoriries to ensure the validiry of the informarion provided in order to arrive at a determinarion of the reasonableness of the rates proposed, while at the same time ensuring that the cable operators are not required to provide addirional data that is not germane to the rate-setting process. Third Order on Reconsideration at ¶ 77. The Consultants have met this standazd in their requests for informarion. The RFIs detailed the reasons for the requests and the sections of the national Form 1205 to which they related. Where 6 See 47 CFR §§ 76.937, 938 and 939. � Implementation ofSecrions of the Cable Televzsion Consumer Protection and Comperifion Act of 1992: Rate Regulation By-Through Prohibitlon, Tkird Order on Reconsideration, FCC 94-40, 9 FCC Rcd 4316 (Mazch 3Q 1994) (refesed to herein as the "Third Order on Reconsideration'�. Page 8 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Tnc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used without expressed writte� pemussion from both organizatioas. o5a�3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, GPAs, PLC Ccrti iea ?uhiic A¢ocm5nn acd Ccnxvia-ts Front Range Consulting, Inc. necessary, the Consultants identified the hypothesis they were trying to prove or disprove by the requests. I3onetheless, Comcast refused to provide the requested information and support. Instead, the company filed a petirion with the FCC asking to be excused from answering these legitimate requests. Historically, disputes witk regazds to requests for information have been addressed in the appeal process, and not in an interlocutory plea to the FCC. ComcasYs filing of a Petirion for Declazatory Ruling sought to short-circuit the normal process by asking the FCC to become involved before any of the resulting analyses and conclusions could be addressed by the participating LFAs 9 ComcasYs FCC filing was the culxnination of a process in which the Comcast failed to show the kind of "full cooperation" that the FCC has said is required from a cable operator. For instance, in Century Southwest Cable Television Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2423 (City of West Hollywood, CA), DA 94-489 at (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994) the FCC stated: We recognize that Century's own conduct contributed to West Hollywood's ultimate decision to set Century's installation rates at zero. We emphasize that the Comxnission eacpects cable operators to do their best to facilitate the efficient and effecrive review of proposed rates by local franchising authorifies. This effort should include full cooperation with reasonable requests by local authorities for data in support of asserted costs and rates. Our rate regulations are clear in placing the burden on operators to justify their regulated rates for basic tier service and associated equipment and installations. Therefore, uncooperative and recalcitrant conduct will not be tolerated by the Commission and need not be tolerated by local franchising authorities. The FCC was confronted with a similar to that in Century Southwest Cable Televiszon Corp. dispute in a 1995 order regarding Centmy New Mexico. There, the Commission stated: Franchising authorities are given a certain amount of discretion in conducting their regulatory review. Cable operators have the burden of establishing the reasonableness of their rates that are subject to regulafion. If a franchising authority determines that an operator has not met that burden, it may set an operator's rates based on the best informarion available. In reviewing a rate filing, a franchising authority may require an operator to provide a reasonable explanafion for the figures contained in its rate filing and may also ask for supporting documentation to substantiate the figures. Operators are required to respond to reasonable requests from franchising authorities in a timely fashaon. If a franchising authority does not receive a sarisfactory response or zeceives no response at all, it may rely on the best information available. We must affiiTn the $ CSR-6388-R, filed September 3, 2004. 9 As of the date of this report, the FCC has not yet acted on ComcasYs Petirion. lo Century Southwest Cable Television Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 2423 (Ciry of West Hollywood, CA), DA 94-489 at ¶ 9 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994) (emphasis added). Page 9 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpau�h & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consuinng, Inc. A�I rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed v+ritten pemvssio� from both organi�ations. 05-��3 .�� ASHPAllGH & SCULCO, CPFs, PLC Cc:iGctl Pub:ic Accounun:z ar.0 Caowicznu Front Range Consulting, Inc. Town's decision if we find it was reasonable. To deteimine if the Town's decision was reasonable, we must analyze the decision in its proper context. In making the two changes to Century's rate filing that aze challenged in this appeal, the Town determined that Century had not provided an adequate explanarion or an appropriate justification for its own equipment-related figures.l l In that case the FCC had before it the entire record and thus was able to address how the disputed informarion fit into the LFA's rate deterxninafion. Comcast has abused the data collection process by being less than forthcoming with respect to its responses to the RFIs, and by ignoring clear and longstanding FCC mles and orders. For example, rather than providing requested explanations or materials, Comcast has frequently submitted nothing more than a terse, uninformarive cross-reference. The following exchange between the Consultants and Comcast is a case in point (but by no means an isolated incident). In the Consultants' August 24, 2004 request zegarding the Trenton sample system, question 8 asked: Please explain in detail the `Bonus" amounts shown on "FCC Form 1205 Schedule B Details For Year Ended December 31, 2003" worksheet. Include with the description ComcasYs Bonus plan and employee eligibility requirements. Comcast responded on September 13, 2004 with: Please see the attached Exhibit 1205 8 082404, the General Ledger for accounts 41130 and 41140, Bonus and Contra Payroll Bonus, respecrively. That response by Comcast to this request, along with similar responses to questions 9, 10 and 11 for each of the 20 sample systems (a total of 80 responses), is typical of the selective, vague and uninformative responses submitted by Comcast. The RFI asked Comcast to "explain in detail"; no such explanation was provided. The information provided on Eichibit 1205 8 082404 was nothing more than a monthly listing of the amounts charged to the bonus account contained in the geperal ledger. At best, it shows the monthly charges each month for 2003 comprising the � amount shown on the sample system Schedule B worksheet. The Consultants were concerned at the time of the request that either the technical personnel involved were not eligible for bonuses, or that the requirements for gaining a bonus had nothing to do with equipment or installation activities. Because of ComcasYs failure to cooperate and to provide a clear answer, the Consultants are still without any information as to the bonus eligibility requirements and the t ' Century New Mexico Cable Corporarion, Town of Silver City, 10 FCC Rcd 9403 at ¶ 9(Cab. Sero. Bur. 1995) (footnotes omitted). lz See also GYesley R. Heppler, Esq., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd. 9433, DA 95-1175 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995); In re: Cenfury NewMexico Cable Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, i0 FCC Rcd. 9403, DA 95-1134 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995); In re: Heritage Cable vision ofTennessee, Inc. Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 13147, DA 95-2405 (Cab. Sexv. Bur. 1995). Page 10 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Rarige Consuiting, Inc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used wrthout expressed written pemvssion from both organizaeons. os a�3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Certiuee Pubiic A.ccounsnts ar.d Canm::znnz � � J Front Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast bonus plan with respect to these specific costs, which are included in the narional Form 1205. Notwithstanding ComcasYs uncooperative behavior, the Consultants took an extraordinary step in an attempt to resolve ComcasYs objections to the inirial and supplemental RFIs submitted to Comcast on May 21, 2004, July 9, 2004, and July 22, 2004. On August 4, 2004, the Consultants provided Comcast with a letter responding to ComcasYs objecrions raised as of that rime. The letter stated: "In order to give Comcast a final attempt at responding to these valid RFIs, we have grouped all of our questions to which you have objected into broad categories and have gone to the extraordinary effort of again providing not only the `reason for the requesY and the `secfion o£ the form' it relates to, but also a detailed explanafion of the hypotheses we are trying to prove or disprove by these requests." ComcasYs response to this effort by the Consultants was a letter dated August 18, 2004, in which Comcast lazgely reiterated its previous positions and provided no new informarion. 1 : 1� � _1� Question 2. (from the May 21, 2004 Request for Additional Informarion) ComcasYs National 1205 includes the following costs in Schedule B: Salaries — Regular, Salaries — Overtime, Salaries — Bonuses, Salaries — Commissions, Uriliries, Contract Labor, Building Maintenance, M&R — Converter, Rentals/Lease Expense, Vehicles — Gas & Oil, Vehicles — Gas & Oil, Vehicles — Repairs & Maintenance, Employee Benefits, Payroll Taxes, M&R— Equipment, Parts Supplies Small Tools, Property Tases and Insurance. Please provide a signed letter from an officer of Comcast certifying that ALL of these cost categories were unbundled in Schedule B in each and every original 1205 filed on or about August 12, 1994 by Comcast and its predecessor's in interest with each of the LFAs where this National 1205 was filed. Response: Comcast has addressed this information request in numerous responses. Most recently, in our response dated July 28, 2004, we went to great length to explain why it is virtually impossible to comply with this request. Addirionally, we expressed our belief that a"signed letter from an officer of Comcast certifying that ALL of these cost categories were unbundled in Schedule B in each and every original 1205 filed on or about August 12, 1994 by Comcast and its predecessor's in interesY' is NOT required by existing FCC rules and regulations. We went on to provide a list of Schedule B costs that were unbundled by predecessors in interest TCUAT&T Broadband and a list of the Schedule B costs that were unbundled by the "classic" Comcast systems i.e. systems that have been owned and operated by Comcast since the inception of cable regulation. We added that the Schedule B unbundled costs lists provided for predecessar iri " The Consultants' recommendation on tlus point is provided in Secrion VIII, A below. Page 11 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAs, PLC and Front Rauge Consulti�g, Inc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written peimission from both organizarions. 05-� �3 f �� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC CertiStd Tabtm Accoun.an:z and Caos�ita.^.[i Front Range Consulting, Inc. interest TCUAT&T Broadband and the "classid' Comcast systems does not account for systems that were not owned by Comcast or AT&T in 1994. This response is indicative of ComcasYs belief that it may unilaterally decide what information it will provide to the participating LFAs, even though the relevancy and need for the information has been clearly explained. Such a position would effectively render the regulation of basic service, equipment and installafion rates meaningless, because cable operators will feel free to withhold the information required to gauge whether filed rates comport with the FCC's rules, orders and decisions. It should also be noted that Comcast also attempted to thwart the participating LFAs' review of the narional Form 1205 by making the RFI process an unnecessarily rime-consuming and burdensome "paper war." The Consultants expressed a desire to meet and discuss the initial RFI requests with Comcast, so that the company could provide informarion responsive to the requests and address any confusion or discrepancies before assembling the necessary informarion. Comcast refused to have this meefing and instead prepazed its responses without the benefit of such informal discussions. Comcast's preference for confrontarional paper battles over a straightforward attempt to resolve any issues reached its lowest point on one occasion where Comcast asked that the Consultants not fas or e-mail data requests, but rather transmit them by United States mail, for no apparent reason but with the effect of delaying the receipt and fulfillment of requests. ComcasYs recalcitrant approach to RFIs thus impeded the review process and effectively shortened the time available for the Consultants to review materials submitted by Comcast. The specific quesrions objected to by Comcast regazding the Filing were the second and third attempts to get necessary information from Comcast. Thus, the delay Comcast created by the filing at the FCC compounded the delay Comcast had already created by failing to answer the questions the first time. The Consultants specifically requested Comcast to provide all invoices supporting the amounts claimed in Schedule B for each of the 20 sample systems. For example, regarding the Fresno system, these requests were numbers 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. Comcast responded with the following statement in regard to each quesrion —"Comcast will provide the requested documents after we have retrieved the documents from our data storage systems and copied them for transmittal." This is not what Comcast did. Comcast never actually provided the copies. It should be noted that several of the above requests had additional components to which Comcast never responded. For Fresno, requests 19 and 21 were as follows: 19. Please provide detailed invoices and specific facilifies covered by the insurance policies totaling $522,843.99 of insurance expense shown on "FCC Form 1205 Schedule B Details For the Year Ended December 31, 2003." 21. Please provide detailed invoices and a full description of the items and the taac assessment by item for the following amounts shown on "FCC Form 1205 Schedule B Details For the Year Ended December 31, 2003." Page 12 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without ezpressed written pecmission from both organizations. o5-a�3 �� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccrii➢eG Pub;lc Accoenzan*.s and Canmi:anvz a. b. i Front Range Consulting, Inc. Personal property taxes of $4,263,600.82: and, Real properiy taYes of -$981.38. The only response from Comcast was the statement quoted above plus copies of the General Ledger pages showing each of the individual accounts. Comcast has never provided copies of the invoices or specific supporting details for these two requests. As described below, the Consultants never envisioned and Comcast never disclosed the cumbersome process for reviewing the invoices. Comcast had to identify, and probably copy, the invoices in order to set up the system that was used. Comcast could have easily made a copy of the documents for the Consultants, but chose a more difficult and unwieldy system. ComcasYs process for reviewing the invoices did not work well and was very cumbersome. No instructions on how to use the system were provided other than a simple email. The "search" and "docuznents located" functions for the individual invoice searches had options that were not explained and had to be "found" by the Consultants There were significant delays waiting for downloads of the requested information through ComcasYs network. The Consultants had to specifically know what they were looking for, by system and account number. The system did not pernut them to go through and see what documents were available, then choose what they wanted to see. The Consuitants had to enter the information manually for each account of each sample system (the invoices totaled several thousand for each sample system), then wait for the seazch, which always took 15 seconds or more. When the result appeared, the Consultants could only see one page at a time and had to wait for the computer to load each page. Even this procedure only produced a list of documents. The Consultants next had to select a specific invoice from the list and wait another 15 seconds or more for the "pdf' document to download. Again, only the first page was displayed; the Consultants had to manually request the softwaze to provide "all" pages. If the Consultants wanted a copy, the Consultants had to go to "prinY' and wait another 15 seconds or more for the print function to complete before the cornputer could be freed up to move to the next item. In order to move to the next item, the Consultant had to go back to the list and start again. There seemed to be an option to choose multiple documents, but it was impossible to figure out how this worked since instructions were not provided. In the two days spent on this review at ComcasYs office in Leesburg, Florida, the Consultants were only able to sample the data of the available systems. Reviewing all of the thousands of pages of invoices for each sample system using ComcasYs procedures would have taken many months. The Consultants were unable to access any data for the following eight sample systems: E332 Wildwood, E840 Trenton, A54 Chesapeake Bay, EK32 New England East, E858 Montgomery County, E346 Connecticut, E868 Vineland and B56 Ann Arbor. While Comcast was informed of this problem, Comcast has srill never made the missing informarion available. VII. LINBLINDLING ISSLIES When the FCC established the rate regulatory process, it required the cable operators to "unbundle" costs associated with equipment and installation chazges. In essence, the unbundling process looked at the total amount recovered in rates from the subscriber, then subtracted out the Page 13 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range ConsulnnPo Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used vrithout expressed wdtten pexmission from both orveanizahons. a5 a � 3 � �� ASHPAUGH F< SCULCQ, CPAs, PLC Qr:iuea ]uhilc Accounantz acd Coasvf:avcs Front Range Consulting, Inc. amount recovered from equipment rates and installation charges to arrive at the amount that needed to be recovered from programming rates. This established a relationship between costs recovered through pro�.*�m;ng and those recovered through the equipment basket (equipment rates and installarion chazges). The FCC has been clear in orders since then that any costs included in service rates moved into the equipment basket must be unbundled, requiring a corresponding adjustment to service rates. In fact, during the Consultants' review, the FCC released a decision confinning the validity of the unbuadling issue and the authority of local franchising authorities to invesrigate unbundling calcularions. This decision confirmed the FCC's eazlier deternunation in TCI of Tualatin Yalley. Notwithstanding clear FCC precedent on unbundling, Comcast's responses to the Consultants' quesrions maintained that invesrigation of unbundling was unnecessary. (See the request and response provided above on page 12 under VI, Consultants' Review Process.) On the contrary, the FCC's recent decision in Jones of Georgia/South Carolina makes clear that such informarion is relevant and necessary and must be provided to a local franchising authority upon request. The Consultants need to have the same ability to evaluate unbundled costs in the instant national Form 1205 review as the rate regulatory authority did in the Jones of Georgia/South Carolina proceeding in order to prepare its recommendarion to the participating LFAs. For this reason, the Consultants had hoped that Comcast would modify its claims as to the reasonableness of the data request on the unbundling issue as a result of the Jones of Georgia/South Carolina decision. Comcast, however, has continued to ignore the FCC's rulings on this issue. Since Comcast refused to provide the requested irformation, the Consultants asked each of the participating LFAs to provide copies of the original Forms 1200 and 1205 from August 1994 that idenrified the unbundling. In some cases, the participating LFAs could not locate the forms and asked Comcast to provide copies. However, Comcast's local offices informed these participating LFAs that they had instrucrions to refer these quesrions to ComcasYs regulatory personnel in Philadelphia. Comcast did not provide the copies. Comcast was also requested to provide copies of the original 1205s of each of the sample systems. Comcast provided copies from a few of the samples. The Consultants' review of all of the original Form 1205s gathered showed a large variety of costs unbundled. In some 1994 1205s, only unbundled small amounts of salaries and benefits 14 See.7ones Communications of Georgia/South Carolina, Inc. d/6/a Jones Communications (Savannah and Chatham County, Georgia}, DA 042448 (August 4, 2004}. ' See TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. d/b/a TCI ofTualatin Yalley, Inc., DA 99-2227 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1999). 16 The Commission's Order stated: "Therefore, even if the costs at issue aze bona fide, they can be claimed in the equipment basket only if they are unbundled from the regutated programming service rates or are new costs mcurred since the operator unbundled its equipment costs. If an operator shifts existing costs from the BST to the equipment basket after the inirial unbundling but without adjusring the BST rate, the operator may be recovering the cost twice, once through the BST rate and again through the equipment basket " Jones Communications of Georgia/South Carodina, Inc. at ¶ 4(footnote omitted). Page 14 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Rarige Consulnng, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pecmission from both organizarions. a5-��3 ` �►� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPRs. PLC Certi izE Pvblic Accoumm�tz xnt Coam#ava Front Range Consulting, Inc. were included, while in other 1994 1205s the unbundling included salaries, benefits, contract labor, supplies and vehicle costs." The former AT&T Broadband/TCI systems consistenfly did not unbundle commissions, bonuses, maintenance and repair costs of plant and equipment other than converters, property taxes and insurance.� Obviously, these were costs in 1993 and 1994 and are not new costs. Thus, eliminating these costs from the national Form 1205 Filing, since they were not unbundled originally, is consistent with the FCC decisions in TCI of Tualazin YaZZey and Jones of Geargia/South Carolina. VTII. DLSCLISSIONS OF ISSi.IES IDENTiFIED As discussed above, the Consultants analysis identified a number of specific problems with the Filing. The following sections discuss each of the identified concerns and, where necessary, explain the adjustments to the Filing that were needed to arrive at a proper determination of equipment rates and installation charges and is continuing to do so. Thus, including them in the narional Form 1205 Piling would result in a double recovery. A. BONLISES / COMMISSIONS Comcast has included bonuses and commissions in the 1205 costs. First, these are costs that were not unbundled by a majority of the systems, including the former AT&T Broadband/TCI systems and the TKR systems. The Consultants reviewed a number of 1994 Form 1205s and concluded that these items, bonus and commissions, do not appear to be part of the Schedule B amounts shown. As a result, Comcast was able to recover these bonuses and commissions from subscribers in service rates. In addition, Comcast has not shown that the bonuses and commissions are actually related to regulated acrivities. Comcast was requested to provide the following for each of the twenty sample systems: Please explain in detail the "Bonus" amounts shown on the "FCC Form 1205 Schedule B Details For the Yeaz Ended December 31, 2003" worksheet. Include with the description the ComcasYs bonus plan and employee eligibility requirements. Please describe and provide detail accounting records showing the payment basis for the "Commissions" shown on "FCC Form 1205 Schedule B Details For the Yeaz Ended December 31, 2003". Comcast responded with the following, respectively: Please see the attached E�ibit 1205 a_�cxxx, the General Ledger for account 41130, Bonus. t � See Appendix E for examples of these 1994 filings. �a Id. Page 15 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulbng, Inc. All rights ruerved. Cannot be used vrithout expressed written pemvssion from both organizauons. �-��3 `t� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cer.iGac PubGc Accoun:zms ar.-0 Cansui:a.^.-s Front Range Consulting, Inc. Please see the attached Exhibit_1205_a ��, the General Ledger for account number 41150, Commissions. [Here "a" indicates the number of the request and "xxxxsx" the date of the request.] Other than these terse and uuiuformative cross-references, Comcast did not respond to the request. It did not provide the explanations, the description, the payment basis or the employee eligibility requirements requested by the Consultants. Comcast has the burden of showing that these amounts relate to Form 1205 acrivities and has not met that burden of proof. Comcast did not provide any "description of the bonus or commission plan" as requested. The Consultants believe that such bonus and commission plans are not tied directly to acrivities such as installarions and are therefore not includable in the Form 1205. As Comcast has not met its burden of proof with regazd to these rivo items, the Consultants have eliminated all of these costs. r •.rr;: _:�� Contract labor costs account for the second lazgest cost element after salaries and benefits included in the Schedule B items. Yet Comcast has not used any actual invoices for this significant cost element, but rather has estimated the costs based on the number of installations contained in the "Field Data Reports" and the cost for each activity. The Consultants were unable to review actual invoices for contract labor to verify whether all of the acrivities contained in the "Field Data Reports" were actually billed to Comcast, because Comcast refused to provide them. The Consultants therefore were not given any real data to review and analyze with respect to the contract labor costs. This raises problems as to the accuracy of ComcasYs estimates. If, for example, a contractor did not complete an installation correcUy, would Comcast have paid for that acrivity? Such corrections and audit-type adjustments that would normally occur in the review of actual bills from the contractor were not considered in ComcasYs estimation methodology. To the extent Comcast wants to include contract labor in future Form 1205 filings, the Consultants recommend that Comcast must use actual invoices from the contractor and allocate those invoices to regulated and un-regulated activities. In this way, the participating LFAs can be assured that the costs included in the Form 1205 are "real" costs and not just hypotherical costs based upon the unverified "Field Data Report." The Consultants have made other recommendations concerning contract labor costs and hours, as described in §§ H(2) and K below. C. MAIN'I'ENANCE AND REPAIIi — PLANT AND EQLi1PMENT T'he Consultants' review of the prior Form 1205s filed by systems now part of Comcast has revealed that in many of these systems, the cable operator did not include maintenance and repair — plant and equipment ("M&R — P1anY') as part of tlte Schedule B costs. For this reason, as 19 The Consultants believe that this methodology is different from the methodology used eazlier by AT&T Broadband, but based on ComcasYs RF'I responses the Consultants cannot conclude this definirively. Page 16 of 42 January, 2005 � AshpaugJ� & Sculw, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Snc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used without expressed wdtten pemussion from both organizarions. 05 a�3 `t� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cer.iGeL Po-blic Accounun±s acd Coazni;xn:s Front Range Consulting, Inc. illustrated in TCI of Tualatin VaZ1ey and Jones of Gebrgia/South Caroling leaving in the M&R— Plant costs in the Filing would allow Comcast to "double recover" these costs — once in the service rates and again in the equipment and installation rates — since such costs were never unbundled. The Consultants have therefore eluninated M&R—Plant in order to be consistent with the FCC's precedents and to prevent double recovery of these costs? In addition to the unbundling concems, ComcasYs treahnent of M&R — Plant costs suffers from the same allocarion problem as discussed in § E below concerning properry taxes. The Consultants' review of supporting documents shows that M&R - Plant costs across the sample systems and is not specific to the Technical Deparfinent or regulated equipment. Comcast uses an allocarion factor based on salaries and wages by detenniuing the regulated portion and comparing it to total Technical salaries plus salaries for a group called "Other". This does not include all salaries and wages within the system and, as such, over-allocates costs to regulated services. Thus, even if M&R - Plant costs that are currently recovered in the service tier rates could properly be included in the Form 1205, the allocation factor would still need to be reduced. Since the Consultants do not have specific information from Comcast to support an alternative calculation, we have estimated that the factor would be reduced by two-thirds. D. PAYROLL TAXES The Consultants haue eliminated a pro-rata share of payroll taaces based on the elimination of the Bonuses and Commissions as described in § A above. This equates the appropriate inclusion of payroll taxes to the reduced level of salary related costs. The calcularion was made by using the ratio of bonuses and commissions to the total of salaries and wages plus bonuses and commissions and multiplying the resulting factor times payroll taxes. E. PROPERTY TAXES The Consultants' review of the prior Form 1205s filed by systems now part of Comcast has revealed that in many of these systems, the cable operator did not include property taYes as part of the Schedule B costs. As the FCC pointed out in TCI of Tualatin T�alley and Jones of Georgia/South Carolina, ComcasYs inclusion of such properiy tases in the Filing would allow Comcast to "double recover" these costs — once in the service rates and again in the equipment and installarion rates — since such costs were never unbundled. The Consultants have therefore eliminated these property taxes in order to be consistent with the FCC's precedents. In addition to the unbundling concerfls, "the Consultants' review of supporting documents show that properiy taYes include costs across all departments in the sample systems and are not specific to the Technical Deparhnent or regulated equipment. As these property taxes include taxes for executive system office, call center and other faciliries not part of the regulated 20 As indicated in n21 above, Comcast appears to have ignored these precedents. 21 The Consultants are concemed that Comcast appears to have ignored the relevant FCC rulings, even though it was cleazly awaze of the precedents in TCI ofTualatin Yalley and (during the review of this Filing) Jones of Georgia/South CaroZina. Such a course of conduct does not appeaz to be consistent with the cer[ificarion attached by Comcast to the Filing. Page 17 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpau�h & Sculw, CPAS, PLC and Front Rarige Consultwg, Ina Al] rights ieserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemussion from both organizations. o5 �3 ASHPAUGH & SCUlCO, CPFs, PLC CertlSaL Puhfic Accocn:a�u ar.d Conmt;ancs Front Range Consulting, Inc. activities, Comcast should have made an adjushnent to assign properry taxes to these locations before fiirther allocating the rema;n;ng amount within the Technical Department. ComcasY, however, uses only an allocation factor based on salaries and wages by determining the regulated portion of Teckuucal salaries and comparing it to total Technical salaries plus salaries for a group called "Other." This does not include all salaries and wages within the system and, as such, over-allocates costs to regulated services. It should be noted that the Consultants aze aware that in a prior year's Form 1205 filing by Comcast, property tases could not be shown to be related to or based on converters. Thus, even if properry taxes that aze currently recovered in the service rier rates could properly be included in the Form 1205, the allocation factor would still need to be reduced. Comcast did not provide the requested information with regard to the facilities covered by the property tases for each system. Comcast has therefore not met its burden of proo£ The Consultants have used the best available information from prior reviews of Comcast systems and have reduced the technical salary allocarion factor by two-thirds to reflect an assignment of the properiy taxes to non-regulated faciliries and assets. Based on the Consultants' analysis discussed above, this reduction is reasonable. F. INSLiRANCE The Consultants' review of the prior Form 1205s filed by systems now part of Comcast has revealed that in many of these systems, the cable operator did not include insurance as part of the Schedule B costs. For this reason, as illustrated in TCI of Tualatin TTaZZey and Jones of Georgia/Soutlt Carolina, leaving in the insurance costs in the Filing would allow Comcast to "double recover" these costs — once in the service rates and again in the equipment and installation rates — sincs such costs were.never unbundled. The Consultants have therefore eliminated insurance in order to be consistent with the FCC's precedents 22 In addition to the unbundling concerns, ComcasYs treatment of insurance costs suffers from the same allocation problem as discussed in § D above. The Consultants' review of supporting documents shows that insurance includes costs across the sample systems and is not specific to the Technical Deparhnent or regulated equipment. Comcast uses an alloca6on factor based on salaries and wages by determining the regulated portion and comparing it to total Technical salaries plus a group called "Other." This does not include all salaries and wages within the system and, as such, over-allocates wsts to regulated services. Thus, even if insurance costs that are currently recovered in the service fier rates could properly be included in the Form 1205, the allocation factor would srill need to be reduced. Since the Consultants do not have specific information from Comcast to support an alternative calcularion, we have estimated that the factor would be reduced by two-thirds. � As indicated in n21 above, Comcast appears to have ignored these precedents. Page 18 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consuihng, Ina AII rights reserved. Cannot be used vrithout expressed written pemussion from both organizations. 05 a�3 ' 't � ASHPAUGH & SCULGO, CPAs, PLC 4r:�5cE Plihifc AccoonYa�s and Ca�saiartvs Front Range Consulting, Inc. G. MLSCII,LANEOLIS REGLII,ATED HOIIRS This component was used by Comcast to add hours associated with dispatch, wazehouse and office personnel. The Consultants have eliminated wazehouse hours and office personnel hours. L WARF.�IOLLSE PERSONNEL The Consultauts' analysis eliminates warehouse personnel costs and labor hours from Schedule B of the 1205 and the Hourly Service Charge ("HSC"). Comcast has included the cost of wazehousing in the Filing twice. Comcast includes the time associated with warehouse personnel acrivity in Schedule B and, as a result, in the HSC. Comcast also capitalizes the rime associated with this activity and includes that capitalized costs in Schedule C. The Consultants' analysis corrects this and only includes the cost in Schedule C. In addition, it is not apparent that these costs were unbundled in the original Form 1205s. As previously discussed in the unbundling section above, the Consultants' review of the 1994 Form 1205s showed that the cable operators did not include warehouse personnel in the deternunarion of equipment rates and installation charges. Consultants recommend that based on these two flaws, wazehouse personnel should be eliminated from the 1205. 2. OFFICE PERSONIVEI. This issue is also an unbundling issue. As with other issues discussed above, the Consultants' review of the 1994 Form 1205s showed that prior filings did not include office personnel costs in the determination of equipment rates and installation charges, and hence those costs remain in the basic service rier rates. The Consultants' analysis therefore has eliminated this component. In addition to the appropriate exclusion based on the "unbundling" issue, Comcast has not met its burden of proof in supporting these time estimates. Comcast was specifically requested to provide "support (that) must include all studies, documents or other material used by the (sample system) personnel used to support such amounts. To the extent the individual responsible for preparing such amounts did not use any supporting information, please state such and provide a detailed explanarion for the source of the amount shown. Please provide the name and tifle of the individual supporting the hours shown on this schedule." ComcasYs only response was "Comcast has used the past experience of its office personnel to make their best estimate of the average hours spent per week on converter maintenance." Comcast did not provide the requested informarion for any of the sample systems. Therefore, exclusion of these costs is also warrauted based on Comcast's failure to provide adequate support. H. INSTALLATION ACTIVTI'Y HOLlRS Comcast was requested to (1) provide support for the installarion times used by each of the sample systems; (2) identify components more than 12 inches outside the subscriber's residence; and, (3) provide any scheduling or routing programs used to assign in-house and contractor personnel to installation activities and the reports and other supporting details for those programs Page 19 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Rarige Consultuig, Inc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used vnthout expressed written peanission from both organizatio�s. 05-d4 3 ASHPAUGH & SCF7LCQ CPAs, PLC Certiuea Yubilc Aaourtian:z anc Gcnsuifan:s / Front Range Consulting, Inc. for each month of the review period. For most of the sample systems, Comcast provided "the work tasks table containing the points assigned to each task for the (sample system)" and went on to eacplain that "this information was used to develop the estimated times in the Schedule D SupporP' in the sample data. Comcast also explained in its response that "Comcast has used the past experience of its technical personnel to make their best estimate of average hours spent per installation acfivity. The technical personnel rely upon the work task table and points assigned to help them detemune the best estimate of average hours spent per installafion activity." However, ComcasYs packet of information supplied to each sample system for prepazarion of the sample data included a sheet showing the installation times used hy Comcast in the prior year. The sample systems then could use these estimates rather than actual data relative to their specific operations. SLiPPORT Comcast failed to support the installarion times. First, while ComcasYs response referred to the work task table, the tasks listed did not match the Form 1205 regulated activity. For example, the work task table provided by Comcast for the Portland Willamette Valley sample system did not contain any work tasks for: un-wired installarion; pre-wired installarion; upgrade; downgrade; A/O sepazate trip and VCR connection — same trip. Comcast also failed to allocate the tasks to activities within 12 inches of the residence. The Consultants compared the times on the work task table to the times on the Schedule D Support and found that the times did not match. Consistently, the rimes on the Schedule D Support exceeded the times on the work task table. No explanation was provided for this difference, even though the RFI specifically asked Comcast for "detailed explanations and support for each amount shown on `Schedule D Support' page 220" of each sample system support. For e�mple, in the Wildwood sample system data request, the Consultants asked Comcast in Quesrion 29 to: Please identify the components of each amount provided in #28 above that are outside of 12 inches of the subscriber's home or residence. (Question 28 requested information with regazds to the installarion times for such activiries as un-wired and pre-wired installations) Comcast responded: The only installation activity outside of 12 inches of the subscriber's home or residence is the drop required for an un-wired installarion. It appeazs from this response that Comcast does not understand the definitions of pre-wired and un- wired installations. The difference between an un-wued installation and a pre-wired installation has to do only with the status of wiring inside the demazcafion point on the home (12 inches Z ' While ComcasYs responses for each of the sample systems referenced use of the work task table and indicated that copies were enclosed, the support for Mobile, Chesapeake, New England East and Montgomery County, PA did not in fact include this information. . �" Exhibit 1205_32_082704 attached to Comcast response date September 23, 2004. Page 20 of 42 January,200S m Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consuln¢g, Inc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written permiss�on from both organizanons. o5-a�� `�� ASHPAUGH 8� SCULCO, CPRs, PLC C<r:iieE P��im P.ccoenhrzu ar.d Canmilaaes Front Range Consulting, Inc. outside of the connecrion to the home). Thus, a drop may also be needed for a pre-wired installarion: a pre-wired home that has never had service, or an un-wired home that also has never had service, would each require Comcast to run a drop to the outside of the home. Comcast therefore appears to be inconect that only homes that aze un-wired would require a drop or maybe Comcast is incorrecUy applying the installation prices to a new connection customer. Similarly, Comcast did not answer the Consultants' quesrion as to whether the average times shown on page 220 of the sample system workpapers included time for Comcast to run a drop to the subscriber's residence. Comcast has failed to meet its required burden of proof. The Consultants' asked Comcast to support ats installation times for each of the sample systems. For example, for the Flint MI sample system, Quesfions 30 and 32 asked: Question 30. Please provide detailed explanations and support for each amount shown on "Schedule D Support" page 220. To the extent the individual responsible for preparing such amounts did not use any supporting information, please state such and provide a detailed explanation for the souLCe of the amounts shown. Question 32. Does Comcast of Flint use any scheduling or routing prograins (either automated or manual) to assign both in-house and contractor personnel to installation ac6vities? If so, please provide such programs, reports and other supporting details for those prograiiis for each month of the review period (the purpose of this request is to verify the amounts shown on "Schedule D Support," to the extent Comcast refuses to provide this alternative supporting information, Comcast should e�pect that the Consultants may reject the amounts shown on "Schedule D Support" and use the best available information). Comcast responded: Question 30. Please refer to our response to your question 32 in this request. Quesfion 32. Enclosed is a copy of the work task table, E�ibit 1205_32 082704, containing the points assigned to each task for the Flint/Bad Axe system. This informafion was used to develop the estimated rimes in the Schedule D Support. The FCC has stated, "We anticipate that cable opentors will use their past experience and historical data to make the best estimate of the number of service repair hours for remotes. Charges for leasing of converter boxes and all other equipment will be calculated in the same manner as for remotes. For installarion charges, the cable operator must elect a uniform installation charge that is calculated based on either: (1) the HSC rimes the person hours of the visit; or (2) the HSC rimes the average hours spent per installafion visit." (See FCC Report and Qrder, FCC 93-177, released May 3, 1993, Paragraph 296.) Comcast has used the past experience of its technical personnel to make their best estimate of the average hours spent per installation activity. The technical personnel rely upon the work task table and point assigned to help them deternune the best esrimate of the average hours spent per installafion acrivity. Page 21 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulnng, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used vnthout expressed written pemussion finm both organizarions. 05 � �k 3 l� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Certi9ea ?ebfic Accosnnnxs a�d Conruitae[s Front Range Consulfing, Inc. Comcast attached E�ibit 1205 32 082704, which detailed some "points" for some of the installarion acriviries. Comcast also included an email from Ms. Shazon Wiorek to Ms. Marcia Anderson, where Ms. Wiorek stated: You may have noticed that Flint does not have any points for any installations tasks on the Cable Data report I sent you. ThaYs because they work on a 1 point per job basis. Doesn't matter on the complexity or length of the task, every job is assigned 1 point. Thus, in F1inYs case, Comcast was incorrect in its response to Quesrion 32 that the "technical persoanel rely upon the work tasks table and points assigned to help them deternune the average hours." Comcast has completely failed to support any of these time esrimates for the Flint sample system. The Consultants also asked about any changes in the time estimates from last year's Form 1205 filing. For example in the Flint system, the request was: Question 33. Has any of the amounts shown on "Schedule D Support" changed from the amounts used on the last Form 1205 filed by Comcast (or its predecessor in interest) for the Flint system? ff so, please identify and explain in detail all changes including a copy of the filing made by Comcast (or its predecessor in interest) (the purpose of this request is to verify if Comcast is in compliance with the precedent set by the FCC in DA 04-2448). Comcast responded: Question 33. Yes. The Schedule D times on the last Form 1205 filed by Comcast for the Flint system were as follows: Unwired — 1.5 Hours; Pre-wired — 1 Hour; Additional Outlet Same Trip — 0.5 Hours; and Additional Outlet Sepazate Trip — 1 Hour. These are the hours listed on Schedule D of the last Michigan Form 1205 filing. Comcast is not awaze of any precedent set by DA 04-2448. Notwithstanding the unbundling concerns with respect to time associated with Relocate Outlets, Upgrades, Downgrades, Connect VCR Same Trip, Connect VCR Separate Trip, Converter Service Call, Inside Wiring Service Call, Customer Owned Equipment, Customer Education and Non Productive Trouble Calls listed on Schedule D Support (Page 220), Comcast has not provided any explanarion of the changes made, nor has Comcast provided a copy of the previous Form 1205 filing. Again, Comcast has not met its burden of proof. A comparison of Comcast's current estimates and its prior year estimates for the Flint MI sample system raises many questions that the Consultants cannot invesrigate because of Comcast's unwillingness to make a through and complete response. Page 22 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpau� & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consuleug, Ine. All nghu reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemiission from both organizanons. bs a�k 3 `t� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccr:i:let ?u61ic Atceumauts and Ccncu±aacs Front Range Consulting, Inc. Table 2 � � ' • � '� � � Install Unwired Aome 72 minutes 90 minutes (20%) Install Pre-Wired Home 42 minutes 60 minutes (30%) Additional Outlet — Same Tri 24 minutes 30 minutes 20%) Addirional Outlet — Se azate Tri 42 minutes 60 minutes (30%) Relocate Outlet 30 minutes Not Provided N/A Upgrade — Requiring a Truck 24 minutes Not Provided N/A Roll Downgrade — Requiring a Truck 24 minutes Not Provided N/A Roll Connect VCR — Same Tri 18 minutes Not Provided N/A Connect VCR— S azate Tri 24 minutes Not Provided N/A Converter Service Call 30 minutes Not Provided N/A Inside Wirin Service Call 42 minutes Not Provided N/A Customer Owned Equipment 30 minutes Not Provided N/A Customer Educarion 24 minutes Not Provided N/A Non Producfive Trouble Calls 12 minutes Not Provided N/A As shown in the following table (Table 3), one could conclude that Comcast did not simply allow its local technical personnel to make case-by-case deternunarions of the required times. With its request to each sample system, Comcast provided guidance as to the 2002 Test Year average times. A comparison of the "suggested" times for the most common installations to the actual reported times aze: Page 23 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All righu ruerved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemussion from both organizarions. os-ay3 ASHPAUGH & SCl:LCO, CPAs, PLC Certi icd Pub'.ic Aacaum.ivxs zr.d Consvh.ana Tabie 3 Front Range Consulting, Inc. Thus, in most cases over half of the riventy sample systems appear to have followed the "guidance" received from ComcasYs corporate level. However, Comcast has not provided any information to the Consultants that would enable them to understand the basis Comcast used to provide esrimated times in this corporate "guidance." In sum, Comcast has not meet its burden of proof wittt regards to the estimated times per installation acrivity. Based on the informarion described above, the Consultants analyzed the "poinY' system estimates provided in the individual sample system responses as the best available informarion. The analysis showed that based on ComcasYs "poinY' system, the esrimated times by installation activity in the Filing are overstated as follows: Table 4 Each of the esrimated times by sample system provided by Comcast has been adjusted by these percentages. The Consultants did not adjust the times for other activities, as it appeazed that the Page 24 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Fron[ Range Consui[ing Inc. All rights rese�ved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemussion from bo[h organizarions. o5-a�3 `�� ASHPRUGH & SCULGO, CPAs, PLC C<r.iret Pvbiic Accoun:avts and Cansci.zav Front Range Consulting, Inc. "point" system data analyzed did not have enough samples to provide a reasonable estimate. zs Therefore, these times were accepted, even though they lacked supporting documentation from Comcast. 2. COIVTRACT LABOR ESTIMATES Comcast was also asked to provide detailed support for the amount of contract labor associated with "indoo�" acrivities (i.e., activities occurring no more than 12 inches outside of the connection to the home) and the hours for each task. `I'his request was part of the first RFI, dated May 21, 2004, Question 9. Comcast responded: The 2003 indoor % for each contractor activity is not available because our contract labor vendors do not provide such detaiL The 2003 hours per task for each contractor acrivity are included on the individual sample system contract labor installarion activiries workpaper. The Consultants were provided copies of the individual contract price sheets (mazked "Confidenrial Not For Public Disclosure") for each sample system. For example, in the material provided for the Trenton sample system, the installation activities included in the prices used by Comcast for the costs of an "Aerial Installarion" include the following: • Installation of cable from the tap to the television; • Includes mid-span and sub pole(s) as necessary; • Tagging and identifying drops; • Ground drop per NEC and document type ground; • Converter installation; • installing trap(s); • Installation of VCR, A/B switch, game switch as required; • Customer educarion (installation package), complering paperwork and collection of any payment due; and • Compliance with applicable Comcast specifications. u For exampie, see the discussion about the email for the Flint system described above. For the DC sample system, each activity had the same point value — 15 minutes. Comcast did not provide any "point" informarion for 4 of the sample systems. Page 25 of 42 Januaty, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights mserved. Caunot be used vnthout expressed written pernvssion from bo[h organiza4ons. o5-a�� 'ti� ASHPAUGH F SCULCO, CPks, PLC CcrtiSed PuCtic Accacman:e and Consuian.z Front Range Consulting, Inc. Of these listed activities, the first four activities involve work by the conhactor on efforts related to the installation of a customer drop. But drop acfivities are not part of the Form 1205 regulated activities, and their cost should not be included in the prices for installarion activities. Comcast has therefore overstated the costs for contract installations in its Form 1205. Comcast has failed to meet its required burden of pmof by not determ;ning or providing the Consultants with any supporting data related to the amount of costs or percentage of time associated with installation of drops by the contractors. Comcast has failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to the average installarion times used by Comcast in its worksheet 270 (Contractor installarion times) completed for each sample system. Comcast has provided no information as to where the average installation times for contractors were developed. For example, in the Wildwood sample system, Comcast provided the following information: Table 5 Based on the foregoing discussion, Comcast has failed to meet its burden of proof and has included costs that cannot be included in the Form 1205. The Consultants have had to use the best available information in order to modify the contract labor costs to exclude the costs associated with n,nning a drop to a subscriber's residence. The Consultants have utilized the rafio of drop-related costs to the total costs for contcactor labor from the review of ComcasY s Page 26 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & S�ulcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Co�sulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pecmission from both organizarions. 05 -a �3 i �� ASHPAUGH & SNECO, CPAs, PLC 4r:i5cd hbiic Accoun[anu and Conml:zou Front Range Consulting, Inc. 2003 Form 1205 filed with Montgomery County, Maryland. In that study, the Consultants found that approxiu�ately fifteen percent of the contract labor costs for an un-wired installation were related to drop costs and approximately eighteen percent of the contract labor costs of a pre- wired installation were related to drop costs. The Consultants have therefore modified all of the unwired and pre-wired contract labor costs to exclude the costs associated with the drop, based on this best available information, in each of the twenty sample systems. Because no other information was available, the Consultants did not revise the average hours per installafion for the contract labor activities even though Comcast did not provide any supporting information, since no other informarion was available. The Consultants recommend that each participaring LFA in its individual rate order requue Comcast to pmvide such information with the next Form 1205 filed by Comcast. I. CONVERTER MAINTENANCE AT TIME OF INSTALL These costs are made up of the time warehouse personnel and converter repair personnel spend to test and set up the converter before placing it in the subscriber's residence and putting the converter in service. The Consultants' analysis has eliminated this component from the converter charge. Comcast capitalizes this cost and includes it in the cost of converters in Schedule C. To include the cost in the converter charge and then also include the maintenance chazges (maintenance hours rimes HSC) in Schedule C would allow Comcast to recover the cost twice. The Consultants' analysis includes the capitalized costs in Schedule C. INSIDE WIIZING Comcast has included on page 235 of its individual sample system studies an entry for the amount of time and the number of trouble calls related to inside wiring activities. For the Ann Arbor sample system, Comcast has estimated that it will average 2,164 trouble calls related to inside wiring activiries. Comcast has also estimated that each of these trouble calls will average 30 minutes to complete the repair. Comcast has not supported the 30 minute estimate with any data. Comcast has also admitted that over 47,000 subscribers of the appro�mately 135,000 subscribers in the Ann Arbor sample system subscribe to an optional inside wiring plan, which would mean that they aze already paying for the costs of these t�ouble calls thtough the plan and should not Ue charged for those costs again. Comcast has not met its burden of proof with regards to the inclusion of the hours associated with the inside wiring trouble calls, nor has Comcast provided any adjushnent for the inside wiring trouble calls related to customers with the oprional inside wire maintenance plan. Specifically, on August 27, 2004, the Consultants asked the following quesrions for the Ann Arbor sample system: Question 23. Does Comcast of Ann Arbor system have an optional inside wire maintenance plan? If so, please provide the plan and the number of customers currenfly subscribed to the plan. Question 27. Please provide detailed explanations and support for each amount shown on "Schedule D Support" page 220. To the extent the individual responsible far preparing Page 27 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expresud written permission from both organizations. 65 -a�3 •�� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ces:iSeE ?vhiic Accounaa*s ar.c GansWtana Front Range Consulting, Inc. such amounts did not use any supporting information, please state such and provide a detailed explanation for the source of the amounts shown. Question 29. Does Comcast of Ann Arbor use any scheduling or rouring programs (ezther automated of manual) to assign both in-house and contractor personnel to instaliarion activiries? If so, please provide such programs, reports and other supporting details for those programs for each month of the review period. [Parenthetical item omitted] Comcast responded to these requests on September 9, 2004, stating: Quesrion 23. Yes. As of May 31, 2004, forty seven thousand two hundred and fifty (47,250) customers subscribe to the plan 26 Question 27. Please refer to our response to your question number 29 in this request for additional information. Quesfion 29. Enclosed is a copy of the work task table, E�ibit 1205_29 082704, containing the points assigned to each task for the Ann Arbor system. This informarion was used to develop the estimated times in the Schedule D Support. The FCC has stated, "We anticipate that cable operators will use their past experience and historical data to make the best estimate of the nuxnber of service repau hours for remotes. Charges for leasing of converter boxes and all other equipment wiil be calculated in the same manner as for remotes. For installation chazges, the cable operator must elect a uniform installation charge that is calculated based on either: (1) the HSC times the person hours of the visit; or (2) the HSC times the average hours spent per installation visit "(See FCC Report and Order, FCC 93-177, released May 3, 1993, Paragraph 296.) Comcast has used the past experience of its technical personnel to make their best estimate of the average hours spent per installarion activity. The technical personnel rely upon the work task table and point assigned to help them determine the best estimate of the average hours spent per installation acrivity. Comcast also provided a copy of the "Technical Operations Database - Field Data Report" which identifies the nuxnber of installation activities. Based on this limited data provided, the Consultants conclude that Comcast has failed to support its claim of 30 minutes of average time for an inside wiring call. The task and point system referred to in its response to Question 29 does not contain any individual item related to inside wiring trouble calls; therefore, Comcast has not met its required burden of proof with regards to this 30 minute estimate. Further, ComcasYs "Field Data Report" does not segregate inside Z6 Comcast completely ignored the porhon of the request asking for the "plan" itsel£ This characteristic behavzor by Comcast once again undenrrines the Consultants' ability to thoroughiy review ComcasYs submission and thus undercuts the FCC's rate regulation process. Page 28 of 42 January, 2005 O Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and From Range Consulting, Inc. All righrs reserved. Cannot be used withoui ekpressed written pemussion from both orga�izarions. b5-a�k 3 ASHPAUGN & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccr:it d Pvbiic P.ccamnanr aad Carrvitan�s J Front Range Consulting, Inc. wiring trouble calls between those performed as part of the oprional inside wuing maintenance plan and those performed for non-inside wiring maintenance plan customets. Therefore, Comcast is including activities and hours associated with un-regulated services in its equipment and installation acriviries. The Consultants have eliminated 50% of the number of inside wire trouble calls as a conservative estimate from each sample system in order to account for un-regulated activities. The Consultants also recommend that Comcast be required to provide better documented support for the average times to complete inside wiring trouble calls in its next Form 1205 filing so that the participating LFAs can meaningfully review these estimates. K. WEIGH'TED INSTALLATION TIMES Comcast has improperly used the installation rime estimates of only Comcast in-house technical personnel in determining the average installarion times used in the Form 1205. The Average Installation Times, Installation Activities and Installation Hours provided as input to the statistical sampling report do not consider the average times, installarion acriviries and installation hours of any of ComcasYs contractors. Yet based on the data provided by Comcast, contractors perform approximately 54% of all of the installation activifies for the 20 sample systems. T"ne Consultants obtained data for contractors and in-house personnel in response to RFIs. In the vast majority of the sample systems, the contractor time estimates shown on Worksheet 270 to complete an installarion were at or below the esrimates prepared supposedly by ComcasYs in- house technical personnel. This error would allow Comcast to over-recover its costs of an installation where such installation is performed by a contractor. For example, in the Wildwood system, Comcast provided the following data: Table 6 �� Comcast has not included wire maintenance plans in the 1205 and is h these as unregulated. Page 29 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulring, Inc. Ali nghts reserved. Cannot be used without exp=essed wriaen peimission from both organizarions. b�-a�t3 E� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cx:iScc 9�6(ic Accaun:an-s anE Canm4ann Front Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast used the tune estimates from the "in-house" category for each of the sample system in order to arrive at its average time per installarion, but then applied that average time to both in- house and contractor installarions. On average, the time estimated by the statistical sampling methodology for an un-wired installation was 1.4849 hours. Using the Comcast esrimated HSC of $35.17, an un-wared installation would be priced to the subscriber at $52.23. Assuming the contractor only chazges Comcast $3236 for this installation, Comcast has over collected for this installafion by appro�nately $20.00. To correct this problem, the Consultants have included all of the installation fimes for both the contractors and the in-house personnel in compuring the average installarion rimes for each sample system. Comcast appeazs to have modified the results of the statistical report issued by Dr. Hannum. Comcast based its installation rimes on the statistical analysis and siudy performed by Dr. Hannum. In his report attached to the Filing, Dr. Hannum's report states: For Installation Time variables 4 through 1�, estimates of the population total hours spent on installation and the population number of installarions (acrivity levels) are used to acquire an estimate of the mean time per installation. This latter estimate incorporates both the average rime per install for each sampled area and the installation activity level for each azea. [Emphasis added] Comcast did not, however, use Dr. Hannum's figures in computing the average cost of each type of installation. Instead, Comcast used the "average install time" computation, which does not consider the "activity level" (the number of installations) for each sampled area. The differences aze: Table 7 Zs That is, 0.92 hours times $35.17. The actual charge for the installation is less than $30.00 based on the materia] provided by Comcast. Comcast has requested that the actual price for the installation be kept confidential and it is therefore not included in this report. Page 30 of 42 January, 2005 Cq Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc All righrs reserved. Cannot be used without expres5ed written peimission from both organizations. o�-a�3 �� , ASHPAUGH P SCUlG6, CPAs, PLC CcrtiTicE Pubiia Accocncants and CcnzuRxrt:s Front Range Consulting, Inc. Using these higher amounts has allowed Comcast to artificially inflate its installation chazges. The Consultants have modified the time to use the "estiznated mean time" as recommended in I?r. Hannum's report. L. VCR CONNECTIONS Comcast has included time estimates for VCR connections both at the same rime as an installation and as a separate trip. Comcast provided no support for its estimated VCR connection times in its responses to the data requests for each individual sample syst�m (see response to question 29 in §�. While Comcast did provide its "poinY' system for some of the sample systems, VCR connections were listed in less than twenty-five percent of the sample systems 2 ComcasYs "Field Data Reports" did not list any activiries for VCR connection either at the time of installation or as a separate trip. ComcasYs contractors have included the connection of a VCR as part of their normal installation activities. These facts suggest that the cost of making VCR connecrions is in fact recovered as part of the normal installation process. The Consultants do not believe that Comcast has met its burden of proof with regazd to times associated with a VCR connection. Further, it appears that to the extent a contractor provides the installation, the VCR efforts are already included in the contract labor costs. Based on these finding, the Consultants recommend that Comcast should not be allowed to chazge customers for VCR connections, because any associated costs are already recovered in other installation rates. M. CUSTOMER TROUBLE CALLS Comcast has included time estimates for customer-owned equipment service calls. Comcast has estimated that such a customer owned equipment service call averages 40 minutes to complete. As a matter of common sense this time appears to be excessive, as it should not take 40 minutes to check the Comcast-owned equipment and conclude that the service problem relates to customer-owned equipment, which is not repaired by Comcast. Comcast did not provide any support for this activity either by specific idenrification or in the "poinY' system data supplied. Comcast has therefore again not met its burden of proof with regard to the rime estimates for this activity. The Consultants understand that Comcast does in fact incur some costs for these trouble calls. However, without any support foz the individual sample system amounts included in the Filing, the Consultants cannot confirm ComcasYs inherently implausible claim that the overall average time is approximately 40 minutes. Accordingly, the Consultants have reduced the sample system estimates by fifry percent. Z9 The limited data provided by Comcast suggested that the VCR — Same Trip time was overstated by 11 % and the VCR — Sepazate Trip rime overstated by 27 30 To the extent Comcast can idenhfy in a subsequent Form 1205 filing that VCR connections requiring a separate h7p aze actually performed and the time associated with that installarion, such an installation chazge for VCR — sepazate trip may be jusrified. Page 31 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed writtm pemtiss�on from both organizations. �5-�`�3 ` '�:.t�1 ASHPAUGH & 3CULCQ, CPAs, PLC CcGiLeL iuSSic Accoun;aas and Ccnzuitancs Front Range Consulting, Inc. Addirionally, based on our review of the originai filed 1205s, the Consultants do not believe that these costs were unbundled originz.11y by Comcast. If that is correct, then Comcast is already recovering its costs associated with these trouble calls in its service rates. The Consultants have not eliminated this category entirely at this time as a conservative approach, but the Consultants may eliminate t}us category in future Comcast filings. N. DVR CONVERTERS In several of the participating LFAs, Comcast included a chazge on its rate card for Digital Video Recarders ("DVR"). This charge was listed as an "equipmenY' chazge on the rate card, but Comcast has now claimed that this chazge should have been included as a"sezvice" charge (as a progra.mming alternative). The Form 1205 filed by Comcast does not include any costs in Schedule C for DVRs. Tf�erefore Comcast cannot charge a customer a monthly lease price for a IIVIt based on the current filing. To impose such a charge, Comcast would have to file a new Form 1205 including this new piece of equipment, or wait until the next annual filing to include these DVR costs in one of the converter categories. To the extent subscribers are currently being charged for these DVRs, Comcast should be ordered to refund these monies and cease billing subscribers. A DVR converter works in a similar fashion to a regular converter in that it allows the subscriber to view any and all of the channels currently subscribed to by the subscriber. O. OTFIEIi CONVERTER COSTS 1. CONVERT'ER REPAII2S The Consultants' review of invoices supporting converter repair costs included in the sample systems showed that Comcast has included cable modem costs in this item. Comcast provided access to picture images of the invoices via an intemal Comcast Web-based computer access. Comcast did not provide this access, however, until November 4, 2004, several months after the origanal data request soliciting this data was issued. The Consultants were forced to travel to a specified Comcast office in order to gain access to this information. Comcast did not allow the Consultants to use a search engine, but required the Consultants to pick specific invoices one at a time from a list of several thousand invoices for each system. The process was very time— consuming; the Consultants spent almost twenty hours working through ComcasYs cumbezsome data retrieval process. The Consultants also informed Comcast that the company's system was unable to provide access to several of the sample system invoices they sought to review. However, Comcast made no effort to provide access to these systems or arrange for alternative review methods. Since the Consultants were unable to access the invoices associated with eight of the sample systems - E332 Wildwood, E840 Trenton, A54 Chesapeake Bay, EK32 New England East, E858 Montgomery County, fi346 Connecticut, E868 Vineland and B56 Ann Arbor — and it was impossible given ComcasYs cumbersome system to examine and analyze every invoice, the Consultants have not been able to determine the exact amount of the cable modem costs improperly included by Comcast in the Filing. Review of the invoices the Consultants were able to access indicated that at a conservative estimate, 10% of the converter repair costs claimed by Page 32 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Co�sulring Iua Aii nghts reserved. Cannot be used without ezpressed wdtten pertnission finm both organizaeons. as-a�� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPks, PLC Ccr.iSad PuE!�c Accaun.ann and Consuitan�z Front Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast actually represented cable modem costs. Accordingly, the Consultants have reduced the filed costs by 10% to correct ComcasYs improper inclusion of cable modem costs. It should be noted that Comcast was specifically asked in the May 21 request to "provide a signed letter from an officer of Comcast certifying that the National 1205 does not include any cable modem costs in Schedules B or C." ComcasYs June 21 response to tlus request stated: "no cable modem costs were included in Schedules B or C." This was the only response received; Comcast did not provide the requested signed letter. The Consultants' review showed that the June 21 Comcast response was factually inaccurate. The Consultants' analysis of invoices also showed that converter disposal costs were included in the costs claimed by Comcast in Schedule B. While the Consultants have not made a sepazate adjustment to eliminate these costs, it is not appropriate to include them in Schedule B. Cost of removal should be recovered in depreciation andfor the asset base cost. In subsequent reviews, thisissue needsto be addressed. The Consultants' analysis also identified some of the alleged converter wsts as repairs to remotes and costs of guides for use of remotes. It is not apparent that these costs were ever unbundled in the original Form 1205. Again, this is an issue that needs to be addressed in subsequentreviews. 2. BASIC-ONLY CONVERTER ASSET COSTS The Consultants aze aware that Comcast has admitted to some local franchising authorities that the company included costs in the Basic-only Converter Asset costs that are not related to these Basic-only Converters. The Consultants' review found that Comcast included in this Basic-only category over $32 million of asset costs not related to Basic-only converters out of a total gross book cost of over $59 million. This mistake has significantly increased the net book value of these converters. The Consultants understand from other LFAs and their consultants that Comcast is not contending this issue and has essentially agreed with the removal of this sum of over $32 million from the gross book costs of the Basic-only converters. The Consultants have included this adjustment in their tevised Form 1205. 3. HDTV CONVERTER ASSET COSTS The Consultants have also identified a discrepancy regazding the asset costs for the FIDTV converters. On the detailed workpapers submitted by Comcast, the gross book cost for the HDTV converters was shown as $101 million (per its response to Question 1 dated June 21, 2004). However, the details submitted with the Filing by Comcast showed a gross book cost of $134 million. As the request in Question 1 was for the support for the gross book value of the Schedule C amounts, the Consultants have used the lower gross book value contained in ComcasYs response as the correct amount to be used on Schedule C of the revised Fonn 1205. Page 33 of 42 January, 2005 m Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All nghts reserved. Cannot be used wdhout expressed wdtten pemussion from both organizatlons. 05-��/3 `�� ASHPAUGH 8 SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cer:i;ied Puhiic Accouourt:s a^L Consultartvs Front Range Consulting, Inc. P. CABLE CARDS L MONTHI.Y LEASE RATE During the Consultants' review of the Comcast Form 1205 Filing, Comcast announced in certain communities' rate changes effective January 2005. A CableCARD is a new piece of equipment owned by Comcast that allows a subscriber to purchase a separate digital box or a TV containing the receiving and decoding equipment for a digital signal. The Cab1eCARD decodes or descrambles the signal and thus allows Comcast to maintain control of the authorized services that aze passed through this customer-owned digital box. Comcast has not included a price in its Form 1205 filing for this Cab1eCARD. The Consultants believe that because the Cab1eCARD is used to receive Basic Sezvice (such as broadcast channels received in digital form), it is a regulated piece of equipment. Unril such time as Comcast files a rate for this Cab1eCARD, Comcast cannot charge a monthly rate for the leasing of this new piece of equipment. Each participating LFA should ensure that Comcast is currently not chazging for this Cab1eCARD and also prohibit Comcast from chazging for the Cab1eCARD until Comcast files the appropriate FCC Form 1205. 2. LINRE'1'URNED CIIARGE One of the other changes Comcast sought was to establish the price for an unreturned CableCARD. This unretumed equipment charge was set at $250.00. Until such time as Comcast files a FCC Porm 1205 supporting this charge, each participating LFA should inform Comcast that it cannot implement the unrehuned chazge. Q. HDTV INSTALLATIONS During the Consultants' review of the Comcast Form 1205, Comcast also announced in certain communities a rate change to implement a HDTV installarion charge of $30.00. However, Comcast did not justify a separate installation charge for a HI7TV installation as part of its Filing, and therefore Comcast cannot implement such a chazge. A HI3TV installation is either an upgrade charge or a new installation chazge. The Consultants believe that a current subscriber would be the most likely subscriber to purchase HDTV services and therefore the charge to upgrade to HDTV services would be lunited to the MPR for an "upgrade." ComcasYs filing indicated that the MPR for an upgrade would be $17.12. Thus, Consultants recommend that under its current Filing Comcast can be permitted to impose an upgrade charge of up to $1712 for HDTV installarion for an exisfing subscriber. To the extent a new subscriber wants HDTV services in addition to purchasing at least the Basic Service tier; however, the un-wired/pre-wired installation charges would cover the HDTV installation. In some of our participating communities, Comcast has agreed to lower this installation charge to the noriced "upgrade" 31 In some communities, Comcast has reduced this chazge to $75.00. See § R below. 3Z These two chazges cover "standard" installations. Comcast can charge for non-standard installarions, for example, Home Theater hook-ups. Page 34 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulnng, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used wiffiout expressed written pexmission from both organvations. o5-a43 RSHPAUGH 8 SCULCO, CPAs, PLC CeTti6eC ?uhiic Accacn:an-,s ar.d Ccnsultacs Front Range Consulting, Inc. chazge. Each participating LFA should ensure that Comcast is not currently charging this higher FIDTV installation charge. R. iINRETLiRNED EQiIIPMENT CHARGES During the Consultants' review of the Comcast Form 1205 Filing Comcast announced in certain communiries' rate changes effective January 1, 2005. The Consultants believe that all unreturned equipment chazges are rate regulated chazges and must be based on the costs of such unreturned equipment. The Consultants thus recommend that each participating LFA review the unreturned equipment charges and consider reducing these charges to reasonable levels. For example, in some of our participating communifies, Comcast has agreed to lower this unreturned equipment charge for the Cab1eCARll to $75.00. Each participating LFA should review this issue for all equipment, and consider lowering the charge to $75.00 for unreturned Cab1eCARDs. IX. SAMPLING CONCERNS AND ISSLIES The Consultants' analysis identified several concerns with ComcasYs sample. This is the first narional Form 1205 filed by Comcast for all of the cable television systems it currently owns. Prior aggregated 1205s only included data from former TCUAT&T Broadband systems. Going to this nationally aggregated filing has had a major impact on rates in some "classid' Comcast systems. It is thus highly significant to determine whether the aggregarion in practice is revenue- neutral, as the Cominission intended, or whether it results in an aggregate increase in subscriber rates. In tlus respect, the LFAs requested that Comcast provide the information required by the Commission's rules. Secrion 76.923(c)(1) of the Commission's rules states: When submitting its equipment costs based on average charges, the cable operator must provide a general descriprion of the averaging methodology employed and a justification that its averaging methodology produces reasonable equipment rates. Equipment rates should be set at the same organizational level at which an operator aggregates its costs. Ques6on 7 of the Initial Request for Information ("Initial RFI") issued on May 21, 2004 repeated the FCC's rule and asked Comcast to provide the required descriptions. ComcasPs only response to date on its averaging methodology has been to claim that its averaging methodology was approved by the FCC in TCI of Richardson, Inc. However, TCI of Richardson did not approve the sampling methodology used by Comcast in this filing, nor did it approve sampling in general. The FCC does not perform a de novo review in a rate appeal and thexefore did not rule on issues not part of the rate appeal in TCI of Richardson. The validity of the methodology used here was not brought before the Commission in that case. ComcasYs response is thus irrelevant. The Consultants' review does not question the use of a sample, but rather questions specifically whether ComcasYs sample is staristically valid. 33 TCI ofRichardson, Inc.: Petifian for Reconsideration ofBureau Order ResolvingLocal Rate Appeals (CUID TXI228), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 11700 (1999). Page 35 of42 January, 2Q05 � Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAS, PLC a�d Fmnt Range Gonsulting, Inc. Ail rights reserved. Cannot be used wrthout expressed written pemussion from both organi�atioru. 05 -a�3 ASHPAllGH & SC131CO CPAs, PLC Cr. cifieL iubiic Rr_oununiz aod Conml:axts Front Range Consulting, Inc. The "methodolog�' in TCI ofRichardson used a sample of 40 systems out of 422 systems serving approacimately 15 million subscribers, as compared to the current sample of 20 out of 114 "management areas" serving approlcimately 22 million subscribers. For the 2000 Form 1205 filing, the TCUAT&T Broadband sample used a population of "381 systems representing appro�cimately 16 million subscribersi that were stratified as follows: Table 8 By contrast, the current Comcast stratification contains: Table 9 Comcast has more than doubled the number of subscribers and aggregated them into smaller "systems", that Comcast calls "management areas", while decreasing the size of the sample. This is counter-intuirive. Plus, as discussed below, the management areas and strata do not seem to be homogenous groups. ComcasYs sample stratifies the systems based on the number of subscribers and uses that number as the only criterion. This gouping thus includes in one stratum the management areas of Washington, DC (2 CiJIDs) and Mobile, Alabama (6 CLTIDs) with Flint, Michigan (78 CUIDs) and Ann Arbor, Michigan (52 CUIDs). "I'hese differences raise significant questions about the potential differences in the cost structures of these systems. It is our understanding, for example, that the Washington, DC azea is served primarily out of one headend and one maintenance facility, but that Flint has multiple headends and maintenance facilities covering a large geographic area. 34 See ComcasYs August 16, 2004 response to Question 13a. Page 36 of 42 January, 2005 m Ashpaugh & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulnng, Inc. Ali �ghts ruerved. Cannot be used without expressed written pexmission from both orgamzations- OS-�4�3 `�� ASHPAllGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ccr:i�eL Pobiic Accaun:an�z znp Cmsvi:ana Front Range Consulting, Inc. The participating LFAs aze within their rights to seek to evaluate the accuracy of the cost data and the reasonableness of the rates in Comcast's Filing. As the FCC has stated: A franchising autl�ority that "reasonably feels it requires clarifying or substanriating information ... has the right to request and receive clarifying or substantiating informarion." If the cable ouerator fails to nrovide the reauested information or fails to nrovide comnlete information in eood faith, the franchisine onerator could hold the cable onerator in default and mandate appropriate sanctions, which could include enterinE an order findina the operator`s rate unreasonable and mandatin� appronriate relief based on the best information availabie at the time relevant to the re uested information. 5 One of the key points in the FCC's order in TCI of Richardson was based on the fact that TCI's Form 1205 used actual data. In clarifying how it used the sampling, TCI states that it did not use sampling to develop costs across the board. It relied extensively on aggregate books and records and relied on sampling to facilitate its rate calculations in only three azeas: (1) the average hours spent on different installation acrivities that must be reported on Schedule D, which it derived from field experience for the 40 sampled systems; (2) allocating certain accounting entries between customer premise activity and network acrivity; and (3) determining the percentage of "security devices" on either side of the customer demarcarion point. According to TCI-R, looking beyond its books and records would be necessary in each of these circumstances, regardless of whether it developed aggregated or franchise specific rates. Had the Bureau understood the limited role sampling played in the derivation of TCI-R's Form 1205 rates, TCI-R argues, the Bureau would have placed more limited demands on TCI-R's evidentiary support. The City does not dispute that the data on Schedules A, B, and C of Form 1205 are actual data. That is not the case with Comcast's 2004 national Form 1205, even though Comcast incorrectly claimed that "...both TCI and AT&T Broadband (both predecessors in interest to Comcast) had utilized the exact same methodology for the last eight years." Comcast fiirther stated: Our use of the verbiage "essentially the same" was imprecise. The sannpling methodology is the same methodology utilized by TCI and AT&T Broadband. There are no differences in the components, methodology or use of the sample from the components, methodology or use of the sample urilized by TCI and 35 TCI ofRichardron DA99-1408 at ¶ 23.(emphasis added). 36 TCI ofRichardson DA99-1408 at ¶ I5. 3 � See ComcasYs August 18, 2004 response to Question 7. Page 37 of 42 7anuary, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed wntten pemtission finm both organiaations. o5-a�3 4� _ ASHPAUGH £ SCULCO, CPAs, PLC CsziScd Pubiic Acmnma�tt and Canza�:zvts Front Range Consulting, Inc. AT&T Broadband (other than the actual sample systems selected - these vary from yeaz to year) 3 That tums out not to be the case. For example, in response to Quesrion 8 in the same August 18, 20041etter, Comcast states that "(t)he Schedule B costs, with the exception of the amount for contract labor, were all company aggregate costs." (Emphasis added) Comcast used the sample to derive the amount for contr�act labor in Schedule B. The prior Form 1205 filings of TCI and AT&T Broadband, however, did not use the sample to deternune the amount of contract labor in Schedule B. Thus, the Filing deviates in at least one significant respect from the methodology of the prior sampies. Addirionally, while Comcast has stated to the FCC that "it used actual company-wide aggregated costs as reflected in its books and records on December 31, 2003," the above details make cleaz that this is not the case. The amount used for ccntract labor in Schedule B is not the actual per book amount, but is derived from the sample systems. Also, the number of `Basic Only" converters in Schedule C is not an actual amount. The Consultants' July 9, 2004 RFI asked the following as Question 11: For each of the systems included in the Narional 1205 that were Comcast properties prior to the merger of Comcast and ATT Broadband where this is the utitial nafionally aggregated FCC Form 1205 filing, please provide: a. Cabledata or Cabledata-like reports for each month of 2003 idenfifying the number of converters associated with "Basic Only" subscribers, as the term "Basic Only" is used in the 2004 National FCC Form 1205 filed by Comcast; and, b. A detailed explanation of Comcast's methodology for identifying the number of "Basic Only" subscribers leasing equipment, specifically converters, for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 in all systems that were Comcast properties prior to the merger of Comcast and ATT Broadband and where this is the inirial nationally aggregated FCC Form 1205 filing. Comcast responded to (a) that "billing reports were not utilized to identify the number of converters associated with 'Basic Only' wnverters. Therefore, Cabledata or Cabledata-like reports for each month of 2003 for each system where this is the initial aggregated FCC Form 1205 filing would be of no use in the review of the Form 1205." Comcast responded to part (b) that it had deternuned the number of `Basic Only" subscribers leasing equipment by "polling" 38 See ComcasYs July 28, 2004 response to Follow-up Question 1. 39 ComcasYs July 28 response is thus a clear failwe to provide "complete" informarion in good faith, as referenced in TCI ofRichardson. °O CSR-6388-R, filed September 3, 2004. p. 21. 41 See ComcasPs July 22, 2004 response to Quesrion l la. Page 38 of 42 January, 2005 m P shpaugh & Sculco, CPP.s, PLC and Front Range Consultmg Inc. Al] righu reserved. Cannot be used mihout expressed wntten permission from both organizations. 05 a�� t� ASHPAUGN & SCULCO. CPAs, PLC � Cv:i'ucd Pulfic A¢oun;zs:s and Ccamha.^.cs Front Range Consulting, Inc. the sample systems and extrapolating the results to Comcast's entire system covered by the Filing. Thus, here again Comcast did not use actual company-wide aggregated costs. Comcast's use of sampling for the Basic-only converter data is problematic. The company's September 15, 2004, response to Question lb states that "(m)onthly billing reports for 2003 do not show the number of subscribers being charged a Basic-only converter rate." Comcast responded with additional information on October 7, 2004, including additional informarion on its polling methodology. However, it is unclear why Comcast used a polling methodology at all. Prior TCUAT&T Broadband national filings did provide billing reports supporting Basic Only subscribers. Thus, it seems unlikely that the same sort of billing reports could not be provided by Comcast. Obviously, this is a matter of legitimate concern. If Comcast cannot identify Basic-only converter subscribers, then (1) how can the regulator be assured that the resulting rate structure is appropriate, an3 (2) how can Comcast accurately implement a Basic-only converter rate to subscribers? In seeking to address the reasonableness of the aggregated rates, our analysis has followed the FCC's own mandate. In TCI of Richardson the FCC stated: TCI's sampling methodology has pzoduced very different results in Richardson. TCI's Richazdson HSC has gone from $19.30 in its 1996-97 rates (before the downwazd adjushnent ordered by the City) to $30.18 in its 1997-98 rates to $35.90 in its 1998-99 rates. Its chazge for installation in an unwired home has increased from $28.96 (before the downward adjustment ordered by the City) to $4730 to $53.16. Before a cable ouerator can meet the reasonableness requirement it must show that its averaein� methodoloev nroduces rates that are revenue neutral to the onerator and accounts for anv larae variances in cost characterisrics amone its svstems. It also must show that the included costs are nermissible and urouerlv treated in Form 1205. TCI has not done so in tlus case and has not met its laurden of ius6frin2 its ectuipment and installafion rates. The City did not act unreasonably when rejecring TCI's equipment and installation rates and prescribing rates based on the best available informarion. TCI's appeals on this issue are denied. Thus, as part of its burden of proof, Comcast must show that its methodology yields revenue- neutral results. The following table shows a comparison of the equipment and installarion rates in the Filing with those in other LFAs where Comcast did not use the national 1205. 42 See ComcasYs July 22, 2004 response to Quesrion I lb. 43 TCI ofRichardson DA98-1642 at ¶ 30. (emphasis added) Page 39 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaug6 & Sculco, CPAs, PLC md Front Range Consulnng, Inc. All righLC reserved. Cannot be used without expressed wntten peanission from both organi�ations. 05-�-�f 3 a t 1� ASHPAUGH 8� SCULCO, CPRs, PLC Certificd Puhim Accountan:s artd toncuknn:z Front Range Consulting, Inc. Table 10 1• ��i , i�. I 1• i •�� Hourl Service Char e $35.17 $31.14 $3510 Remote 1 $0.33 $0.25 $0.25 Converter 1 n/a $4.83 $5.85 Converter 1 Basic Onl $1.30 Converter 2 n/a 0 $0.45 Converter 2 All Other Units $4.83 Converter 3 $8.33 $7.85 $9.16 Unwired Install $52.23 $46.71 $61.43 Prewired Install $31.40 $31.14 $43.88 Additional Outlet Initial $17.15 $15.57 $17.55 Addirional Outlet Se arate Tri $25.31 $31.14 $35.10 Changin Tiers $17.12 $15.57 $17.55 The difference in rates identified above raises serious concerns of over-recovery in converter rates and installation charges. Detroit has subscribers that are "Basic Only." These subscribers would be paying $4.83 even though their "costs" would be included in the nafional 1205 so as to result in a rate of $130 or less. Similarly, Murfreesbords converter and installation rates exceed the narional 1205 amounts. These discrepancies cast serious doubt on the revenue-neutrality of ComcasYs overall Form 1205 methodology. The Fonn 1205 filed in Murfreesboro is a regional filing for the Nashville area. Nashville is one of the sample systems used in the national 1205. The following compares the inputs for the Nashville sample system to the amounts shown on the Murfreesboro 1205. 4° The Mur&eesboro filed 1205 idenrifies "Converter 1" as addressable converters, "Converter 2" as non-addressable converters, and "Converter 3" as HDTV converters. Page 40 of 42 Januazy, 2005 � Ashpau3h & Scuico, CPAS, PLC arid Front Range Consutting Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pemvssion from both organizations. 05-�43 `4� ASHPRllGH & SCULCQ, CPAs, PLC Cer:�ctl Pohhc Accwnzaniz and ConzuRZnvz Front Range Consulting, Inc. Table 11 While both sets of information claim to be costs and data for the yeaz ended December 31, 2003, and both were supposedly prepared by the same person in Nashville, there are major discrepancies between them that thus faz are unexplained. Comcast was requested to provide the support for the costs and data of the sample systems, but only provided the data sheets "used" by ComcasYs Philadelphia office in preparing the nationai 1205. Comcast claims that the LFAs do not have the ability to request support beyond what was "used" by Comcast's Philadelphia office. But if other materials from Comcast bearing on the same facts contain contrary informarion, further investigarion is certainly relevant to evaluating the validity of ComcasYs claimed rates. Comcast's refusal to respond necessitated the round of requests from the LFAs specific to each sample, as described above. The above comparisons show the necessity of having access to this type of data. X. REFLiND REQLIIREMENTS The Consultants believe that these revised rates will require Comcast to refund equipment and installarion charges during the rate period of these Form 1205 rates (typically the period starting 90 days after filing date). For those participating LFAs receiving their filings on March 1, 2004, as The howly service charge for the Nashville sample was calculated by dividing the amount for Annual Customer Equipment Maintenance & Installation Costs, Step A, Line 5 by amount of Total Labor Hours, Step A, Line 6. � Page 41 of 42 7anuary, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Ca`mot be used vnthout expcessed written pexmission from both organiaations. o�-a43 ° �'� ASHPAUGH & SGULCO, GPAs, PLC t«.vcw aun�� ac<,�,��;s a:,a ca�:�:�a„os Front Range Consulting, Inc. the rate period starts June 1, 2004. For those participating LFAs receiving their filings on April 1, 2004, the rate period starts July 1, 2004. Each participating LFA should include a refund secfion in the individual rate orders requiring Comcast to prepare a refund pian from the be nnin of the appropriate rate period unril Comcast reduces its rates in accordance with the order of the LFA. The Consultants recommend that these refund plans should be submitted to the participating LFAs within sixty days of the release of the individual rate orders and require Comcast to refund the over-collecfions after approval of the refund plan by the participating LFA. In this way, Comcast will be able to return these over-collections to essenfially the same subscribers that paid these over-chazges by avoiding undue delays. XI. CONCLLISION The Consultants recommend that the participating LFAs approve the rates determined in the analysis as shown in Appendax B, with the caveat that if any information should become known in the future which would lower tkese rates further, the participating LFAs reserve their rights to revisit this new information. The participating LFAs should state that these are the masimum rates allowed for each component of equipment and installations under the FCC's rules. Page 42 of 42 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Rznge Cousulting, Ina Ali nghts xeserved. Cannot be used without expressed written pexmission from both orgamzations. 05 a� 3 Appendix A o5-a �f3 Appendig A Comcast 2004 FCC Form 1205 List of Participating Local Franchise Authorities City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Arlington County, Virginia City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota Dishict of Columbia ViIlage ofDowners Grove, IIlinois Greater Metro Telecommunications Cottsortium (which is comprised of Adams County, Arapahoe County, Arvada, Aurora, Brighton, Broomfield, Castle Rock, Centennial, Cherry Hills Village, Columbine Valley, Commerce City, Denver, Douglas County, Edgewater, Englewood, Erie, Federal Heights, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Jefferson County, Lafayette, Lakewood, Littleton, Lone Tree, Northglenn, Parker, Sheridan, Thornton, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge, Colorado) City of Los Angeles, California City of Mentor, Ohio Metropolitan Area Communications Commission, the (which is comprised of the Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Farest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, King City, Lake Oswego, North Plains, Rivergrove, Tigard and Tualatin and Washington County, Oregon) Montgomery County, Maryland City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee North Metro Telecommunicarions Communications Cominission (which is comprised of the Cities of Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake, Lexington, Lino Lakes, and Spring Lake Pazk, Minnesota) North Suburban Communications Commission (which is comprised of the Cities of Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota) Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission (which is comprised of the Ciries of Andover, Anoka, Champlin and Ramsey, Minnesota) Ramsey/4Vashington Counties Suburban Cable Communicarions Comuiission (which is comprised of the Cities of Lake Elmo, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Birchwood Village, Dellwood, Mahtomedi, Vadnais $eights, White Bear Lake, Willernie, Grant Township, White Bear Township and Oakdale, Minnesota) City of St. Paul, Minnesota City of Santa Clara, Califomia Village of Skokie, Illinois South Washington County Telecommunications Commission (which is comprised of the Cities of Cottage Grove, Newport, St. Paul Park and Woodbury and the Township of Grey Cloud, Minnesota) Ciry of Wheaton, Rlinois a5 -a �3 Appendix B o5-a�3 � � �^ Y = � N � 0 � � _ � � �� O L � � C R U J a N Q a U O V � / V � VI � s � 7 � Q. � N Q � � � � c � �_.� (6 (0 � � � � � c N � � .� 6 L!! � T � � V � � C C Q U N � O � � � � / 7 � VJ m m C R L U e m � C R L V K LL y � � 'm a a�� U � � LL r�n V � .> y N� � Z Q U LL � y � � � a N W V � d oau. U � � � � £ U °� p N ILL U = N � V d d o E u. U f= 0 000 N c� �n r � f0 � N v o m n o w rc� O O O N � v�� N V � O 0 o v �o � �� n o M M M t`J W t"J O �?CO «, .�, �, d, d � � o c � y O � U Q m •3 0 W � N d Y > C �� EI N � 0 o r �U � c `v +°• o r a�U > 0 V o ` °a r U ?� j � � C o N j U =�> mQ= eoeeva0000a N M N N R N�� O O 1 l v�nm �oon om o� in�?m in c inrn o r�c� P � V U 47 V N O N(J C� FP. H> Y3 Uf Mf9 � � 69�� Vjy�' 6l m N 1� � t0 N A W F A`� V N N � W f`� K .�.�«.«.»«.«. «��.�. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M t7 ('J (7 �(7 f7 f7 Cl f7 vt ea �ss e3 F» F» va «3 vt u? W W A t") W N O O N mm r in rnww o 00 �n�no�n�D oom N( O V t O Q a V O O t h � O O O O O O O O O �no� owinm m or � w a M m v� m r N U N M � N N � �� N ' � N �� N � � � � � � � � � � L m N N N� If) tn � � tn N � CJ CJ M C'J (7 C� C� CJ C� M Q d c es F» ea vi en ea va » ea ea � c rn�o �o �n.-� c� m r�n -_ V N V�(O < V N V f0 C .=o 0 0 00 0 00o V � � 0 LL � C N U a N m a a V ¢ � � N a� a a p_ 3 F� = � rn m 4 y D E 6 N N Q�i N N L �+ a` ° W m m v m m O�� y y ` m A � C p m � m=mm mocinvia m m.':a� cz3....0 _¢ o �_��mzdo t � 9 � L C m {C 9 9 C C J N�0 y C C Ol T � m.d. o o O m � m U U o 0 w �3 d'aa> rn3 m��» U C � a Q Q'G� � 0 7>> U � o5-a�3 Appendix C o� a�3 FaicelCo` �mopo�CU�im R'�gaqD.0 1DSSn NaffioYLOCLflauW.m6 Awhonry MmLegAdNecsofLwl FrmcNSmgAU(b�nry ��Y $u4 ZIPCOdc I.TNSfarmvbungl�ed: �Ev[wav"z"iu[heapp�opmttbox� �N juvcrionu�y}'�CFmmI200,FCCFOem3220,orFCCPmm1225 Avach�LecumpinW FCC Fwm I200, FCCFam 1220, ox FCC Foem I]]S to Wefiou[of Ws tmm OR �IV ad¢ a IW 6ll FCC rvlev aquuiog au amuat filmg of W ix t FnmOedeaocwtichyoulaz[fi1Mt%s(mm ��ddNY) Notc tLU sMUW be Wedaieov wbiW thcnvs Iastrysti5�d, by urag d�ha FCCFOrm393 mthcpror fil¢ig o(0is (m�v, wne w cffut E.EVtertLeda�eauwW�Lyoutlw'edyourLaoksfortEef �y�,«m.n�am.n�ro.m� �y3�� (�l�lyy� Note ILis wllwdict¢the epd o(iDC IYVwnIL fisw1Y<ar for wNChyau m filiv6� tmm J. 1nNEaa NemROnte9aNS atyour oblerys�em �En[van "x" iv @e cartec[ bm� X GCaeWnuau SuM1CheptvSwrymanau PazmmLip Sole AopncbnldP ONn�Plwcaplawbclow] Appmval by OMB 30EUD)OJ FCCFwm12o5 Page I E¢140 fo� Wmtlows ]w<1996 FORVI120.5 nersum.vnc necuuizn rRIDe>wrr:�,�a csr,u.unou cosas "EQU@�I�TFOR31^ 05��3 Feda9 Cn�jrqup¢s Cp�.¢�iav Wsstmgw,D.0 miu SCHEDOI.£A:CAP1i,1LCOSi50F5ERVICEL�SiwLLa'I30V,NTMNtP1E.'�A.YCEOP DB3gTT,4'�DYL1N! MLCINY[e Ofhvl. OW/l2. A ImdP�mt VeBftla ToNS PaaLtie (Spedfvptlaxl (Sp�b�va^1 B Caos9wkVatue $6)l�tR'186 5�245119"R C Aa�htalDrymiauov 2535992y89 S�S/95]6 D DcfmcdSUUS 51a]81.]t] 12].I1;]38 E ¢EmkVaNe C*D)] S12t,GC8�0]8 5131Z�9,659 SOOJ SOOJ SOM F W¢ofRevrm U.1125 G CNCAnttwoGmv-�qFaee GI F[dvilIDCOmeTixRaY: 035 G2 Sv¢Income'LixRVC OD655 G3 NetioWlrcnmeTazPa�e�(GI+G3}(G1xG2)� 03936 GC Ad�u[Nm[bReflec[IVlttatpc'I�C4bifity Gla Ac4Win¢evtAm�mt 5).018.0OO.OW Cdb To�n[NCtASe¢ SI03,]56,0OO,OW G!c BaseRmwwluvam+m[AmountGabxF7 St1.6'R,550,000 GVd Iviau[IkducuLitiHPacm GCa/G4c 01]29 GS Effernv<iixRatt[G3x(tGid)7[C{'nrysslpmG/� Oi36] Ca6 Adl��mLSfo�NOnLCOryanuovs G6a BsseAemnoutnvesmimtAmmt(Gac7 Na G66 IJiambutiovs Gsc Nv buuovs(�yvo�ucemcct G6d R<umsSW+jectminwmeTix[G6e-G6MG& Na G6e ReODUSPacmngeSUbect�olnwmeTax GCd/G6a] Na m oross-ueaam[ccoms-v�i.as)oma✓0 �s..t�c)) �aaos H Gmsad-UpRa¢ofAemn(FZG)] 01666 I Revwonlnves�meGroised-Un�riixes[ExH] 510,]32,503 522,869,94] 5000 SOCO 5000 I C1rtrntAOnsionfo�DCp�waWn $98,056,459 538,633,040 K AwmlCapiWCatb[Ig� E118�288y62 561,503,6H] 5000 SOW 50.00 L G&ANOTOTALpumofAmMevma� Sll9p9;6a9 Bm I. SpeciCy OWVI sc�b'oaez sy«;y ow<.�. Appmveiby.OVB306P0]p3 spwb-omaz v�m�.�o�si�uiemvimauu«asa PCCFmmI20.5 Page2 Exul<.Ofi� Wwtloxrs Jw<i996 05-��43 FWVa1Ca�raiomCO�.v� �/a+�6�D.0 2o55a P'°8� 3 Eue160 fm Wivdows �+PP�^�MM ONB 3a6o0/03 FCCFmm1205 ]me I596 os a � � F4rsa1 G�m.atims Co��mm Waz�gpqD.0 211536 PaBe4 Pxrel4Afo�WivUOwS App�ovMby O.V.8I060.RI03 FCCFOCm1205 ]mc 1996 �]80�OF8ILI.L\GFORASIqLL11]ONS(ya¢av "mNeapprape'vabox) In�d➢aW¢tb�L[dbytMLmvLVei w@e HAC Wm1aW mL'me] x Insd➢monsNIlalssazwdmdchagc c`� a�3 FNaat (:o�IDCti�s Ca�w a'�ss�m, D.G 2055+ aNO�alChuge(EU�¢WenommalcbargewLivcJa) aU� HowlySavic[Cbarye Pag<5 Er.celG 0 fir Wmdow[ ApyovMby OSffi 3060-0'103 PCC Pmm ¢OS Ime t�b �MCSLpD OF86LWGFORC9e4CGIFG SEAVICSTD:RS ORP.QOSFffiNi �platt au "i" mt6e appmpna�e boz� � o5a�3 FdcdCu�muo¢sCo�¢ � WasLmgtm, D.0 LI556 Pa&6 £tce14.0 fw Wmtlows wppmvei by. ON8 3066�0]a3 FCCPOem1205 Jwe 1996 05—a�3 F��eo�� w,�qm,n.c rosu LABORCOST AliDppUCY pllpryGES IDdicaa yow avwca Wc tollowiug �«quooms 6yPlacmg av "a' w NeaPProP�+� Wx 1 Hrvc}rouwclvdelNelnlrorwsWassotia¢dwiWSWSmbce�'able�tropswyomcharg¢fewie�wsGllavov? YES x NO 2 HsveyaucaplaLzedNe �aWCCCSp avcaand wiW subs¢ibvpb@deops+ X YPS NO 3lfyouhavcfiled�p,'a( bcfa55avcyoucl�mgMmyprLCY,�6.�'��&��n��uEnmae%ccutWCrux¢ iocludWwitc�umpu�auouofequrymmtmdivxta��auovschargcs+ YPS(YautmsstavacLaCWlcaplmaoou) NO Aypmvcdby:O.V930E0-0]PJ PCC Fwm 130.5 P�� P cel00fw WinLOµa IWet�6 CEAiIFICATIONSTATEMENT W➢.LFlILPALSESTATEMENSSMAOEON'LHISFORMqREP[1NLSHqBLEHY}INEAND/OAIMPWSONMENT �il S. CODSTfCGE I8, SECltW 1001), AND/ORPORfEIPUAE ([1 S CODE.T1tLE <], SECCION 503� o5-a�� FNail Co�nuoos Cn�aiw Wastmg¢qDC 20554 Pagr 8 Sxcel<Ofo� Wm2ows qppmvW by.OMH J WOL�03 FCCFOCm120.5 Jme I936 05 a�t3 Appendix D �� 3 N 11� y m O O 1� N �(I I� 1� N O(D 1� l�J O N N O� I� � +n r�rv rn o v�oco�ooioai N � V f�J t•J �fl V N V N �fl N O V 1� i� oJ LO oruiouia.-o5 O V d 9 W m C h N(O V m c'J N V m(D N lO CJ tA (D �- �m�vmr m<o m� C n[") N a�D N I� K c'J V(O (O � (D CJ �� N O oJ � � V O W N ¢� M � N N V d' O(O O � �.- N N M N d3 H3 VTE9 fR f9 EA fR V � A (O �!1 N OJ � N� 1� N � N M �oo�u��oM rnr� I� � W V tn N m � v �n �orrnc�rn� � Q 2 � Q U Z m � W p Y � 02 m u ~ jw ~ O O W � w a Z �j F- J F- J ¢ _ Q Z m F� f� � �"' J Q.' O W 2 2 a J �il-�<nUU�u. N O oJ oJ �(J �� CJ �W ��[J a � � � N wwwww¢ww 1� 1+ N W G1 (O C N �O I� N � OJ �(J N V 6J � M N T T M W ovoSai � � N�! � N V � � n � n � a O m � m tn O O) t0 T CV h � t7 N W M M m O� 61 N � r � � � o <o N`rno (h tn M I� l0 � W V N W OJ OJ 1� 1n W f�l � .^ O M � N (O � V N t� (O o] l� N N QI m (V M V Q � N fA 4N Y3 63 fA V3 V O� C� � tn O N I� V W � oom<o�o c0 � Ol � t0 V co`�rnoM N N N N N N N N � W J J Q 1 W � } H F W Z � � Q O 2 J U � m h o�a� W Q� J U � Q -iF �Z ZI- OO W Od'K a�mU�f- <omt��oror 4� f[� N V O c7ma�=-� w w w w w w N O m � < � N W � � � W CJ � V V3 V N N ch � N m � 0 � N N h O N r CJ � O � V3 � a v � O � � � Q = Z U _ � j U ¢ ~ O za z J Q f � H V � W � w w i- w U N S m N � . W ps--�� 3 g � o E- O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o O (go � ObN n f- m� m �N o b 6 U v O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O Uw g � Po bip _ b a y O O O O O O O O C O O O O o O FO 3U t�C�W c Z O o O O O O O O O O O o O O N O N N b v< b O N O O O O O O O o O � N d � � � M P O O O O O O O o O V � � i[ N i�0 ul 0000'oaoo FNN h�Ct�00uQbt� o p O O a O O O O POO f�0 < N t <NPOYCI �y wmo wmvw>H � N N O ntpN N o E Q � �U � 00 J ZW2 WOYO 00 wwa� j Q Z � W m Q Q W h Z 3��mc�ic�i3�i wwww aom � � O O O C O O O G O� O � O O � O O O O O O � C b � O O O O O O C H a m N N n 0 0 b W N O O� n V M O G mn� 00000000 0 r� �n ` ulNfy2 q �2 E - Oi Q M W .-��.-NN[�� t� ry[�NNNNN � ) W Q J F ) W Z Q 0 Z �(lR 7F 0 J � � Q � W F g��W� F F F� N N OOWOKK a�m��r mN� � wwwww� J 2 Z `m ° w P N � n U U U F Z 'w � a� 3 m � 4 o O m � m � c O i m � � O m xO � a �+ h� O " ¢ -` O # E h � o `- O A 3 '_-' m � n` � # 3 J O # (O N O O O (p (O (p m �fJ O O O tp In � n V O V O t+J O'J I� C� 6] f� C9 t7 (O � V m c� cv � o C(D 6] C� f� f0 �t N O W(p Q(D N N(O oernomin�nrn O c+J N� m Oi c'J N 4[J V C'J IA O] (7 W (9 N C'] N A (O � 1� t(J N ��- tn f7 I� � � � M� N � O R(p (O R O d' 0 o m rn o 0 0 � rn�� m c m N 1� M 1n (O CJ CJ 0 ovo�ov coo 0 0 0 o m o m o o� � t+) N N N f0 N m �n �vo� m c0 N � t0 (O � � V th f7 V C C' M (O O (O (9 V O (p O rn o m m o o rn o M a N� o� N� O N h�< O cD O O o �nc� rncov o 'V N � I� (O N V I� r � N N N (O (D O O V a(p O a�rno 0 0o mo O(�+] A In I� M�� (O N t7 c'1 O W O�[1 oc rovori d N f7 N R N cO (O O O C et V O rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 t0 N o� O M (V O � I� O m GJ I� I� l0 I� V W < h N � � N c- C I� In 4� � N t � N� N �'f (O O �-- Ln (p (h O) M r W 4 In N Ol � d' tn t0 I� W N Ol e- � Q 2 Z m ❑ WOYO OZ m �W ~ > �Ow�waZ > F- JF _�Q_ � W m Q 4 W� Z 2 iF��NUU 2 it�i K w m N O 09 O'J ln In f � t � t� d V �� N � wwwwwaww z J � tp (OO�m NO IA Gl ? V LL'i O N oJ n'J (O �O O o�rnmm rn v�mma I� 10 1� 'C O W � � � V � (D O m N W < u>ov �n v,o � N � � i N t� 1� m V O C� l[J N N(O N c') �00 �l�.- V th R N V t� V O V O C(O C 0 0 0 o m o � p CJ � � V Q N �oomov<o rnom000? tn < M Oi �() l� W � N W N(O ln (D I� N 1� O tp�(pN f0 O (O (O (O V rn o m rn rn o raico r��co wn r.-vm con inmm I� W � I� m V N N N N � O (O V < O C o m o 0 0 0 O M tn O �N � Nt7 W Nc7M 'occoiv " C C'J �[J < o� ? O O� D( O O O 0 o m m o 0 N f� < V V t"� I� N(O O W M V T N W tn I� d� � (O (V (O C � � � O � � V � O 0 � 0 M � � O m m m M O O A m m � � O M O � m V M W � O n rn n N � M W ai 0 � O � � m ° o N O N .-v m�nm�nN� Z v m h<m.- I�..�tll+ v O O oJ (O c� O � Z � N W In W CO S� Q C'J f0 � n m O� c'J �J N N N N � M r M N N N N N N N M } W J J Q 1 W 1- Y W Z � 7 QOZ � U � m ��a�� w r � - �FZZ i ' 1- � Z Q Z W N a�u � �i NQ�O c�maMx-+ wwwwww h � V V O � Q = Z U 2 � j U > m = Q F' p za z J Q f O r V � W � w w �- w o5-a u 3 ��000�m� N (p O � � N O O� tt) O N N V� t� V (O C1 O [h [D t+) b t[l tn N m O W «v��ic�rc N m N W Q RJ GJ In R N aJ � m M O) 1� V O� m� m V 6� rn v� v rn` o 0 O O� th 1� W c+� N N t0 b C O(O � tD M n N� � T N O N O� � cD I� O � 1� a] N d' � t[l � � � (�J OJ m t7 � cn O V N(D rmv�Nr�nc� viv�+i c6iciroic W(") N fD A I� O(O N N� N N N N t+�J R I[l O � OJ C9 C� (O fV � LG lf) 0 !� (O N 1� O�Y (O N� T A f0 Q� O N(7 l0 � c'> �1J N m O(O N N O O V(D oJ O) O W (O V (D m (") V ¢1 n'J ici � ui � r (V �(l m N Q O M I� I�- 1� (O (� � I� O ch O tD W V V V(O I� N � N� N W M V V 1� O n t� h t�9 Q tn W f9 (O � H � t(J � t0 V N I� N(O (O I� l[J m OJ (O O < !n �- � N N � Oi � (O < � h (O � N W �- �(J N` I� N N m t0 O tn t0 th m M !� OJ � � N Oi � v�nmrrn�rn` � _ � Q U Z m 0 �O `10 O Z m i W Op � 1- J F- J ¢ _ O m F--CLIn�I- _ W x2QJ �F-� cnU U�ti N O W N� � � c'�'V N N a1 � 6� � W W W W W¢ W W O) OJ V Q R N ? P I� � N C N Oi (O (V O M (O 6J Q (7 O] ��mrn�n�n vr�+ivcv�c O OI O(D O C'J m t[J O� N t0 1� [V C �1) � (O vvo�n�nm rmmrv�n � � � � ^ � N O < 1� �- N W V N 1� (D d 0 A W tn th m N N (O W (O N N N N oJ �oe-r rn.-m q�Ma�co m O O OJ N O(O V O(O V O� M vv�nr�< O �- ('J c- N O) < V V t0 m N I� !� C � N O � r N R � � � V N N O 1� LLJ V` O N V N N I� N 01 �fJ 1� O V I� V� V V N N N O V (D ln W N W I� N V h i� �O W N N V t"J tfi N m � M ri O � n � m 0 N n � � l[) � � O M O � � ` C C N N� W V N N O� t[J V l� 1� N� O OJ M N(O �- T t0 N(O � OJ W(� 4� N tn IA .- N 1� Oi V 6� O N N tp V e- o] O aD (V In � W CJ W l0 M h RJ N 6l V N f7 O1 In N� 0 Z O O�( M O. Z N � N � �� N N N S t`�"l N N N N N N } W J J Q � � } W Z Q O Z � U � � m � � ¢ U W Q� j U � Q O�wO�� Q� �nU�.t- �mr co Mn l� \tJ N C �- O c7maMx-� wwwwww C7 n � n N � N N N m V � � � N � V � N O � N � � � n � � N � V v R O 7 Q = Z U 2 � j U � F- a ' H Za O J Q F- O F- m o O � ww � w 05 a�� "S[ "55� z 4P2�- � XAY^tYYh.Y4✓ +6N "°q+ "�" ."' F �, �00�`Es�imafes art°�fancYa�'d"E�ors,.�� : 3 � PRIMARY VARIABLE'1: END AMOUNT (CUSTOMER EQUIP. & INSTALL COSTS) St2tum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N-n)/n N(N-n)s /n � 53 9 '1,888,702.39 100,101,227 908,039 259 2'1364608964525� 2 37 7 3,989,576.01 147,6'14.372 1,034,263 159 169623968050221 3 16 2 4,6'12,227.�5 73,795,538 68,243 112 527596489467 4 8 2 10,377,772.73 83,017,382 3,253,820 24 254096247559396 174 20� 404,528,459 637887901744336 Estimated Total = § 404,528,45 Variance= 63788790�74433E Std.Error= $ 25,256,442.78 Estimated Mean = $ 3,548,49526 Vanance = A908340272( Std. Error= $ 221,547.74 OFVARIATION= 624°/ Stratum t 2 3 4 53 37 76 8 114 TOTAL HOURS (RE: Mean 61,717.67 139,774.64 165,355.66 294,720.48 3,271,036 25,213 5,�71,662 3�,328 2,645.691 11,855 2,352,964 89,857 13,447,352 259 159 172 24 � Estimated Total = Vanance = Std. Error = Estimated Mean = Variance = Std. Error= COEFPICIEfVT OF VARIATION = Stratum N I 53 2 37 3 16 4 8 114 CONVERTER HOL Mean 72,687.58 28,791.81 43,031.97 672,442 1,065,297 688,512 479,959 2,906,209 11,490 10,574 3,052 13.867 259 159 112 24 csnmatea �on�= Vanance = Std. Error = Estimated Mean = Vanance = Std. Error= OF VARIATION = 529,863,860,340 727,917.48 117,906.60 40,771,304 6,385.24 177281 1043c ',596.221.949 239,992.'13 25,493.06 4,43'1,84226 2,105.19 os-a� 3 [) � N N =u��,� m � F � _ m � N m � !q _ E g « �_ c � „ c ��w � r � � N d � N q E E > w W C n m � w l� m W � & W Z 0 0 o r E f- a > � � > � � E E > a n n W � � F Z W U N �v m O � � � .- U m � a v p � n N u Qu O a p � � '� u �O C F m W � z IL Q m> y m> N tt E j w w C _�s�� W�'o �q� �Aw d � N y � N E E 0 0 0 � e c S n 1 N � � N E E m c� n w W � � Z ? E m f j N N m ¢ � m L �5 �� 3 �� - = Q � � m>� ->� E E � It0 `m � o Q F m � m Q �� j y y j r° < � E � w w O F W � U O 0 0 0 u N m m $ o ' o 1= w � � w � o � � � ¢ � � y u � y K E E > � W w O -� a .o oI e� �� _ v � N m � N E E m v � m� N o� rv q I c Q 2 ~ 'q � z W G i� y� N m� N � E E > w w C F _ 2 � m � C v �i o U n n � iO I� � .- o m �i m m � A � � � �� 0 0 0 0 �� E r w n 7 N � � N E E mN � r "' w .- rv m el e0 1 05�43 _ i ��w �mw `� � > in °�-' > �i E £ E 0 W W t , Z _ _ _ W � n J F W O E o 8 � ' 0 = c r n � � � � O t � � � E r m rv n e m gi m o. W a m $ �, I= � m W � > ' � > y E E � W ��el � n m <I `-° ° � � o � ww �_w �- �` �` ` � 1 N d � N � E E > w W O E Z n n W G K � � p � N Q n N = c m r � h m � O r m � E F m � H � e � m � w m QI =t � � m � h °-' � w E E � E q W q � N v � N E E 00o r-'+�`� � A��n ->y nuRv E E N � W W � N � rv m 0 m a 05 ay 3 �a - �� w�w ro�- e>� v>� E E � n .- c� n al _ u ��w � � � a j N a j y E E e O � W W � ..� � ol a N v � a ' O � mw` � `mw � ¢ � j y m j y E E � w w O .- N t� vl � � Iolo m �� o= �� qw _o w Q , m;N o>y QD = E � - w � O Q _ F W � U E W V E O _ U c (l N � 9 E m U Q a . . , ,1 E � y I N O O w a os a�3 HSC o5 � W N O� N � W M m O cci �n �o on m w c+�o n Mo mo �n ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � 0 f- m £ m � U 7 rn O o� � c0 � w V V 1� N c7 m � O � (O � p� V O V O V O � O O O O O O ❑ 9 th (�O � � t� N L` � O V O �' O n O O O O O O � m I� � N i� I� I� N n') !� � 7 (O � Q� LL� � V O o O o o O O o � � Ol N (7 1� (D ln � � W ( M W V th � �n o �t o v o m � O O o O O O O Q N N N N �[J m M N N(�O �� n �3 �o c- r o co o � m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a` a V V N O N n (�O � � � � � ch O N � � o � O � o � W(�q W H W y W � g � � � N Q� �� N 11_ c'f 11 7 c�1 � y L O � ; � j n � t") � V Q O d m E ' N N O �o V - o tj C O � U � 9 a w � m` o E 0 ' U v N m � � o U c m E u1 ° N � � W m d d 3 O " E � � o � N 41 N � U � > y V � 10 U o d N � � � Z E � `� m � N 3 w � m A a ° N m = > � O O > m � � t > � ¢ •- N . O N N m v � �5 ��3 M W O M N W N a tN N > N T > U m 'c � 0 U O N Y R N N J N > ll v 0 a�-av3 Appendix E os-a�3 � � �� t�.sa+m�aum,� / �(�}� adu�Oq D.0 1a454 /i � l.la�. (mm ¢ waq aka: I�w m }• m u� ypapAaa ecaj �huel�mi+iWFCCFmo12Q0,FGCFmq11t0. ¢F(SFomi1135 AW A We ranplcW FCCFUm �300.FCCFpm i330.xFCCFw 1115 ta NcfrMaf�ASfum OR �M eelcm fsKLLKCmIa ��qun�gsiamuSHo-gMtis f¢m �,^ $6R16cm1eMMtiatrY°+h4Sk01Fi41 �J"'YNGI'3'J� `.. NYC IEisfMU[dbe Ihemle mMiAQCNCh3P�` �� 63�*6d1lc[�'Fmn39! otAepiaNirgafqcMR ws h ed G S.£nbNeda<mxi�W�euduulrmvboobfmYzNalar*midWfu0lifam: IL3IN5 (mNtld�yy) Na[r INS+viW Avi<'ticN[ q! MNC 13nrvrlhfSW )wfNMtitLyw vefi6gY�sfa2 3. IndbkWemROr+lcASlusalW�cabk�YYmlPntu�n'z'HO�emnztboa� X W S[apvayp� SulePrapiaaidip dMl�m.wp6ivb�) M}vovalby.oAffi]asaasss FipivMNYI p� � FCCFam 1]US Etcc[4 o win Vasm3.o hp �gy aoRx uos DET{ASfl.IIAC AFLULATID EQIRP! V.Eti iAM1D ]NS[',U,[ATf0.V COSIS 'EQIIIPA¢NiFORpS• n5-a� 3 f�� Q'+dmpm.RC MISSa R�ge 2 ��3�� F�064�lN➢] SR°PlIXhVI "IEtilFQ.SAYF1'Y�.OFFlCEEQ.L6^SFHOtD.FHONEeQ.RAqOS " SpccfY.011ur1 GONVptTpiRFPaLQ Sps�fy:OWCi Ql3fA[1ATIONC09]56�5'ONDI]fEPOUTOF�fd1ARl:ATION E¢dd 0 Wi4 VuSm 3 4 FCCpam1205 Vay1996 d5-aU 3 F�� x�.�,�.� �, �.�� P�gJ &M 10 Wv� Vvam 20 £CCFOmiM3 �Y�99< 05-��3 FdaJ Ca�nmietivs Ca�%im AYq',�ryg�ryD.0 ZU354 �&< Fs�va o wn v�eamz o AyvviNNay.d�BbK�9552 $acNUA] FCCFbm�205 �Y�9a OF624ACYOALVSIALLFII0:6jpl�xwY`l @e�➢ATp��1 •^•• � 6ahLVa¢M9edl92ehW 6vs[d m9sffiCalahW fi lia] X twme�w�ass.se�aua.a� . osa�3 Fvbal C�nmvaioc C�m w e�wnc iosss P+'CS Lha140 WR Vcnwnl0 APP�^�bP- � eno� PCCFami]AS Wy199i a5—a�3 FeGNCVymeiour�l:p�oinice w>amp„�n.c lo:sa Page 6 6eU40 Wih Vwswv30 - .�=�,,.o��,� sJ�acNloM FCC Gwm 13N hG11991 05-�N 3 Ffd�C�GrrO�w�m GssFS��4QC 30554 IwBNtGOSY MDPOWCYC[uNGeS IoAnlc9artamwnrot&Pdlmri^Stlra4�aaMMY+^B+n X u 4s�pyecp+iafc6ex I. Hav. Yov eickdcd Nc Gbv c�s asemhJ wi�h v6sam wblc d�gs vYwy dwges ta mJ'9lmuil�tim� X No Z� cPiWiudSehbxwara4oavadwiNVkaAnabktrroY+ X ea iGyauhuefud@'sfwmeef h.sYW�d�^YPaMi'.�'-SmxazmwaFBvcro,i�nmumuwcavaanio-iuuinNeco4x mt'1�icJ b tl�c ¢apnalioo af cqdpmei ad iMnryuq¢ du�gey� Y6 (Yw miQ a W fi a fuli cepletlimJ X NO Aqac'idbp.0.463KCG592 Espicca36H] �� FxM<Y W�ryVmion30 PCCFwm1205 MaY19M CFRTIFfCAI'toN sTA] [M1fFM A9lflh. FuSE sTA�lENiS MApE ON IfLLi FORM AxE RI�aSHAH�s HY Fl.�v atmpR 14�F140;+I�V i NSCl�I1F.R11Pf4 n�nner�eam�menr� ......e.��...e..��..�_. o5-a�3 ��m�.�� Wau' xri DC y1}I I.T. i� (arm u Edntilcd: �G�e �n "s' �<Ae.ppropriu¢ hav� �Incm�weem •.iu FCLFam ]Eqt FCL Fwm 1_'20 arFCClam 1_5 .�� depmpk� FCCFam IICO FCC Farm 13L1 aeFCC £om IL`S b fAC GwuofS� 6es � ❑Invd¢mM1lfiltFttdh �cQyi�x;�¢aeevilfuagKWiffam EnuthcQVCav��6icAwulv[C.kdAi�6m ��mm/dU�) \m Th'vs5wldlc J�eQxm �tic> 5c y�alassiu�� b; J93w Nc➢��filics af�buWrm �.x m dlat : E�4v[M1eJ.��annGlchmeAu�NSwrpwb(enM1e(c�l�exrtOaauJU�pu(nm. �ek:Th"v�Mlina�acJeeedafuelLmeWf 3.<>fwx�hich�y�e.ellint�h��G� l. �n.R�ra�e<mepomesnwml�aur<Wk�ru.o�lEahran'i fn�Mmrnnbo.{ � C{a�aeam. s.xe�p a�.��w SakROprcwM�p 05a�Plvccq[vnyda.� !'151A1 ( N6y;1 l:i��i{-%r� �i"� u ;i �. t . . . . i E� fl.� , F; ��' �? ��'- � ' �.in.:_y I A r. l � .� . ; JhJ `. .. . . r :.:.. ' iA�'?� � � �� . �i� �ti: : _ �tt��M.OI[9)0>ppp� E�pi�tp9} Pay�t EeeliOXm V�nlo iUFOrmI!v5 }1r 199a FOA\If?p5 D�.E2 [Ll'L1G 3tELULITEDFQUIPNEM1TAM G riIf.iSiO.l" Cp$iS 'EQ�fIP\IElTFOAN' �5—a�� F��m�K��m�a n'uL:., DC 'p55a .��.�a o„��,�_ Firvc a:lY9] • � �` E: -_ _. . 7T} Sqnf� QLerl SMCiN:01M+2 Spcdy.UM+i LO:."IxAGI'I.AHOxRDNVERTERFUMIe]+anCS SEtify.UAcr2 V6llCLEEXFENS£S Age3 FjWJOWie Vasim20 GCCFwm1265 Mx 19A 05—��13 �,�momt��e.v�. uSfa3wn DC ]0551 Paq¢3 Eca120 mVuvon3a ?yym•*2 "m' 04B iNA-0!9$ E�P�3 y'.�9) -' ^r`'rlr1��,7� �� ; � AUG � l 1984 ��.� _. fCL Fo� f203 Uav I99i �5-a�3 sw �<a.:�ss=�CoTm,..b� w=e:m oc zass: xm��.�m oue �ow�oso! �.�+,. f�'j^'1!.` _."• :�;?i!_ .. r�, -�' i � i"�i . - � 3G' �!' � ? �, � � �f{; - � v�; Pagei �aaow v�e,.xa FCC tmm 1303 Mwl9N ?fECpO�OFBIIln.'CFORI.qT{LL1i:OtiS�ba.n'i ia:taunV�m^�M1O�} 4�i4aa bubS h� �%bow 6mm on K PSCcilm(1etl m l vc ] te tlL ioexbi� `sa➢ffiad '�•^. 05—� y 3 F��,��e�� Nzdn4v^ QC 'ASV 'l (^.f"�i�lfk{�Y � F , i ' ' t i' , i auG �. �. �ss� ° �u�.- - ..., .i ..� ''gc EraliOW Vvmn20 �+vo— cea o.ua_aoua»i GaausV�69] FCCFemI$¢5 M1Lry I99J ds—a� 3 �,��.�,�,.�ba 0.'y{r(yne.00 ]NS: t";.�i'"� � ;" �-�' '.,� i , i , � ' . � . ; � it � " i ; �. ' . .. t S 1� I �_ [ f; '.. 1 � � .� 5�`t �`� � J" i.if �� :.-.:_ .. . .. ._ :_-.�`_J +com oLa.asaaJ�x Ey,�¢�YWI} FCC£erm]3P3 nqeb ^� Wm Vcsim30 M31ry}� U5 ��i3 Fdnz'tcrosw�c:[cc�Camnia�cn w�esm oC iossz i0w.�h Of�8J060.u59• f+c�b amn f /'� �'1� n S f } �'l (} j �I - 1 !t:" �i � � �; ��;G 11. 1��'t � i; ; L :_ - ��`_. Li808 C04 dlO YOl (CY C]UYGES ) .�ici5)aVwuEbWVldlari�5M1e9uatiorsq'P�$an a ivfhcaPWOM.vc� I. HxvSw ndWcd Ne 4M�aW anu'iaial m�M1 nlxnMabk N^V/ �^yvu��hv4o (o��ni�ial �wYlutian? �' YkS . w ' Hsc>wcaPnl�adPClataxv.ssayaiay3v�IFwbxc2cnblebmp? YES �l0 i Il�cuha+'<CIMSis(qm� Ea� rovcLmS��! W�Y e4 cm�xcanm3^'�ylocsian�la�ca�v¢mi�ncsssia�M1Casv - �ama uwma ot�m��,a �u,mi„.v�nas= YSS �Ym muaa W a fWte`plsatior� 8� CER'fIFIGRONSCAiEAIE�YT MLLkULF.lLSESTATEMEN'ISFL1➢£9NTHI5 FOPb1AAE WMSKiBLE BY FlM (U.S CODEIIR'e IS $EC.iON �MI) ANp/ORFORFElIUN£N S CODE TIiLE i'l /� 1 f� ,' �� ^L . � �� ., ` � �� ., f � ��h��, Pge] E'cC 10wn Vvieo 20 FCC �om 120$ bfx1991 �� 3 HeaCe�M \z[ne. IHQIL`ii0\ � FIBE L� S Fiexder.0 Nc�r;Cer H06'v'A Fcc Fotuvr izo-s SCHEDULE BANALYSES INSIALLt Page_ n ( �� ,'� i' � , 3' . M (t� AU6 3 1 "994 ? , : ?�L 1vORI:SHEET FOA C4L.CUiAi InG I OSAL EQUtPl7El7" AND Iti57�11.�{T10\ COS7'S ATT,�C1Ln7EYF o�-a�� ,� :; ; :: ry . F ; ,�, , �:.= -- ? : � ,;�. :1�: � -�i,.t„_;Ii� :'�.� i: " .r ii `u �� v` �... � rt:r`�+J ) zir.z-co�l��iu�tc.-�Zlo��s, r��c I� CC I01:\i IZO� PRL�P-\P.:1`PIO\ DOCU�IL�\ I A'l Ip:V This memo �vif! se�ve ro documen[ i�i �zne,el tc�ms [hc sceps ancf inechodofogie� oci�ind [t�e ptepa,a�ion of FCC Foim 12D5 fo� syscems o��ned and/or rnanaged by Fzle-Communicuioas inc ("TCI') Documentation �vill cove� on!y thos� linzs requi�in, man�Fal or compatei inpu� and not those lines thai ate caicul:�ted cnaihema[icaily orby obcaining ie2Puin�ation tiom anodtci line FCC FocnZ 120� is `�eing prepa�zd in accorcianc� tivi[h the Gzneial Instructions (or Attachment of FCC Fo�m 120�, Detemunin; the Cos[s of Rzgulated Cabl� Equipnr nt and Ins[alla[ioii.' pa�z 9 Fonn 12Q0 instiuctions Sttch ins[iuctions indica[e titat il thc repoi'tin� uniis ia[es hs�e been rzsuucturecl to bacl: ouc equipment and insta[lation a� cost b:ued on a fiscal ye:�� fo� �� nich th:: books ha�e been closed prior [o Viarch 31, 199=! tnen tha[ data may bz ati?ized [o complztz s sinale Form 120� Accoidingly,'T'CI has utilized the zqteipmeEit and insca([auon�cost data inc(uded in th� iepoEtin� uni['s FCC 393 toc pisrposes o€pczgarin� the Foim 120� tiled ii� conji3nc[ion with [he rzporting unit's Form 2200 Ihe cost da[a, subscriber information and convzrtei unit info�mation induded in the Fomi 393s and utilized in the Foan 120�s is included for [ne period ctosest ro the ini[ial date of rzge!a[ion fo� which TCI had closzd i�s books and foi which ine inforniation is pcactically obtainable Tne dace; utilized ace as fof totvS: Initial Dace of Re;uiation prio� to 3anuary 31, 194;+: Schedule A: Schedute B: Schedvle C: St�bscribets! ConveRer tlnits: Octobe� 31, 1993 Decembec3l, 1992 Octobei 31, 199 i September 30, 1993 Initial Date of Re�ulation afcer January 31, 199''.: Schedule A: Schedule B: Schedute G Subscribers! Converter Un:�s: December 31, l993 Decembzr 31, 1943 December3i, }993 Dececnber 31, I993 or �Iareh 31, 199? OS a� � ; -� _.,-- _-- _ -x- - �-- �'- --_, W --- _ SCHZllULE A- C:�PI1-\L COSIS OF SEI:�'?CL I\`S"1:�L.I.1'1I0� r1ND Ni-iI\°1'L�l'rl\`C�3 OI' �QliIP\IE\°I� =1�tiD PL 14T Linc f1 Peptescats the typcs o? equi�men[ nzcess:u}� to� srstalf;,tion ar, � m^in[er::�r,ce ot caole Eaci[ities 1C1 Itas i<len[itied EYxse items:�s vehicics (accoun[s 2310 0000 aEid 3''.04_0000) <ind nzain�enancz equipmene {accoimt 2300 OQ00; Linc B C'�epiesent5 the ;ross book value of the equ]pment ice,rs I,�ccd in Line r\ at either Occcbei 3l 1993 or Deczmber 31 I993 Gross book �,�tuc is [aken hom the books and iecoids of TCI LineC Represen[s accttmula[ed dzpreciaiion on the g�oss book ��alue ot the equipment ieems t;sted in Linz A at Octobee ; i, 1993 or Dzcembec ; f. 199; Accumufated degieciation is calci3iated tfsin� TCI's standarcE usefu! li�es For the respecti�e equipntent items (� yzars Eo� vehides and l0yzais for maintenancz equipment) on a strai;hE-line basis (wi[h half-yeac convzn[ion) Lir.e D Represen[s the defeaed ta� balance associated witEi the itents tisted in Line A a� Oaobec � 1, 1993 or Decembe� i l, I993 Defected tas ba[aaczs �vzze calculated by tnuitiptyin� the di� ference beavzen che net book value and the nee tax valetz by [he sum of [he Federal income tax rate (3�90} and the applicable state income tas ��te (net of the Fedec'al income tax benefit). \'et tax vaEue was calculaied using gross tax vafue minus accumulated [ax depieciation Line F Line G1 Line G2 Line G4a Line G4b Where [here is more than onz ceportin� imit in the accountino, unit (an accounting unit is tfle level at which TCI has historicafly accounted for the accumula[ion of costs in acco�dance with ;enz�a[Iy accepted accolmtin� principles), TCI has ailocated �eQSS boo.l• vai�ie, accumu3aced depreci�tion and net tax value based on the piopoitionate number of s�bscribeis in the community unit (francnise lrea) to the to[at accoun[ing unit _ Represents the cequiizd rate of rztucn of I 1 2��70 Represents the FedeFal income tax iate in efiect diirin� 1993 of 3>;'c Represents the regorting unii s applicable s[ate income ta� ra�e foc 1493 Represenis 1993 intezest expense for the entity (,enerally 7CI) reco;nized for Fedecal and state income taxes gurposes Reptesenis to[al net assets of'the entity noted in Line G4a 7'otal ne� assets equat total p�operty, plant and eqc�ipment minus acaimula[ed depreciation, and to[al intan�ibles minus accumulated amortization. L.ine G6b Represents distributions made hy partnecship or joint ventuce sys[ems managed by TCI durin� the year ended Dece�nbz� 31, I99� Amounts are inciuded only for iepodin� units that are part of a partnership or joint ven[uie. E iae G6c Represents contributians ceceived {cannot exceed amounts incic�ded on Line Gbb) ftom those holding otivnership inteiests in partnership oc joint venture systems mana�ed by TCI ducing the yeac ended Decembet 31, 1993. Amounts ate included only for reporting uni[s [hat ace part of a parmeiship or joirt ven[uce fcc120�vi 6/14/93 os-a�3 [� , �_,,,; r •; �,;, fy �{ i 1 't F { 3l'i...t� �� `; � n�' h,',�, =1 t��4 � 3, �_— I ', _ . _- .� ' L� y:L.-i ":�.'r''.� Liilc: 7 _.^— P ��u r i,:pRt��-�CCp�tci:ItiOn exF ense foi the itents lisEed in Line \. Depreciatien expense is calcula[ed ,uing TCPs s[a;�da:d usetid li�zs on a�t�ainEu•iine basi� (a i[h half-yca: conver.Eio�i) ' SCI3LDi;LL B-�1N�iU:1L OPLR-11`I\G �ZPLISliS I�OI: Sll:t'ICE I\STALLA'I'IOh` :1t1`D 1IAI11�\.�\°CL Or �QUiPi�IBNI' �1\�D PL:lV7 Scneduie B fis[s .tll anaua[ ope�ahn� expznses (exdudia3 dcpicciatior.) I'or ias[a(lation nnd main�erance of ali cable facilicies for thz yea� endzd Decen:ber 3l i992 0: fo� �Ete yea� es�ded Dzcember 31, 1 r93 Anaual opzrating expenszs for installation aizd maintenance ot cable facilities are identiiied as technical salazizs, cozivact labo�, m�in[enance/operating mateiial frei�hc convecter mainter:aace, venicle expense-gas and oil, vehicle espense-repairs and eiies vehide tentaf, eazployee benefi�s �nd payio[1 taxes Iechnical saiaries, contrlct labor, n.ainrenance/opetating material frei�ht, converter ntaintznance, vehicle expense-gas and oii, vehicie expznse-rzpairs and tires and vehiclelental zxpense amounts we�e ob[ained from the boof:s and rzcoids of' T'CI_ Empioyee benefits .ve;e ca[cufated by mu[Cipiyin� the number oi fi=.0 time eqtiivalen[ technical emptoyzes by S2, l00 (estima[ed avecage employee benefits per TCI emptoyee as catculaeed by TCI's risk management d�panmen�) Payroli taxes were calculated by mul[iplyi�� ceehnical salaries expense by t 0% jes[imaced average pay�ol! tax percen�a�e). SCH�DULE C- CAPIT�L GOSIS OF LE�S�D CUSTOl�1�R �pL3iP1IE�T L ine A Represents cus[omer equipmen[ E'oc which theee is a separa[e ehar,e T CI ideneihed Temotes, standacd converte�s and addiessable conv��eis as those i[ems of equipment which ��ilt nave a separate chaige, Lin? B ToEal main[enance/secvicz houa ace no[includzd in Schedule C:since the monthfy char�e fo� cemotes aad coaverters is not being recalcu[ated a[ this time (i e not �he annual filin; of Form 120�). L.ine C Represents the number of units in service as of September 30, 1943, December 31, 199i, ot March .31, 1994 Line D Repiesents the ;ross book valae of the equipment items lisred in Line A at Ocrober 31, 1493 or Decembei 31, 1993. Gross book value (account 2110 0000) is taE;en f['om the books and records oF' TCI. LineE Repce�ents accumulated depreciation on the �toss book vali;e of the equipment items listed in Line A at Ocrober 31, i993 or Decembet 31, 1993 Accumulated depceciation is calculated usin; 7'CI's standazd useful life for conveicers (5 years} on a stsaight-line basis (with half-year convention) Line F Represents the deferred tax balance associated with the items listed in L.ine A at Octobee 31, 1443 or December 31, 1993 Deferred tax balances �veEe ca(culated by multiplyin� the diiference between ihe net book valtie and the eet tax vatue by thz sum of the Federat income tax rate (3>90) and the applicable state income tas rate (net of the Federal income tax benefit). �1et tax va[ue was ca[culatzd using ;coss tax value minus accumulated tax depreciation fcc120�vi 6/)419=4 D5 �,� 3 �.; , _. _ ��.:_ - .. �--, �=%�-��'�, _- -- tiVficC� [hz� repo:tin� cni[ in the xcoun!ino unit TCf h:u , a!!ocated g;oss book value acaunt:latzd eep�ecia:ion and net [::� � ali�e ba>�d on thc p�opor[ionate niF�nbe� of scbs.:ibe;s orcomeiter units in the coaln�uniry ur:i[ �o th� total accountin, utiit TCI h;ts hiseoEier�lly ��coicled � tI cos�s a;sociatted wid� �emete; sc.,nda�d comer..ei� afid addrzssabte convertcn ir one accoun[ (Z E i0 OG00). :\ccotdin�!y ro ar� i� e�;t �he �ross book valuz. accu�ufa[ed deprzciation and ne[ t:�� vaitue accou��t 2110.0000 �vas aEiocated 6zt«een remotes, stand<ud con�•e�ten and address,�ble conveiters proportionately bued upon zstima[cd Fair val�ies. Estima[ed tair �,Uues aie calcuiated by taking estimaced costs Eor remo[zs (S7) standa�d converten {$�$) anci addrzssabk converte,s (S93) muftip3izd by tfie i�umbei of' units in service The proportionate f�ir va(fie for each i[em ro the rotat fair value ieas th�n mLdtiplied by the �otal gcoss book vaiice, toe2l accumulared depreciation o� total nz� ta� ti aiuz to atrivz a[ the a�iacated amoune; Line I Represents annua[ depreciation expensz foi [hc items listed ia Lir.e q Deprecia�ion expense is catc�da[ed using TCI's s[andaid itse[ul lite foi cooverteis on a scrai�h[- line oasis (with half-yearcomzn[ion} WORI�SHE�T IOR CALCGLATIyG TOI�L LpIIIPl�1��fI A\D INSTALLATION COSTS Line 4 Represents the peccenta�e of' costs aad experses entered on Line 3(rotal annual cap�ta! costs of installation zad mainceoance) �hat �eiare [o [he maintenance of custome; equipment and cusromer ins�allations used to ceceive basec tier sei��ices Calculated as the snm o€the [o�a! of Box 1 of Schedule �\ and Box 2 oE Scheduie B {multiplied by the perce�tagz of time technica! etnployees spznd maintainiag customer equipment and periormin� service installation aszd to �eceive the basic servicz tizr) divided by the total of Bos 1 af Schedcde A plus Bos ? of Schedu(z B Line S Represen[s the percenta�e aflocation oF Line �(annual cusromec equipment and instalfation costs) to the repor[iag unit. The allocation percen�a�e f'oc a111'CI Form 1205s is 1.00 since the amoun[s included in Schedules A, $ and C aie already atiocated [o the reportin� unit ]e4z1 Line 11 Represents [he nurnber of' basic subsciibers to ihe repoi[ing �niE as of' Septembet' 3Q 1993, December �1, 1993, or March 31, 1994. Such datzs approximate the dates of the infoimation in Scnedules A and C. The subscribecs shown should �eneiafty equal the basic subscrioers included in the reportin; ani['s FCC 393, Linz 103 Line 13 Repiesents the inflation ad}ustmznt factor Ihe factor of' 1 OD ivas utilized since the informatian included in Schedafzs A and C(a�d Schedule B in cectain cases) is foe a peLiod endin; after Septemo�� 34, 1993 (October 31, 1993 oi Decembzc 31, 1993). fcct?OSv! 6/E�4/94 05-d�3 ATTACHMENT 2: ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT BY ASHPALJGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC AND FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO THE PARTICIPATING LOCAL FRANCHISING AUTHORPI'IES REGARDING TEIE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 FILED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., IN 2004 (January 18, 2005) 1s • � �_��:i� i� �. Final Report � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. To The Participating Local Franchising Authorities Regarding the National FCC Form 1205 filed by Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. In 2004 January 18, 2005 a5-ay3 `�� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO. CPAs. PLC Ce•n� eL Puh ¢ Ac<o�.�¢ne anQ Cenxv!:zrtv Front Range Consulting, Inc. INTRODLiCTION Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultants") provided to the Participants our Final Report on Januaryl3, 2005. On review, one adjustment that was made to Comcast's Narionai FCC Form 1205 (the "Filing") was not addressed. The following discusses and explains that adjustment. ANNLIAL EMPLOYEE LABOR HOLIRS Comcast calculated employee labor hours in each of the 20 sample systems for warehouse and dispatch, installation and technical personnel. In each calculation, Comcast started with the total number of annual working hours, 2,080, added overtime hours and then subtracted non-productive hours. The non-producrive hours component was made up of 2 pieces — non- productive administrarive hours and non-productive field hours. Non-productive field hours only applied to technical personnel. Comcast was requested to provide support for non-producfive administrafive hours. (For the Flint sample system) Quesfion 28. Please provide detailed support for the amount of "373° for "Non-Productive Annual Hours" shown on "Attachment #1" worksheet. The support must include all studies, documents or other material used by the Flint personnel to support such amounts. To the extent the individual responsible for preparing such amounts did not use any supporting information, please state such and provide a detailed explanarion for the source of the amount shown. Please provide the name and title of the individual supporting the hours shown on this schedule. Response: Please see Exhibit 1205 28 082704. This was the only response. This Bxhibit is attached as Addendum Appendix A. This same response was consistent far each of the sample systems. The exhibit supporting the amount of "373" hours was identical in most cases. The 373 hours consisted of the following — 80 hours of vacation, 60 sick leave hours, 80 hours for holidays, 49 hours for safety meefings and 104 other non-productive hours esrimated at 25 minutes per day. The other activities included such things as completing paperwork, communicating with office personnel, completing rime sheets and refueling vehicles. It should also be noted that the Exhibit is idenrified as "for systems owned and managed by Tele-Communications, Ina ("TCI")". TCI has not owned or managed these systems for several years. The hours are anconsistent with ComcasY s policies. Comcast only has 6 paid holidays. Comcast does not have "sick leave", but has "flex hours". ComcasYs calculafion assumes Page 1 of 2 Januazy, 2005 O Ashpaugh & Sculeq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consukma, Ine. Ali rights reserved. RepoR analyses, conclusions and recommendations cannot be used without expressed written consent by both Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulring Inc. QS-� �3 ASHFAUGH & SNLCQ, CPAs, PLC C_rnCee °ubac nc_o.,�na:s zr.a Ccozv:<aou Front Range Consulting, Inc. every employee uses 100% of all vacarion, sick leave and holiday hours every year. The Consultants' analyses of other Comcast systezns have shown that this is not the case and that the number of non-productive hours is significantly less than 373. Comcast has significant hunover in installarion and technical personnel that result in less than 100% of vacation hours, flex hours and holiday hours being used, i.e. an employee terminates mid-year and does not receive compensarion for July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving or Chrishnas. The Consultants' prior analyses also showed training hours exceed 49 hours per employee and the Consultants' calcularion has increased this amount. As for othez non-productive hours, Comcast has not supported the amounts and the Consultants' analyses from prior Comcast systems shows that 104 hours is overstated. As such, based on the best available information, the Consultants have reduced the amount of non-productive hours from 373 to 224 and reflected tl�is adjustment in each sample system caiculation of employee labor hours. CONCLUSION The Consultants recommend that the participating LFAs include this Addendum with the Final Report and accept the findings set forth herein. Page 2 of 2 January, 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consultmg Inc. All rights reserved. Report analyses, wnclusions and recomme�dahons ca�not be used without expressed written wnsrnt by both Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Fmnt Range Consulnng, inc. US a�3 Addendum Appendix A os a�3 Tt?tAL PERSOFf IiOUfLS Total days in a normaf year Less: Totaf weekend days in a norma! year Total working days in a normaI year 7'unes: Nomial wocking hours i� a day X g Regutar Working halrs availabie ` iLa� person hours for mainfenance of custorr3er equiprr3¢rst and service instalfation {FCC Form I205, Step A, line 6) for systems ovmed and managed by Tete-Commanications, lnc. {`TCf"} were cataiiated for each imdividuai job cafegory using the foliowing rr�ethodoioyy; . Re9ularAnnuat Waking Hours �p) 'i�imes: Mrnaa� Overtime Percentage Tota1 Mnuat Hours Less: Nonprodudive Adminisfra6ve Annual Hours Less: Nonproductive Feld Rnnaaf Hows TotaS Annual Working Hours per Year 2,080 t�1 tos°� 2,784 (�) 373 (�) 25 1 6 The above qlcufation was formulated on ffie basis of the foliowing: (Techniaaas Oniyl (A} Regularannual working hours available in one year was detertnined by taking thy nutnber o€ days is� a norma{ year less fotal waekerad days 6mes the number of hours in a normai xrorking day of eight {8) hours. The cakuiafion can be demonstrated as foAows: {B) z�� x��i�' la,C�S ��l _o�a�o� =t�lAT1GE OF 365 105 260 i:� The annual overtirne percentage for each categary of employees was determined using the foflowing formuta; '! + 9996 llvertime Salarv /� 5 ti'ime and a Haif Pav} 1996 Regular Salary C) NOTE: The 5% amounf showr� above a an example, fhe acfuai over(ime percen{age wll vary by job category, The 373 nongroductive annual hours consist of vacafion fime, sick leave, paid fiolidays, safety meefings, and �onprod�ctive fiours and wefe defermhied as foilows: 1., 80 Vacafiaa Huurs: Vacafion time was defermi�ed hy taking average vacation days for techniql employees of iwo weeks or ten working days At eight ho�rs per day, vaca6on time is equivalent fo 8Q hours. 2.. 60 SFck Leave Fiours: Sic�c leave was estimated as 75°!0 of 1he 86 fioeus a8owed under SCI poticy. 3.. Sfl Paid Holiday Hours: pald holiday time was determined by taking the rwmber of paid holidays for a!I TCI empiayees of fert days.. At eight hours per day, paid hoiidays are equivalen¢ to 80 hours. 4.. 49 Safety Meefing fiours: Sa#ety meetNgs are hetd once a week for one hour. All maintenance and insfallatio� personr�ef are requirecf to attend. This safefy meeting is required by TCI's poiicy fo meeY the Department of Labor, Occupalional Safety and HealTh AdmFn�stration safefy standards. The es5mate of 49 safety meetings is derived as 52 safety meetings less 3 maetings held while the emptoyee is eifher on vacafion or sick, 5.. 90d Nonproductiye fiours: Nonproductive time is �e average time per day a technician spends on perForming dvties such as compieting fleld papervaork, cpmmunicaGag wiih office personnet. comptefing payrolf time sheets, refueiing vehictes, etc_ (104 Flours) Estimated nonproducfive minutes Qer day D7vided by. Tofal rrFinutes in 8 hour day ) 4gp Percentage of time speat on nonprodUClive duties Times: Regularworking hows avaHable per year Annuai nonproductive hours 25 5% x 2.08Q �04 D5 -��3 �Xt�fi$�=� l�1.� _ �� `�' {�} (n addifion to the 1Q4 nonproductive administrative hours, non productive fieid hours are cak�iated for technicians fi ead� individ+ial system- These nonproducGve field hours are obtained from fhe system technical P&L report arzd �.' indude service cafls where no fa�ft .was found, fhe cusfomes was not at home, arxl ffie customer ca�celed at the door- NO'fE: The 25 hours shown above is an example, the actual nonproductive fietd fwurs wi(t vary by system D�c & �J • .x GO• + 80• + 49• + 1Dt t 373•G+ / �_. 2 a5 a�3 ATTACHMENT 3: ERRATA TO FINAL REPORT ON TE�E COMCAST NATIONAL FORM 1205 CSa ��3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC C=rt"+�ed Publ�< Accou�tnts znC Consul.znts Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC 1133 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 106 Winter Park, FL 32789 % Front Range Consulting,Inc. 4152 Bell Mountain Drive Castle Rock, CO 80104 EiuzaTa To FINAL REPORT ON TaE COMCAST NATIONAL FORM 1205 Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. have identified two typing errors in the Final Report delivered to our participating LFAs on January 14, 2005. Those errors are: • In Table 1 on page 5, the row identified as "unwired installation" in the third column reads "($13.35)." The correct figure shouldbe "($14.35)." On page 24, the last line of the first paragraph under Table 3 beginning with "In sum," contains the word "meet." This word "meeY' should be replaced with "met." • On page 31, footnote 29 should corrected to replace "by 27" with "by 27%." b5 a � 3 ATTt1CFIMENT 4: COMNIENTS OF COMCAST CABLE COMMITNICATIONS, LLC ON TI�, FINAL REPORT A1�3D ADDENDUM REGARDING 'I'I� NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 (Febrnary 11, 2005) s � a5 a �� COMNIENTS OF COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ON THE FTNAL REPORT AND ADDENDUM REGARDING THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 COMCAST CABLE COMMIJNICATIONS, LLC Peter H. Feinberg Associate General Counsel Comcast Cable Commnnications, LLC 1500 Market Street Philadeiphia, PA 19102 (215) 320-7934 Steven J. Horvitz Cole, Raywid & Braverman, LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 659-9750 Its Attorney February 11', 20Q5 � a�3 TABLE OF CONTEi�TTS I. TI� REPORT ERRS IN TfS NEGATIVE CFIARACTERIZATION OF COMCAST'S - COOPERATTON AND RESPONSIVENESS ..............................................................:.....1 A. The Report Mischazacterizes the Invoice Review . .......................................................2 - B. Comcast Did Not Deliberately Complicate the Review Process . ..................................5 _ C. The Report Mischazacterizes Comcast's Level ofResponsiveness ...............................6 II. TI� REPORT ERRS IN PENALIZING COMCAST FOR ALLEGED UNBUNDLING INCONSISTENCIES .........................................................................................................7 III. THE REPORT ERRS IN ADNSTING COMCAST'S ESTIMATED TIlVIES FOR INSTALLATION ACTNITIES .......................................................................................10 IV. THE REPORT ERRS IN AD7I3STING REPORTED HOURS .......................................12 V. THE REPORT ERRS IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE STEP "A" ALLOCATION........13 VI. THE REPORT INCLUDES NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL ERRORS .............................15 A. Contractor Time ...........................................................................................................15 B. Warehouse Pexsonnel ...................................................................................................16 C . Office Personnel ...........................................................................................................17 D. Inside Wiring ................................................................................................................17 E. Customer Trouble Calls ................................................................................................18 F. VCRConnecrions .........................................................................................................i8 G . DVRService ................................................................................................................19 H. Unreiumed Equipment Charge ....................................................................................19 VII. THE REPORT ERRS IN QUESTIONING THE STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF COMCAST'S SAIVIPLING ...............................................................................................20 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................20 e E 1 c� a�43 co��vTS oF COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ON THE FPi TAL REPORT ADTD ADDENDUM REGARDING THE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 Comcast Cabie Communicarions, LLC {"ComcasY' or the "Compan}�'} appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Final Report and Addendum regarding the Company's 2004 National FCC Form 1205 (the "Report"}, prepazed by Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulring, Ina (together, the "Consultants"). It is clear that the ConsulYants and Comcast disagree about a variety of procedutal and substantive issues, but the repeated suggestion that Comcast proceeded in bad faith is entirely unwarranted and inappropriate. Tn this regard, Comcast strongly objects to the Report's assertion that the Company "abused" the rate review process. The Company does not believe that this criticism is justified, and it will attempt to provide a more balanced perspective in these Comments. Comcast anficipates that each of the local franchising authorities ("LFAs") participating in this process will fairly consider these Comments in evaluating the reasonableness of ComcasYs zegulatory approach. I. THE REPORT ERRS IN ITS NEGATIVE CFIARACTERIZATION OF COMCAST'S COOPERATION AND RESPONSIVENESS. The Report emphasizes Comcast's alleged failure to respond fully to each and every Request For Information ("ItFI") propounded by the Consultants. An LFA reading the Report might mistakenly conclude thaf Comcast provided vixtualLy no support for the Form 12Q5. That simply is not true. The Company responded to more than a thousand RFI questions and provided what amounted to more than three feet of materiai to the Consultants. Comcast also provided electronic access to thousands of the Company's vendor invoices. d5 a �k 3 Unforhmately, the Consultants' attempt to depict Comcast as unreasonable and uncooperative (so as to justify refiance on their own altemative Form 1205 calculations) omits the notion that an efficient regulatory process requires "coope;ation" from both parties. The Report properly cites FCC precedent for the proposifion that cable operators aze expected to cooperate in the rate review process, but this same case law consistenfly condifions the operator's obligarion on receiving `Yeasonable requests" &om the LFA. Comcast appreciates that the parties may differ on what constitutes a"reasonable request," but the Consultaats err when they dismiss bona fide concems regarding an expansive and burdensome RFI as evidence of Comcast's bad faith. A. The Renort Mischaraeterizes the Invoice Review. The Consultants' distorted percepfion of the regulatory process is perhaps best illustrated by their criticism of ComcasYs reliance on existing financiai records and its preference for responding to RFIs with relevant eaccerpts from the general ledger, rather than with boxes of invoices. See, e.g, Report at 12-13. The FCC instrnctions to the Form 1205 plainly and unequivocally state that operatoxs "should complete ttus Form using financial data from the company's general ledger and suhsidiary records maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles:' FCC Form 1205 Instructions at 3. There is no suggestion iu ` Illustrarive of the Consuitants' antagonism to ComcasYs bona fzde concerns regarding the RFI process is their depiction of Comcast's efforts to move the review forward by seeking FCC guidance. The Report notes, "Comcast's filing of a Pefition for Declaratory Ruling sought to short-circuit the normal process by asking the FCC to become involved before any of the resulting analysis and conclusions could be addressed by the participating LFAs." Report at 9. In fact, ComcasYs FCC filing was well-intentioned. The Consultants and Comcast obviously disagreed as to the appropriate scope of review, and Comcast believed that it would be helpful to both parties if the FCC would quickly clarify this matter. Although the Consultants are certainly conect that disagreements can wait until rate orders are adopted and appeals aze filed, Comcast generaliy prefers a more cooperative and less costly approach to resolving differences. ComcasY filed the Declazatory Ruling Petition in pursuit of that obj ecrive. e5-a�3 those instructions that operators compiling the Form 12Q5 should ignore er.isting fivancial records and revisit each and every invoice. Given the tremendous time and effort expended by a variety of Company personnel and outside auditors to ensure the accuracy of the Company's financial records, it is reasonable for Comcast to prepaze the Form 1205, and for LFAs to review the Form 1205, in reliance on those records. Comcast feazs that the Consultants, in their zeal, have disregazded the "s�eamlined" objectives that aze a critical part of the existing benchmazk regulatory scheme and have tumed this review process into something never intended by the Commission. With that said, Comcast acquiesced to the Consultants and provided access to a11 of the requested vendor invoices. Comcast made available an electronic document retrieval system that allowed the Consultants to view the requested invoices. Nevertheless, the Report complains that the Consultants' access to these vendor invoices "did not work well and was very cumbersome," Report at 13, and it implies that Comcast deliberately complicated the data access process to sabotage the review. These allegafions are unwarranted. In truth, Comcast went to considerable effort to facilitate the Consultants' review. The Company arranged for special access to the electronic retrieval system at separate offices in Leesburg, Florida and Denver, Colorado, so as to minixnize any trauel burden for the Consultants. Although Mr. Ashpaugh reports that the retrieval process at the Florida office was slow, he wrongly suggests that Comcast had a better option available. The truth is that if Z The FCC estimates that it will take just 20 hours for an operator to complete FCC Form 1205, "including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of informarion." Id. at 5. 3 Comcast disagrees that hazd copies of the invoices would have been easier to work with, which is why the Company does not retain hazd copies for its own use. If Comcast had hard copies of the requested invoices, they would have been provided to the Consultants. os a �3 Comcast were itseLf to produce every invoice the Consultants demanded, it would have had to go tluough the exact process that Mr. Ashpaugh found so unreasonable that he was unwilling to proceed. Mr. Ashpauah's complaint regarding his inability to access certaiu system information is also unfair. The Report fails to menrion that Comcast gave Mr. Ashpaugh comprehensive lisfs of each and every invoice requested (including dates, invoice numbers, payee names, and dollars amounts) in advauce of his visit to the Leesburg office. This information (which required many hours of work by several different Company departments to assemble) should have facilitated a targeted review, yet Mr. Ashpaugh did not even bother to bring that information with him. Comcast provided the lists a second time, and it was fully prepared to provide whatever additional insh or repairs were necessary for Mr. Ashpaugh to complete his task. Although the Report complains that "Comcast has still never made the missing information available," Report at 13, the truth is the Consultants have had the option of accessing that information and chose not to exercise it. When Comcast staff returned Mr. Ashpaugh's cail from the Leesburg office to see if they could heip him resolve his appazent access problem, the offer was rejected. Mr. Ashpaugh eacplained, "T'm in my caz on the way back to my office." He never retumed, and Mr. Treich never visited the Colorado office made auailable to him. Of course, the most remarkable aspect of this particular dispute is the fact that it involves a review of invoices. The scope of the Consultants' inquiry was truly extraordinary. Instead of crificizing Comcast for not maidng the invoice retrieval process even easier, the Consultants should be applauding Comcast for the extraortiinary lengths it went to accommodate this review. ¢ It shouid be noted that Comcast staff tested the electronic retrieval system both prior and subsequent to Mr. Ashpaugh's visit and had no difficulty retrieviag the system information Mr. Ashpaugh claims he was unable to acces's. 05 ay 3 Requests ta review contractor invoices are exceptionally rare. In one instance when it did occur, Mr. Treich, who then Ied the regulatory accounting group responsable for_rate filings at AT&T Broadband, instructed his staff not to provide invoices to regulatory consultants, because he regarded those requests as overly burdensome. B. Comcast Did Not Deliberatelv Comvlicate the Review Process. It is not reasonahle to criticize Comcast for "mal�ng the RFI process an unnecessarily time-consuming and burdensome `paper waz,"' Repoxt at 12, when the Consultants refused to rely on general ledger reports and demanded instead that Comcast produce actual vendor invoices. That extraordinary demand is ineconcilable with the interest the Consultants profess - here in simplifying the review process and avoiding a"paper waz." In any event, on at least two occasions, Comcast and the Consultants did attempt to schedule a conference call to discuss preliminary procedural matters. Comcast subsequently declined to participafe in an informal discussion only when it becaxne appazent that a conflict issue regarding Mr. Treich's prior work at AT&T Broadband needed to be resolved first. Comcast appreciates its responsibility to respond to RFIs issued by certified LFAs. In this case, however, it was far from cleaz whether the various RFIs forwarded by the Consultants were actuaIly being issued on behalf of the LFAs. The consultants originally approached Comcast without identifying any of the LFAs they purportedly represented. Although a list was subsequently provided, at least one LFA who the Consultants claimed to represent told Comcast 5 The Consultants are similarly disingenuous in claiuung that Comcast wanted RFIs mailed to the Company "for no apparent reason but with the effect of delaying the receipt and fulfillment of requests." Report at 12. As the Consultants aze well awaze, the e-maii delivery of RFIs during the week of August 23 contributed to a lock-up of "in box" capabiliries of Comcast's Director of Rate Regularion. Comcast's request that RFIs be forwarded by mail was simply to avoid repeating that problem and to minimize the possibility of inadvertently deleting any of the RFIs. 05 a� 3 otherwise. To make matters worse, there aze now a number of LFAs who claim to be relying on the Report, but who were not identified as participants during the RFI process. It is hardly reasonable for an LFA to issue a rate decision based on alleged deficiencies in ComcasYs RFI responses, when Comcast had no reason to believe it was responding to that particulaz LFA. G The Renort Mischaraeterizes ComcasPs Level of Resnonsiveness Although the Consultants complain that some of ComcasYs answers were not adequately detailed, they faii to aclmowledge that the Company actually responded to hundreds of questions within very short timeframes. Cazeful consideratiott of the examples the Report provides of Comcast.'s supposedly egregious misconduct fails to support the ConsultanYs negative - characterization. The Report, for instance, emphasizes ComcasYs failure to "provide a signed letter from an Officer of Comcast certifying that ALL of these cost categories were unbundled in Schedule B in each and every original 1205 filed on or about August 12, 1994 by Comcast and its predecessors in interest with each of the LFAs where this Nafional 1205'was filed." Report at 11. The Report concludes thaY the Company's refusal "is indicative of ComcasYs belief that it may unilaterally decide what infoxmation it will provide to the participating LFAs." Report at 12. In fairuess, Comcast repeatedly explained to the Consultants why factual circumstances made it "impossible to comply with this request." Report at 11. The Company went on to explain why it thought the request was improper, and it volunteered available informarion that it believed was relevant to this inquiry, even if not exactly what was reqnested. It is difficult to imagine what else Comcast could do in this circumstance. 6 Comcast objects to any LFA relying on the Report where there was never a notification by either the LFA or the Consultants during the review process that the LFA was a part of the group of LFAs who had retained the Consultants to reeiew the Company's I3ational Form 1205. D 5-a 43 Comcast will address tfie substantive merits of the unbundling issue in the next section. The point here is simply that the Consultants err in impugning ComcasYs comznitment to cooperate based an an "impossible" request. The ConsuItants themselves aze well awaze that Comcast could not, in good faith, provide the requested certificarion. Comcast does not believe that the LFAs would want the Company to provide a false certification sunply to appease the Consultants. II. THE REPORT ERRS IN PENALIZING COMCAST FOR ALLEGEB UNBUNDLING INCONSTSTENCIE5. The Report repeatedly crificizes Comcast for failing to show that particulaz cost - components included in the current Forxn 1205 filing (e.g., bonuseslcommissions, property ta�ces, and insurance) were "unbundled" in all of the original Form 1205 filings subxnitted more than a decade ago by the various companies that owned the many cable systems that now constitute Comcast 7 It is perverse that Comcast is expected to rebut that criticism, when the Consultants already laiow the untenable posifion in wluch they have placed the Company. Indeed, Mr. Treich previously was the nation's leading proponent for eliminating any requirement that an operafor show unbundling consistency. He properly recognized that such a requirement, even if once justifiable, has been rendered unworkable by the passage of time and changed circumstances. Given the passage of more than a decade since the current era of cable rate regulation commenced, a categorical approach Yo unbundling is incompatible with ordinazy business development. Surely an operator who failed to unbundle a very small cost component in 1993, that subsequentIy grew eacponentially, should not be permanently precluded from including that � The Report errs in chastising Comcast for refusing to provide initial Form 1205 filings. The Company did provide copies of those filings for the relatively few sample systems for which the initial filings could be located. o5-au3 escalating cost in its rate filings. A rigid unbundling cut-off is ureconcilable with changing business praciices, pazticulazly in the dynamic, technologically-evolving cable indushy. Indeed, new costs may have arisen subsequent to 1993, and that hazdly means that the recovery of such costs should be denied because tkey were not "unbundled." Comcast explained in its Comments in the pending rutemaking on Revzrions to Cable Television Rate Regulation, MB Docket Na. 02-144, MM Docket Nos. 42-266, 43-215, CS Docket Nos. 94-28 and 96-157 (2002), that rigid adherence to "unbuadling" principles increasingly threatens to undermine the viability of the benchmark regulatory scheme. Indeed, the unbundling issue really should arise only when the LFA can demonstrate that the operator deliberately manipulated its initial and subsequent rate filings to evade the Coxnmission's rate regulafions. Cable operators should not, in fainaess, be required to shouider the insurtnountable burden of demonstrating that each and every cost reflected in its current FCC Form 1205 was properly unbundled a dozen years eazlier. The probiem with the Report's draconian "unbundling" approach is manifest m its h of "bonuses/commissions: ' The Report claims that the "Consultants reviewed a number of 1994 Form 1205s and concluded that these items...do not appeaz to be part of the Schedule B aznounts shown." Report at 15. The observation assumes that bonuses and cominissions existed in 1993 and had a separate ledger enhy at that time. In fact, it is possible that many of the system operators did not offer bonuses and commissions as part of their 1993 compensation scheme. It is also possible that these items did exist in 1943, but were not separately recorded in the financial records. In either instance, the Consultants would have $ See Comcast Comments, Review to Cable Television Rate Regulation (submitted Nov. 4, 2002). 9 Comcast recognizes that there is potentially conflicting FCC precedent, but this precedent does not address the circumstances of ComcasPs current filing. � a�3 found no evidence on the inifiat Form 1205 filings thaf bonuses and commissions were unbundled in 1993, yet those items should clearly be included in the current Form 1205, even under a strict unbundling regime. Although the Report suggests that bonuses and commission were not unbundled in the former AT&T Broadband J TCI systems, the basis for tlus asserfion is uncleaz. To the best of Comcast's Imowledge, the P&L statements used by TCI in the initial 1205 did not contain sepazate line items for bonuses and commissions. Those costs would simply have been entered as "Salaries." As such, they would have been unbundled as part of TCI's inirial Fonn 1205 filings. In any event, the Report goes no fiuther than asserting that bonuses and commissions "were not unbundled by a majority of the systeuLS." (Emphasis added.) Regort at 15. The Consultants aze effectively conceding that at least some of the systems did unbundle these costs. How, then, can the Consultants recommend that all bonuses and commissions be excluded today based on purported unbundting concerns? This same problem exists wherever the Consultants reject a cost component based on purported unbundling concems. In the case of insurance, for example, the Report notes, "Phe consuitants' review of the prior Form 1205s filed by systems now part of Comcast has revealed that in many of these systems, the cable operator did not include insurance as part of Schedule B casts." (Emphasis added.) Reporf at 18. Again, the Consultants do not eacplain why even a rigid unbundling analysis requires an exclusion of all insurance costs from the current Form 1205. To the best of ComcasYs irnowledge, the Company's original Form 1205 8lings included, among other things, property tases, insurance, and office personnel. The Consultants do not aclmowledge tFus £act, yet they have removed the contested costs from these systems as well. o5-a�3 III. THE REPORT ERRS ]N ADJUSTING COMCAST'S ESTTMATED TIMES FOR INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES Among the remarkable proposals in the Report is the recomxnendation that the Company's own estimates of the time necessary to complete certain installation activifies should be rejected and replaced by attemative &gures created by the Consultants. The Consultants do _ not contest that a cable ogerator ordinarily can rety on the time estimates provided by its own _ field personnel, but they assert that the estimates in the case aze unreliable because Comcast ; provided prejudicial "guidance" to the &eld. Report at 24. This is simply wrong and is one of - many examples where the Report is based not on Comcast's costs but on the ConsultanYs - unsupported postularions that are just_not probarive when compared to ComcasYs own operating , experience. The so-called "guidance" Comcast provided was simply an identification of the preceding year's rime &gures. The instrucrioris to field personnel make it clear that they are free to change those figures. In fact, field personnel frequently adjust the prior year's figure. Although the Report looks at four specific installation activities and concludes that "over half of the twenty sample systems appear to have followed the `guidance' received from ComcasYs corporate level," Report at 24, this is truly a"half empt}�' analysis. It is also true that of 80 surveyed responses (i.e., 20 systems addressing 4 different installation activiries), 34 responses (or more than 42%) were adjusted. In fact, a more comprehensive review of the field surveys reveals that each and every respondent adjusted at least one enhy. The point here is simple — there is nothing nefarious in ComcasPs collecfion of field data. It is hazdly surprising that the estimated rime to complete certain installarion activities did not vary from those reported for the prior yeaz, as installation times tend to be relatively stable on a year-to-year basis. The record evidence cleariy shows that field personnel were free to adjust 10 os a�3 fhose figutes based on their independent judgment and that they regulazly exercise that prerogative. The ConsuitanYs manipulation of the `�oint system" used in Company's "work task tables" is equally distarbing, because by doing so they omitted a material component of the rate calculation — drive time. The Consultants, in effect, requested data from Comcast that was not developed for puTposes of rate regulation and then used the data to create an alternative rate scheme. Comcast provided those work task tables to the Consultants because they explicifly requested this material. The Company never suggested that the work task tables (that aze developed and used for very different purposes than rate regularion) shouid be controlling in this context. To the conUary, the Company's response emphasized, "Comcast has used the past eaperience of its technical personnel to make their best estimate of avarage houts spent per installation activity." Report at 20. It reiterated, "The technical personnel rely upon the work task table and points assigned to help them deternune the best estimate of average hours spent per installation activity." Report at 20. (Emphasis added.) The Consultants had no basis to rely on the work task tables (rather than the field esfimafes). As the Consultants themselves recognize, the work task tables do not necessarily attempt to accurately track the titne spent on particular tasks. This is well illustrated by the Flint, Michigan work task tables, which simply assign a single point to each task. Report at 21-22. Even in cases where the work task figures aze more time sensifive, they do not comport with regulatory specifications. Among other things, the work task figures typically exctude drive time. Without an allowance for this drive time, Comcast could never be made whole for its instaIlation and maintenance activiries. It is for these reasons, that the field personnel might Io The point system is typically used to help schedule work so that each installer/technician has a reasonable workload each day. 11 o5-a�3 consider work task tables, but ultimately rely on their own best estimate in responding to fhe Forxn 1205 survey (w2uch is precisely what the FCC expecYs). iV. THE REPORT ERRS IN ADJUSTING REPORTED HOURS. The Consultants wrongly contend that Comcast has underesfimated labor hours used in the Form 1205 (and thereby improperly "loaded" the Hourly Service Chazge) by overstating the average number of non-productive hours per employee. Their azgument is premised on Comcast's decision to use the conservative hour methodology previously employed by TCI / AT&T Broadband {under Mr. Treich's direction). They claim that the "faulty supporting evidence" for that methodology is "inconsistent with Comcast's poIicies." Addendum at 1. It was ComcasYs intenrion in conrinuing to rely on the more conservative TCI / AT&T Broadband approach (which was previously used in TCUAT&T's national filing) to a�oid a dispute regarding changed policies. As the Report rejects this oprion, Comcast is compelled to update the previousIy reported figures to reflect the Company's current personnel policies. The update conf'irms that the original methodology used in the filing was an extremely conservative one. The 373 hour figure for "non-productive" time cla.imed in ComcasYs filing actually understates the amount of non-producrive rime associated with Comcast personnel. The Consultants' unilateral reduction in the reported non-producrive tune by 30 percent (from 373 hours to 224 hours) is patently unreasonable. The Company's current personnel policies allow: 56 holiday hows 24 floating holiday hours 64 flex time hours 80 to 160 vacation hours (depending upon years of service) Total potential paid time-off= 224 to 304 hours. 12 05 a�3 Remazkably, the 224 hour figure recommended in the Report exactly matches the amount of "leave" that the most }unioL Comcast employee receives. It falls well short of the "leave" availabie fo more seniar personnel, and it makes absolutely no allowance for any other form of non-productive time. As the Consultan#s themselves acknowledge, a substantial amount of safety training time needs to be added to this tally. Indeed, they voluuteer that the 49 h�aining hours ori�nally reported understates actual fraining time. Addendum at 2. When these training hours aze considered, the non-producfive figure recommended by the Consultants becomes even more unrealistic. The Consultants next assert that the additional 104 "non-productive" hours claimed by Comcast is overstated. Yet this tally amounts to just 25 minutes per day. The assertion that 25 minutes per day spent on a variety of "non-producfive" tasks is overstated, makes no sense, particulazly when one considers that this figure includes the drive time back from the final job of the day (which typically consumes 15 minutes). Once that drive rime is deducted, only 10 minutes each day would be le$ for complefing paperwork, comznunicating with technical supervisors and office personnel, submitting payroli timesheets, refueling vehicles, etc. The Consultants cannot possibly believe that 10 minutes per day on such tasks is excessive. In fact, Comcast suspects that the 104 hour it submitted is faz too low. In short, if any adjustment to the non-productive hours originally claimed by Comcast were warranted, it would be an increase, not a decrease. V. THE REPORT ERRS IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE STEP "A" ALLOCATION. At several different junctures, the Report criticizes Comcast for not providing sufficient detail for the Consultants to deternune whether a particular cost component should be included in the Form 1205. The Report wrongly concludes that the allocation factor calculated in Step A 13 05 a�� f•ails to remove all the costs that should be excluded from Yhe equipment basket, and it recommends a drunatic and azbitrary reduction in the allocation factor to resolve this supposed problem. In so doing, the Consultants improperiy reduce the Company's eligible equipment basket costs. The Consultants cleazly misunderstand the Step A allocation factor used by Comcast. They assert; "Comcast uses an allocation factor based on salaries and wages by detem the regulated portion and comparing it to total Technical salaries pius salaries for a group called `Other'. This does not include all salaries and wages within the system and, as such over- allocates costs to regulated services." (Emphasis added.) Report at 17. In fact, the Consultants are exactly wrong. The comparison of "regulated" compensation to "non-regulated" compensation does include in the latter group all salaries and wages within the system. That is accomplished through the inclusion of the `bther" group in the oalculation. It is precisely for this reason that ComcasYs Form 1205 produces such a low allocation factor — just 16.27°/a. If, as the Consultants suggest, the allocation calculation began with just Technical Salaries in the denominator, the allocation factor would be much higher. Comcast applies the Step A allocation factor to a relatively limited number of account enhies that include at least some regulated activity. The Iow allocation factor used by Comcast - ensures that certain "general" costs (like "Maintenance & Repair Costs" and "Property Tases") are adjusted so only an appropriately smail portion of those costs are assigned to regulated activiries. The addiflonal adjusUnents the Consultants prapose would wrongly create a"double" deduction and artificially reduce equipment basket costs. The Washington, DC sample system is a good example. A local allocarion factor is developed to compare regulated activities to all other system activities. As a result, the total 14 05-�3 Schedule B Salaries-Regular of 510,860,397 was reduced by a 12.44°/a allocation factor to just 51,351,033. The problem with the Report's approach is manifest ia their treahnent of `Bonuses/Commissions.°' The Consultants insist that they need to Imow more details regarding bonuses/commissions (which appeaz under the "technical" category, as well as under other employee categories) to ensure that they are "achxally related to regulated activifies." Report at 16. They ultimately eliminate this cost entry entirely based on their "belie[ff that such bonus and commission plans aze not tied directly to activities such as installation and are therefore not includable in the Form 1205." Report at 16. In fact, the entry needs to be included, because it is unquestionably part of the Company's overall compensation scheme. The e�sting allocation factor properly ensures that only a small portion of the total bonuses/commissions entry is included in the equipment basket. Removing that entry from considerarion altogether gives an inaccurate picture of the total compensation scheme upon which the allocation factor functions. The WasYungton, DC example provided above illustrates that only 12.44% of local bonuses/ commissions were included in the final Form 1205 Schedule B for this sample system. VI. THE REPORT INCLUDES NUMEROUS ADAITIONAL ERRORS The Report recommends a variety of other erroneous adjustments to ComcasYs rate filings. Comcast will Iv ghlight a few of those errors here so as to illustrate the pervasive scope of the Report's flaws. A. Contractor Time The Report adjusts the contractor time reported by Comcast based on erroneous assumprions. As a prelirninary mater, Comcast objects to the adjushnents, because they are not adequately explaiued and Comcast has been unable to replicate the Consultants' results. 15 a5-a�3 Comcast also disagrees that the Company's reported activity timas should be averaged between "contracfo�" time and "in-house" time. The contractor time reported typically excludes drive- time, so any resulting average is disForted. Comcast also objects to the Report's finding that "Drap aciivifies aze not part of the Form 1205 regulated activities, and their cost should not be included in the prices for installation activities." Report at 26. This assumption is wrong. Although the FCC typically specified which costs should be included in the equipment basket and which should be excluded, it afforded cable operators discretion with regazd to the labor costs associated with drop installations. Tn Comcast Cabtevision of Tatlahassee, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd. 7686 (1995), the Commission discussed the two available oprions for addressing drop labor. It concludes, "Comcast makes it abundantly clear that it elected to recover the cost of labor associated with the installation of subscriber drops through the installation chazge." Id. at paza. 36. The Commission went on to state that, given this election, "Comcast is required tA include the labor cosfs and labor hours associated with subscriber drop installations in the calculation of the ASC." Id. The Report's exclusion of any contract labor costs ar hours associated with drop installation contradicts this FCC mandaYe. B. Warehouse Personnel The Consultants remove wazehouse personnel costs and labor hours from Schedule B based on the mistaken assumption that those costs and hours aze already captured as capitalized costs on Schedule C. In fact, Comcast does not include any wazehousing costs in Schedule C. All of the wazehousing costs were properly reported on Schedule B. Comcast can only assume that the Schedule C costs to wluch the Consultants aze referring are those costs associated with the authorization of digital converters. These costs 16 �-a� 3 (which aze capitalized) are paid direcfly to the converter manufacturers. They aze separate and apart from the costs Comcast pays to its own wazehouse personnel for handling converter inventory. AccordingIy, the assumption that Comcast is making a double-recovery on wazehouse personnel costs is in eaor. C. O�ce Personnel The Report errs in concluding that Comcast did not adequately support its time estimates, because "Comcast did not provide the requested information for any of the sample systems." Report at 19. Comcast actually provided the Consultants in September 2004 with copies of the field survey sent to the sampled systems to develop time estimates. Comcast simultaneously provided completed copies of those same surveys in response to the sample system RFIs. Comcast also provided the Consultants with the requested work task reports in response to the sample system RFIs. The final four work task reports (which the Report enoneously claims were never provided, Report at 20, n.23) were sent to the Consultants on October 7 in a follow- up response. � t As the Consultants requested, the field surveys contained the names and fiUes of the system contacts for eacl� sample systexn. These contacts were the personnel ulrimately responsible for the information contained in the sample system support document that was provided with ComcasYs response. In short, Comcast properly provided existing material responsive to the RFI. D. Inside Wirine The Report errs in eluninating 50% of the inside wiring trouble calls reported by Comcast simply because significant number of customers may subscribe to an optional wire maintenance t 1 The follow-up response was provided as soon as the final documents were received from the field. 17 o5-a�� plan and not be separately "charged" for trouble calls. When Comcast prepazes the Form 1205, it does not know whether a particulaz customer will be subj ect to the regulated rate charge. The only logical way for the Company to proceed is to complete the calculation as if every inside wiriug trouble call cvill be regulated. If a pacticulaz customer ends up paying the Company on a different basis (i. e., through the opfional inside wiring plan), it does not change the fact that the regulated rate unit was properly set. E. Customer Trouble Calls The Report errs in reducing the 40 minute estimate provided by Comcast for customer trouble calls by 50 percent. Considering that the average drive time to a customer site is approximately 15 minutes, that would give each technician jnst 5 minutes to greet the customer, entex the customer's home, locate and check the cable equipment and various equipment interfaces, fix the problem (if any) with ComcasYs equipment, explain the solution to the customer, get fhe customer's signature on the work order, and return to the iruck. Many situations today involve sophisticated home theater systems, with a vaziety o£video and audio interfaces, and it may take considerable time to identify and resolve a problem. The Consultants en in assuming that the Comcast technician quickly exits a hoasehold npon determining that the problem is related to customer equipment. As a pracfical matter, to promote customer safisfaction, the technician will somerimes resoive the problem even when it is detemuned that the problem is not direcfly associated with Comcast equipment. F. VCR Connections The Report errs in eliminating any chazge for VCR connections. Comcast gathered the available information from sample systems and provided that information to the Consultants. Although that information may have been lunited, the Consultants concede that at least some of � 85-��! 3 the Field Data Reports did record VCR connection activities, Report at 31, and field personnel were able to pmvide time estimates for completing VCR connections. The limited records regazding V CR connections likely reflecirs the fact that many systems voluntarily forUear from imposing this modest fee on cable customers. That does not mean, however, that the systems aze nof entitled to impose such a fee. G. DVR Service The Regort errs in asserting regulatory authority over Comcast's DVR service simply because that service happened to be inadvertently identified on certain rate cards as an "equipmenY' charge. As the Consultants do not dispute that DVR service can be offered on an unregulated basis, it would irrationally elevate form over substance to adopt a contrary approach based on a mistaken formatting of rate cazds. The rate cazd error idenrified by the Consultants apparently occurred in the communities represented by the North Suburban Communications Commission in Minnesota, but that hardly jusfifies precluding a recovery of DVR service fees on a nationwide basis. The vast majority of ComcasY s service areas followed corporate policy and properly identified tkle DVR fee as a service charge. H. Unreturned Eauinment Char�e The Report errs in asserting that charges imposed for unreturned equipment must be subjected Yo the Form 1205, particulazly because some pricing flexibility is necessary in this azea to deter thefr. The Commission has never required that such charges be subject to regulation. There aze no existing instructions to calculate this sort of a chazge, and there is no place on the Form 1205 to make such a calcularion. An unretumed chazge is assessed only when a customer fails to honor its obligation to return leased equipment, and it necessarily falls outside the ordinary Form 1205 restraints. 19 c�-a�+ 3 VII. THE REPORT ERRS IN OUESTIONING THE STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF COMCAST'S SAIVIPLPiiG. The end of the Report discusses a variety of different concems that do not directly lead to a change in ComcasYs Form I205, but aze appazently presented to casf further doubt on the integrity of that filing. Although Comcast will not address each of those concems, it is compelled to respond to the criticism of the Company's sampling methodology. The criticism is disconcerting, because (to the best of ComcasYs lmowledge) neither Mr. Ashpaugh nor Mr. Treich is a irained statistician. Comcast (like AT&T Broadband before it) has relied on the statistical work of Robert C. Hannum, Ph.D. Departrnent of Statistics and Opzrations Technology, Daniels College of Business, Universiry of Denver. Comcast shared the Report's purported concern that fewer "systems" aze included in the sample than when Dr. Hannum first adopted a sampling methodology for TCI in t996. Dr. Hannum provided the following explanation to Comcast: The systems (management azeas) are not smaller now, but lazger. This is, in fact, why the sample size can be smaller; the larger population is cfivided into fewer systems and hence a smaller sample can capture more of the population. Note for exampte, that the average percentage of subscribers in the population captured in the four yeazs since 2001 (including the current 2004 sample) when the sample was reduced to twenfy because of the aggregation aliuded to above is actually greater (32%) than that for the first &ve yeazs when the sample size was foriy (26%). It may help to consider in the extreme — if the population consisted of onty one system, the necessary saxnple size would be just one system. Accordingiy, the Report's sampling concerns are ill-founded. CONCLUSTflN Contrary to the allegations made in the Report, Comcast recognizes and respects the regulatory authority of its local franchise authoriries, and it is committed to cooperating in the 12 Comcast disagrees with the Consultants that any of the minor adjustments made in the Form 1205 process affect the statistical accuracy of the established sampling methodology. 20 raEe review process. It is essenrial, however, that LFAs and their advisors proceed in a reasanable fasFuon. These Comments have idenfified several critical azeas where the Report is deficient. The errors reflect mistaken assumptions and conclusions by the Consultants. In some azeas, the Consultants misunderstood or misconstrued ComcasYs submission. In other azeas, they wrongly discredited and discounted ComcasYs filings and concems. These enors must be corrected, because they materially and unreasonably reduce ComcasYs equipment and installarion rates. Altematively, the Report should be rejected in its entirety. RespectfulIy submitted, Peter H. Feinberg Associate General Counsel Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 320-7934 Februazy 11, 2005 J. 1919 �nnsi� Suite 2 0 Washington, i (202)659-9750 Its Attorney 21 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Avenue; ��1. �� - - �5 a�.� DECLARAT'ION OF WARREN O FIT'FING I, Wacren O. Fitting, declare under penalty of perjury, that the statements made herein are true and coffect: 1. I am the Director, RatE Regulation for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. I am the individval at the Company responsible for oveiseeing the development and submission of [he Company's naiional FCC Form 1205 filing. � 2. I previously was empioyed by TCI and AT&T Bmadband. My work at those companies involved rate regutation, and my supervisor was Andrew Elson, who reported to Richazd Treich. 3. I have reviewed the attached Comments. I am familiaz with the matters addressed in the Comments. The factual statemenLs made therein are accurate to the best of my imowledge and belie£ 2�I l �05 � �_��--�-_ > Date: Wanen O. Fitring t � 05'0�3 ATTACHIvIENT 5: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC AND FRONT RANGE CONSULTING, INC., TO THE FEBRUARY ll, 2005 CONllv1ENTS OF COMCAST CABLE COMMiJNICATIONS, LLC ON THE FINAL REPORT AND ADDENDUM REGARDING 1`HE NATIONAL FCC FORM 1205 (February 2005) os-a�.3 � � Supplemental Repart of Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC aud Frant Range Cansulting, Inc. To The February 11, 2045 Comments .� Comcast Cable Communications, LLC On � Final Report and Addendum Regarding The National FCC Form 1245 February,2005 o5-��k3 � �- kSHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC Cra�m� P�ihti; ncccm.ann erd Ccn...artts I. IlV�'RODiTCTION r Front Range Consulting, Iac. rhe vazious rate regulation authorities patticipating in the review of'the natianal FCC Fotm 1205 provided Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast") with an oppoitunity to provide w�itten comments on the Final Report ("FinaI Report'� and Addendum to Final Report ("Addendum") prepazed by Ashpaugh & Scuico, CPAs, PLC and Fiont Range Consulting, Inc (individually and collectively the "Consultants'�, More specifically, Comoast was given a peiiod of twenty-eight (28) days to respond to the Final Report (i e., Januazy I5, 2005 tluough Febxuazy I 1, 2005 — the deacll'uie established in the axtension ageement between Comcast and the patticipating iate regulation autho�ities). Ihe Consultants received Comcast's vnitten comments on the Fina1 Report by elechonic mail on Pebtuaty 11, 2005 (the "Comments"). Ihe foIlowing Supplemental Report will addiess those Comments.. II. SUMMAItY The substantive poxtions of Comcast's comments have genezaily not provided any infoxmation that convinces the Consultants to altei the secommendations contained in fhe Final Repoxt.. Comcast does not challenge many of'the adjushnents made bg the Consultants, Foi example, Comcast does not challenge the adjustment made to Convexter Repau and Maintenance. This adjusiment removed ten percent (10%) of'the costs of'this categoiy because an invoice xeview showed cable modem costs were included in the gen�al Iedger accounts far converters. With respecf to those adjustments Comcast does challenge, many of the cxificisms are misplaced. Comcast spends a signifieant amount of'its comnnents ciificizing Consultants pexsonaily Such ctiticisms do not support Comcas#'s proposed zates, and foi that reason these is littie reason to focus on them in this regort (even Though we disa�ee with the company's claims}, Likewise, Comcast argues that the Consultants asked for an ucueasonable amount of' detail, azguing, foi example, that a review of'invoices was unnecessaty (Comments at 2-5). Detailed suppo�fing info2mation was required because Comcast's geneialized statements proved wueliable. Comcast, for example, assw°ed Consultants that cable modem costs were not inclnded in the accounts used to piepaze the Foim 1205. Ihe ConsuItanYs review of individual invoices showed that the company's rep2escntation was noT acctuate. In any case, with iespect to the disputed adjustments, the data Comcast produced in support of'its filing cantains enougkn eirois, conflicts and omissions that one cannot conclude thaz ComcasYs proposed �aies reasonably ieflect costs Consistent with FCC Fules, #he Consultants therefoze set iates based on the best data available. Page 1 of'26 Februaty 2005 � Ashpau� & Sculco, CP4s, PLC mmd Fro¢t Range Consuiting Inc AIi nghts reserved Report ana7yses, conc7usious and recommeudaEions canno[ be used wiihout espcessed written cronsent by both AsLpaugh & Sculco, CPAs PLC and Front Aange Consuiting, Irtc �5-a�r3 ASHAAUG3-3$ SCULCO CPAs PLC Ce.S=icd P.cbGc Accounxan;s en'. [oas3l:sr.ss Iii. ISSUES NOT ADDRE3SED BY COMCAST Front Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast's Comments do not address many of'the issues iaised in tite Final Report and Addendum. Detailed below is a lisfing of the azeas where Comcast has not piovided any response or comments to the Consultants' Fanai Repox2 and Addendum. • Bonuses and Commissians (discussed in Final Repoxt, VIII A} — Bonuses and commission wese disailowed because {a} Comcast failed to show that they had been unbundled from seivice iates; but as iruportanfly (b) because Comcast did not show the bonuses and commissions were related to regulated equipment. Comcast does not address tke second point, wluch by itself justified disallowance of'tke bonus and commission plans • Insiallation Times (Final Report VIII.K) — Consultants pointed out t12at ComcasYs selected ii�stalIation times did not match tfie times recommended by theu own analyst, Dt. Hannum, and noted that Comcast had not,justified 'zts own choices. Comcast does not challenge fhis conclusion.. Othex adjustments made by Consultants to installatian times that were challenged by Comcast aze discussed below. Howevex, this admitted enox is significanz, and by itself' iudicates that ComcasYs pioposed rates aze unreasonable. • Conisact Labor (Final Report H2). Ihe Consultants e7rplained that contract laboi estimates included time spent on acrivities that aze not piopeily included in setting equipment iates. Comcast did not chalIenge this cancIusion, but in its Coatments pioposes no ad}usiment to aates to con�ect tkis exror (ihe campany does challenge the Consultants' exclusion of'labor Yime associated wzth installing a dtop to the subscxibet's home, but that was only one of'the activities impropetly incladed in the laboi estimates). • Payroll Izxes (Final Repoit VIII.D} — Comcast did not addxess ttris azea at a11, howevei, this adj�ast[nent would follow the treatment of'bonuses and commissions. • Othei Converter Asset Costs (Final Repoxt VIII.O 2-3) — Comcast provided no comments with respect to this issue • Cab1eCARDS (Fina1 Repott VIII.P..1) — Comcast did not provide any comments on this issue. . • FIDI V Installations (Finai Repart VIII.� — Comcast did not ptovide any comments on this issue. ' Comcast has yttempTed to pteerve its rights to iaise additional points later hy includ"ueg such genetal statements as "Comcast will higlilight a few of those etrois here so as to illus4ate the pervasive scape of ffie Report's flaws" (See Comments at IS) Howeva�, we understand that Comcast was requ'ved to submiE alI its comments by Febivaty I1 Page 2 of'26 Februazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Scuico, CPAs, PLC and Front Rznge ConsuFting Ine All rigtets resrned RepoR artalyses, conct�sions and recommendations cannot be used without expressed wcitten consenc by 6ofh Ashpaugh & Seuko, CPAs PL.0 and Front Range Cansulting 3nc � a�� ASHpAUGN & SCUiCO. CPAs. PLC Ce�nieE P_Sli; Acccur.uo-s cd Ccv<�IVxnss Front Range Consulting, Inc. Based on ComcasYs admission and comments alone, it would be fait to concIude that Comcast's proposed iates weze uajust and mueasonable- N. ADJU5TMENTS A. UnbundIing Ihe FCC Foim 1205 sets iates for regulated equipment The FCC Foim I240 sets iates for service. Both foxms aze filed annually. The FCC's iate regulation system iequued operators to remove all regulated equipment-related costs from seivice xates, so tkat equipment and service costs could be sef sepazately. "Unbundling" eqnipment costs from seivice rates was c2itical to the integiity of the scheme. An opeiator that left an equipment-relafed cost in service rates was able to keep sezvice iates lugher.. If that opeiatoi then latex included the equipment cost in a Foim 1205 filing without making an offsetting reduction in sexvice iates, the opexatoi would be recovecing the same cost in seivice iates and equipment iates — a double recovezy. Ihe FCC has genexally iefused to accept cable ope�ator methodologies thaE result in such a double recovery.. In 1999, the F CC applied this iule in reviewing a national tate filing made by a cable opetatoi, ICI. (See e.g.,. In the Matter of TCI Cablevision of'Oregon, Inc. d1B/a TCI o}Tualatin Valley, Inc DA 99-2227 (1999) According to ICI, its na6onal rate filing set equipment iates for systems where a pacticulaz equipment costs had been unbnndled and also foi systems where the same cost had not been unbundled ICI azgued that it would be too butdensome to iequire the company to ensure that costs had been unbundled evexywheie, particularly in light of the time fhat had passed since the initial unbundling, and in light of' fhe fact thaY many of the systems coveied by its fiiing had been awned by different eompanies initialiy. Ihe Commission, howevex, concluded that unbundling was required: "nothing" pexmits opeiators to "�ecovei the same costs tluough both progiamnting and equipment iates " Ihis case, like the Tuatatin case, involves a nafional filing that combines costs fr'om systems that had been previously owned by seveial different cable opeYatoxs. Ihe costs iden6fied in each irutia11205 with each of'the pazticipating LFAs on this pro}ect oiiginally related to local ox regionaI filiugs Each filing was unique, and filings in one iegion did not always use the same methodology foi unbundling as in anottier xegion, even within the same company.. Consultants, xelying in pazt on t3�eu �pezieace in reviewing past equipment filings, identified costs wkere (a} they laiew that unbundling had not occuired for at least some of the systems coveied by the filing; ox (b) the cost item had not previously appea�ed in local Foim 1205 filings Absent same 2 See alsoTones Communrcations oJGeor•gidSouth Cmolina, Inc rUb/a lones Communications (Savannah and Chatham County, Gemgia), DA 04-2448 {August 4, 2004) Page 3 of Zb Febauazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAC, PL�C �d Front R�ge Consul5ng, Inc All xights reserved Report analyses, conciusions and recommendazions canaot be used without expressed writtrn epnsent by both Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs PLC attd Front Range Consulling Inc c� -a�3 ' �_ r ASHPAUGH & SCULCO CPAs, PlC Cutn Psbiic e.cro�r.aa-s u.s Cw. il::c: Front Range Consniting, Inc. proof that a cast i#em which was making its initial appeazance on a foim was in fact a new cost item, it was reasonabie to assume that tl�e cost had not been unbundled in the past. Ihe Final Repoit found that Comcast had failed to show that unbundling had occuned with tespect to costs associated with office pexsonnel and warehouse petsonnel, insurance, property tases, maintenance and repair — plant and equipment, and bonuses and commissions 3 With iespect to each of these costs, there we�e also si�ificant additional reasons for reducing oi iemovina the proposed cost from iates, Comcast's Comments beginiring on page 7 iegazding the `�nbuadling" issue appeac to admit tbat its approachto unbundling is inconsistent witfi some FCC precedent Ft azgues that the piecedent should not be applied in this cu cumstance, because of the passage of time, business complications and buiden Similaz azgtunen#s against unbundling weie raised and rejected by tl�e FCC in Tuatatin Yalley, and Consultants have been presented with no facts that would justify a different approach here. Ihe company does not chaltenge the conclusion of Consultants that costs associated with office personnel and wazehouse peisonnel, instuance; pioperty tases, ruaintenanoe and repau — plaut and equipment, and bonuses and commissions we:e no# unifoimly unbuudled. Comcast acgues (Comments at 9) that disallowing costs based on unbundling concems is inappinpiiate since some systems may have unbundled, even if othe�s did nat s However, that was also the case in Tualatin T�alley, where the Commission emphasized that it was incumbent on the opetatos to fully unbundle costs if'it wishad to recover thcm tluou� a national filing. ' ComcasYs data responses showed that costs had not been fvlly unbundled. Systems previously owned by IKR, foi example, had not unbundled insutance and propetty taxes As anothex example, ptiot filings made in Denver and Montgomery County did not include costs the company included in tha Fozm 1205 in this filing While the company states (at p. 9} That to the "best of'ComcasYs Imowledge" filings coveting systems iY owned in 1993 unbundled insutance costs, pinpetTy taxes and office personnel, tfiose sysfems would tepresent only a small percentage of the systems coveied by the cutrent nationai filing. In addirion, Comcast does not state that even the systems if owned unbundled bonuses and commissionc 4 Conceining bonuses and commissions, the Coasu$ants specificalfy requested infotmation and support foi ihe reason Comcast believed bonuses and commissions were applicable to Fotm 1205 regulated activity Comcast did not grovide it. As fu as the Consultants know, the bonuses and commissions conld well i�elate to sales and installation acavity associated with cable modems. Euen if'bonuses and commissions wete ptoperly unbundled in the 1994 Fotm 1205, such costs wouid only be included in the instant 1205 to the extent the costs related to regulated activity No suah relationship has been demonsh�ated oi supported by Comcast 5 Comcast wouid apply this rule even i#'the majoiity of sysiems had failed to unbundIe the costs Comcast does not appeaz� to challenge the Consul2ants' assertion that unbundling had not been gecformed in a substanrial numhei of the systems. Page 4 of 26 Febtuazy 2005 m:lshpwg6 & Scuico, CPAs, PLC and Fmnt R�ge Consulting, Inc AII rights reserved Report analyses, conclvsions and recommendations caonot be used without expressed wntten conseat by both Ashpaugfi & Sculco, CPAs PLC and Front Range Consul[iqg Inc � ay 3 .� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC Cr:iSea Puhl;; Accc�:ianes zr�1 ::�:��I:an:< Fiont Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast ar�uues (Comments at 8) that bonuses and commissions might have been unbundted because they might have been included in Iine items £or salazies. Likewise, tfie company azgues that bonuses and commissions might be new costs. Howevei, nothing presented to Consultants and nothing in ComcasYs comments actually sfiow that bonuses and commissions were included in other costs and unbundled foi the systems covered by the Filing, and nothing shows that the costs aze new costs. What is cleaz is ihai tke bon�ses and commission cost item did not appeaz in seveial previous Fotm 1205s (Montgomeiy County is one example)_ ComcasYs speculafive azgument effectively pioposes to incIude costs if one can imagine thax they might have been unbundled in some cases.. Bnt Tualatin Yalley appeazs to requue companies to fake steps to ensute unbundling occzus. Ihat has not occuued, as faz as the recotd shows Finally, Comcast acgues thaf Mr. Izeich of Front Range Consulting, Inc., opposed unbundling when he worked in the cable industry. Ihe comment is suzpxising in light of'the fact thaf the authors of'the Comcast comments wete involved in obtaining NIi Ireich's agreement to refrain from consulting on unbundliug issues in a Comcast FCC F oim 1205 until December 31, 2005 (an agreement 14Is . Ireich has honoxed) Comcast cannot legitimately ask far 1VI�. Ireich's exclusion from tkis issue in tkis anatysis and then make assertions conceining positions he may ar may not have taken in the past. But even if ComcasYs statement above were accutate, posifions taken on behalf' of'a fosmer emplo,yei cannot be used to trump what is now Commission precedent. Ihe FCC's orders require the use of'nationally aggregated 1205s to be revenue neuttal. Fundamental to that neuiiality is that addi�onal costs cannot be added into ihe 1205 simply because it is compiled on a national basis as opposed to the local basis that had been used previously. Comcast would have ta exclude costs from a local fi3ing that had not been uubundled; if'it could include them in a national filiug, the effect would not be neulxal, as the aggxegate iates with these costs added would be highei than they would have been in the sepazate local filings combined.. Undei ttze cucumstances, pazticulazly in light of'the significant evidence thaf the filing includes costs that have not been unbundled, the unbuudiing adjustments pinposed aze appropiiate.. B. Estimated Times for Installation Activities As the Final Repozt explained, Comcast gave the Cons�ltants limited and contlicting data with iespect to insta2lation rimes. Comcast asked Iocal systems to provide it with estimates of'times requued foi installation. Comcast aiso provided the Iocai systems with an unsuppoxted estimate . 6 Mt Ireich can neithet vetify nor deny the accu�acy of the statement because of 3us ag�eement to noY pazticipate in unbimdling issues ' See FCC 96-257, paTagraph 21 Page 5 of'26 Felnuazy 2005 �:lshpaugh � Scuico, CPAS, PLC and Ftont Range Consultirtg, Ine All tights reserved Repart anatyses, conciusions and xecommendations cannot be used }vithout expressed vrsitten consentby both Ashpaugh & Sculro, CPAS, PLC and Front Rauge Conmiting, Inc � o5a�3 ° �_ ASHPAUGH & SGULCO, CPAS PLC cvri;,¢3 Pa>FC nacv+iz�u _a, Cc�:ai:xei: j � Front Range Consutting, Inc. from ttie coipoiate office puiportedly refiecting the time repoited on the previo�xs yeaz's F oim 124>, which ielaYed only to the foimer AI T Bzoadband sysfems_ As Comcast notes in its Comments, this estimate was adopted in mare than hatfthe cases. Comcast also ielied upon the point system that is used ta schedule installations to develop install times This data points in very differeat d'uections. As Comcast notes in its Comments at 10, "installation times tend to be relatively stable on a yeai to year basis." Yet as the Finai Report indica#es, theie was in fact significant vatiation between (a) installation times gathered from systems and used in the national filing and (b) installation iunes that had been used previously for the same sysiems.. Comcast c3id not explain the variation. Ihe point system is used to schedule trips and appointments, and theiefore should provide dispatch�s with a relativety accucate estimaYe ofthe time required to peifarm typical tasks Yet there was a significanf differ'ence between ins�tallarion times dezived from the point system and the resuits of the field surve,ys. Similarly, there is no explanation for the diffeience in instaIl tixnes foi employees and conttactors, yet contractor install times were lowex than employee install times. Adding to the complication weie at least two other factors. Fust, the install estimates �sed by Comcast appeazed to miac activities propetly included in the F arm 1205, and activities that should be excluded from the Fozm 12Q5. Second, in the nationaI Form 1205, Comcast did not pfovide the bxeakdown of'instaliation acrivities by task, and thus pxovides a means for checking the reasonableaess of'estimates and ensucing only appiopiiate costs aze included in the Farm 1205_ Given the signifrcant problems with the data, Comcast's failure to ea�plain the vaziations from estimate to estimate, and ihe failuie to sepaiate out tasks ptoperly included in the Foim 1205 from those that aze not propeily included in the Foim 1205, ComcasYs install estunates could not be used. Ihe Consultants in the Fina1 Report Therefoie made two genexal changes to Comcast's estimated times for the installation activities by empIoyees: (1} a reducrion in the un-wired and $ Comcast set narionai mstallation iates based on mstalf times est'unated foi a sample of systems Ihe Consultarns looked at past installation time estimates for some of the sample systems, and sought to deteimine whethe� the difference benveen the past esl'vnates and those used in the cutrent filing could be explained Comcast could not esplain the differences. 9 For �ample, page 23 of'the Final Report points out that Comcast significanfly lowered ihe amount of'time to do an install in the F'lint NII sysfem Comcast was asked to support this adjustment but it did not do so. (See Finai Repott at 22.) Absent some explanaYion, the vaziation suggests that eithei the estimate used in this filing by Comcast ot the pasi estimate was incotrecT 10 Ihe Consuitants asked foi documentation that would explain the esrimates used by Comcast and ceceived onty vague and paztial responses (See Finat Report secfion H at 21 ) It is srilI uncleaz, foi• esample, what Ied personnei to depazt from tuues reflected ia The the piioi estimates, coipotate guidance or ihe point system and substitute an aiternative times Page 6 of'26 Febivazy 2005 � Ash r�ah & Sculcq CPAs, PLC and Front R�ge Consulting, Inc Al1 rights merved Report anat}5es, couclusions and recommendetions cazmot 6c used wittwu; expcessed written eoev5ent by both Ashpaugh & Sculeo., CPPs, PLC and Fmnt Range Consulting, Tnc DS-a�� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO,CPAs PLC Certi �e3 Pasi�: A:_cun:aa-z zntl L__sWar.[z � r>�� F'ront Ran COIISIIIL]IIg Inc. pre-wired installation tiazes to reflect times reIated to drop activities (see Final Report at 27}; and (2) a ieducfion in tfie instaIlation times for some sample systems wkere Comcast provided suf&ciently detailed point system data to dezive an installation estixnate. ComcasYs comments are almost entirely devoted to these two adjustments, rather than a defense of'its own estitnates. Comcast challenges the use of ceitain point system data rather than the infoxmation Comcast obtained ia its limited field stuveys. Consulfants chose that data as the most likely to be reliable foi at least four reasons. Fisst, because the point system is used foi scheduling, and failure to schedule properly can xesult in violatzons of customer secvice standatds, that system appeazed likely to piovide a reasoaable benchmazk for times associated with cectain tasks.. Second, because the point system is not simply used for iate regulation puiposes, it appeazed less likely to be manipulated pwely foi xate regulation pucposes Ihud, the point system appeazed to be moie consistent with contractoi fime estimates �ourth, Comcast's sample system pexsonnel used the data in pazt for fheu own estimates.. None of' Comcast's ciiricisms justify iejecting Consultants' approach and adopting ComcasYs estimates instead. Comcast azgues that the point system used by the Consultants to make the xninaz adj�u�ents to the installafion times "typically exclude dtive time" (See Commeats at 11) Ihe:e is no evidence that is the case To the contraty, in the data for the New Haven, CI system, Comcast provided the point system fot an "A(O at time of'install" and an "AJO sepazate trip.." As the only diffexence between the activities listed couid be "diive time," Comcast cannot explain that tfie points foi the "A/O at time of' install" ate 8 and the points fox' the "A/Q sepazate t�ip" are 10. As each point is 5 minutes, this would equai an estimated dzive tisne of 10 minutes. Intex estingly, in the New Aaven case, the point system yields times 3ughei than those estiinated by the system personnel; these highea times weie included in the adjustment recommanded by the Consciltants on page 24 of the Final Repart.. Comcast also azgues that iYs point system foi some systems (the Flint, Mickigan system, foF example) appeazs completely wuelated to tbe time requued To complete gazticulu tasks. Consultants agree. Ihe Finat Report only made ad}ustments hased on the point system whes e the point system w-as sufficienfly detailed to aIlow fox an adjustment to be made.. Comcast's othex criticism of the installaiiott time analysis is a red hening. Its Comments on page 10 begins by suggesring that the Final Repoxt concludes that the instail estimates aze wueliable because Comcast provided prejudicial guidance to the field. Ihat is not the case,. Ihe " Ihe point system was not used where it was apparenf that it was not an accuiate indicatoi of'rimes spent on a task {see discussion below). Where the paint system eould not be used, Consultants were forced to use the Comcast inshllation estimate, adjusted to remove tasks that should not be included in the equipment basket ihus, the Final Report did not reject the unsuppoxted installation rimes but iathei began wiTh the installation times Comcast used 'nt the Form 1205 and made adjuslments based on the "best available infotmation" to reflect a moze reasonable time estimate_ (See Final Repoit at 27 ) Page 7 of'26 Febivazy 2065 � Ashpaugh & Scu]cq CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting inc AIt riahts reserved Aeport azialyses, conclusions and recommendazions cartnoi be ased wirhout expressed wtitten consent by both Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc �-a�3 ' �_ ASHPAUGH & SCULC0. CPAs. PLC Cer4i�ed P-�pii: A:ccart:nss zM Conmlt�n.tz �� Front Range ConsulYing, Inc. ConsultanY s ccinclusions weie basad on a variety of facts that indioated the installation estimates aze unieliable, discwsed in the Final Regort and above. While ttie manne2 in which "guidance" was provided was of some concein, the pioblem here is that Comcast failed to support its choice of instailation estimates. Ihe adjustment for drop times is discussed in Pazt IV. E, below. C. Adjusting Reported Hours As pazt of'the calculation of'the Hoiuly Seivice Charge, it is typically necessasy to xeduce total employee houts by unproductive hours.. In its Addendum, Consultauts pointed out that Comcast has reduced reported employee hours by 373 houxs based on TCI's 1996 data regazding employee policies and pracrices.. Consultants pointed out that ComcasYs cuxient policies and practices aze not the same as I CI's policies. In xesponse, Comcast does not defend its use of'the TCI data. Instead it inRoduces new infoimation in its Comments that it did not use in its Filing and did not provide to the Consultants. (See Comments at 12..) By the inhoducfion of'this new infoimation, Comcast is conceding that the infoLmation used in the Filing cannot be relied upon fo establish unpxoductive houts. Comcast azgues that given the total patential paid time-off'undei Comcast poHcies {224-304 hoius) plus 104 of administrafive hours peY year plus 49 hou�s of't�aiuing, mo adjusiment is Tequixed ta the 373 houcs estimate. Ihis azgument assumes Yl�at eveiy employee takes fnli advantage of'eveiy houx ofeve�y holiday, floating holiday, flex time and vacation during tlfe yeaz.. Ihe Consultants' anal,yses of'othex Comcast fclings over the last several yeazs have consistenfly found that this assuinption is not justified (See Addenduai at 2.} Comcast has high hunovei in installation and technical positioas. Zhe weighted aveiages of actual time associated with each categoty (holiday, floating holiday, flex time and vacation) fall fac shoit of tfie total avaiIabla.. If Comcast is seeking to justify the 373 houis by azguing tl�at the 104 administrative houis is actually too low, that effort too, should be iejected. Comcast was specifrcalIy asked to piovide detailed suppoxt foi this amount, see e.g, question 26 of'the Wildwood N.J sample system data reqaest, and ft failed to do so Tt cannot now propose some '� Ihe Hoiu�ly Setvice Chaz�ge that Comcast can chazge fot installarion and ceitain other activiries basically is cakulated by idenrifying costs associated witfi installation -xype activities, and dividing those costs by the total numbe[ of hours devoted to those activities If the number of ho'uts repotted� is z�educed, the Hoisly Secvice Chaz�ge increases. Both Comcast and Consultants agree thaE non-producrive houcs Lave to be e�luded. � Comcasf states its "intention" in using the data was to use "a more conseFVative approach" and avoid disputes Comcast Comments at 12. Comcut thus seems to adm.it that it inxentionally repotted hours it irnew were not ref2ective of'its own ptactioes There is a conflicf here that calls into question the reliabilify of any attestations made by ffie company Page 8 of'2b Febtuazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC end Front Range ConsulVng, Snc All righ[s reserved Report anatyses, couc[usions and cecommenHations cannot be used without eYpmssed written consent by both Ashpaueh & Sculco, CPAs. PLC and Front Range Consulting, inc d5-a�� _ , ASH?AUGH & SCUtGO, G?As_ PLC Ccr.i.lei Plblic Ac:can:zn-s z.-.� Cc :;el:arts I'ront Range Consulting, Inc. substantially Ivgher amount based on mere assertion_ Ihe Consultants continue to support the adjnstrnent in the Final Repoit D. Tiratmen# of'the Step A Allocation The Step A Allocation relates to adjusiments to maintenance and repau — plant and equipment {Final Repoit VIlI.C}; Payroll IaYes {Final Report VIII..D); Properiy Iaxes (Final Report VIII E} and Insuiance (Final Raport VIII.F). This allocation is designed to ensu�e that a fau s�e of' these general costs aze reflected in equipment xates — but no more than a faii skaze. As the F inal Report explains, in each instance the company uses an allocation factor that slufts to regulated equipment expenses that should be attributed to unregulated secvices oi equipment. ComcasYs Comments provide no new infoimafion oi facts to suppoxt any changes to the Consultants' Repoit with iespect to the allocation in Step A of tfie Foim 1205., (See Comments at I3.) Comcast's page 255 of the sample data shows the "Schedule B Suppo:t" and the "Calculation of'the Schedule B%" Ihis percentage is casxied foiward to "Page 3" ofthe sample data wfiexe it is used to allocate ali of'the following costs to regulated 1205 activity: Saiazies — Regulu, Salazies — OveTtime, Salazies Bonuses, Commissions, Employee Benefits, Opeiating Supplies, M&R Piant/�uilding, M&R — Equipment, Utilities, RentalslLease Expense, Vehicles — Gas & Oil, Velvcles —Maintenance, Paytoll TaYes, Prop�ty IaYes and Instuauce. Ihis allocarion percentage is calculated an page 255 as follows: Iotal saiazies and oveitime related to regulated activity divided by Iotat salaiies and nveitime.. Aowevez, the "Iotals" are only fox the Iechnical Depaztment. Foi tha Wildwood system, the calculation iesuks in a pezcentage of 16 35% based on the total number of' Technical Depatiment employees of 3 7.50, consisting of' 1714Installeis, 9..61 I echnicians, 1..00 Dispatchers 1.75 Wazehouse Staff; and Other 8 00, and the associated salazies and overTime of each. No oth� depattments az� included in the calculation. The calculation does not include Adiiuiustrative and General oa Mazketing persannel.. Yet it is used by Comcast to allocate renf/lease expenses, prope�ty taxes and insutance to the Filing. Ihe Consultants limited revtew of'a sample of invoices cleazly and positively shows costs inciuded in ientllease expense and propeTty taxes that are associated with administsative offices, customei seivice locations, and bill payment facilifies (See Finai Repoxt at 17 and 2 8) 7he Consultants contend that the costs for mazketing and adminishative peisonne2 are not inctuded in fhe "Other" categozy and theiefore allow the categoties of'rent, propeity t�es, instuauce, etc. to be ovei allocated to the regulated activities.. Comcast's allocafion of'these costs in the Filing to the equipment basket ia this manner is inconect. On page 25� of Comcast's Chicago sample system, Comcast identifies 3.31.75 employees in the "(?thei" categoiy suaauiing to a total of' S$675 "Total Technical" employees. (Emphasis added) Ihis amount of 58b..75 employees would not therefore include the administrxfive, mazke#ing, customex setvice and othei efnployees. Page 9 of'26 FeUivazy ZQOS �.45hpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range ConsWting lnc All rightr trserved Repoxt anaiyses, conclusions and recommendatlons carmot be used without eapxased written consent by botE� Ashpaugh @ Scu(co, CPAS, PLC m,d Fmnt R2nge Con,uitmg, Fnc �5-a� � ASHPAUGH & SWIGQ, CPAs PLC Ce^tvled Puhli; qc:<urta.n;s xnd Cu.sdtaq;s Frant Range Consulfing, Inc. ComcasY s Comments on page 14 that ifs "lb 27%' is "such a low allocarion facYot" is unsuppoited. In I?ehoiY MI, Comcast's 2004 1205 filing showed the percen#age of technicat salazies foi installation and maintenance ($147,443) to total system saiaries {$15,277,275) was 0.97% for the yeaz 2003 — the same yeaz used in the Filing. 7ypically, this peinentage is less than 4.0%. The Consultants did not use the results of'the Dei�oit MF analysis but conservatively reduced the peicentage allocation by 2/3 to accouat foi the administrative, mazketing and customei peisonnel based on the Consultants' best availab te infoimation,� Ihe Consultants request that the partioipating LFAs reject ComcasYs position and adopt the adjustments in the Report. E. Contr•actor Time Comcast raises two substantive and one pxoceduiai objection to adjustments related to coni�actoi time. Fixst, in the Fuzal Report, VIII.K, the Consultants concIuded tlzat Comcast had impropeFl,y used only installation time estimates for in-house personnel in calculating the time required foi an instatlation As discussed at pages 25-27 of the Final Report, installations pexfoimed by conkactors rept'esent the majority of'installs, and if'contractoi install time is different &om the time reported b,y employees, it needs to be taken into account to come up with an appxopiiate average installation time, The best available data indicates that thete are substantial differences in employee-repo2ted instaIlation times and conYcactor-repoxted installation times, and so the Final Report developed an avezage installation time based on the info2mation available. Comcast objects that contractor time "typically" does not include dzive time. (See Comments at 16.) Fnst, that statement is unsuppoited. Second, by use of'the word "typically" Comcast admits that �ive time is not always excluded — and it is not clear it is excluded from any of'the sample systems Ihud, the in-hovse esrimates for installations are geneially ionger fhan the estimates for cont�actors Diive time (which should not vacy foi tasks} cannot explain that difference. Finally Comcast oa sheet 270 in the sample s,ystem data used the same install times as the Consultants to calculate contxacf labor hoius. If' Comcast is coxrect in its Comments that dtive time is not incIuded (and should be), it is also admiiting that it is knowiugly and intenfionally undexsta#ing contxact labor floius, which would inflate the Hauily Seivice Chazge ("HSC") in the �iling. If only fos consisteacy, then, use ofthe contractor hours is justified In sum: even if'one assumed that ComcasPs pourt had some meiit, it does not,justify the Comcast 14 Comcast has the burden of providing ihe suppotiing calcularions. ComcasYs claim of being "too lo�' should not be considered, as Comcast is responsible fo2 prepazing this Filing using supportabte &g�urs and amouats ts rhis seduction had no ptactical affect in Yhe revised rates as ths Consultants had atready eIiminaked this category becavse of the unbundling conceins Page 10 of 26 Febtuazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS. PI.0 and Front Range Consuliing Lec fill rights rucrved Repo[t arsalyses, conclusions and recominendat�ong cannot be used wIIhout expzessed written coasentby both Ashpaugh & Sculco CPAS, PLC a¢Q Front Range Consutting, Inc a5�a�3 �- ASHPAUGH & SCULCO.CFAs �LC Cerv:iH P�hlir AccwntaaE :ne Ccazntants Front Range Consulting, Inc. approach, which is to ignore contracto2 time altogether. Ihe approach used by Consultants is the best appiaach �ven flie data available, and makes sense as a mattei of inteinai consistency in the filing- Second, Consultants reduced contcactar time by the time estimated to install a drop to the demazcation paiut at a home. Comcast admits it included diop insfall fime, and,justifies that decision hy selectively quoting an FCC ordei at page 16 of' its commenu. Comcast quotes the first line of'pasagtaph 3b of Comcast Cablevision of Tatlahassee, Inc ,10 F CC Rcd 7b86 {1995), but fails to piovide the language of pazagaphs 34 - 36 Yhat are exacfly on point in this issue. ".34. With respect to the treatment of' laboi costs associated with installation of' customer drops, we fiuther e�lained in the HSC calculation inskuctions in Foim 1205 (one of'the successor foims to Fosm 393) that opetators haue anoth� option in addition to recoveiing such costs ttuough the anstallation charge. Ihe othei option is for the operatoi to capitalize [the labot costs] in dishihurion plant as pazt of'the cost of'the drops. 35. Commission ivles thus allow one of'rivo options for the z�coveiy of'laboi ie2ated to the installation of'subsciiber �ops at the time of's�vice instatlation These options aze: (1) to secovex the labo� costs associated with the installafion of subscTiber drops tPuough tlie installation chazges; or (2) to capitatize such costs in dis4ibution pIant as patt of'the cost of' drops. (Footnote 96 — See inshuctions to Foxm 1205..) Undei the f�st optioa, 2elated labor costs and labox hours should be included in the calculation of'the HSC (in Pazt III, Step A, Lines 1 and 4). Ihis is requued by the HSC €otmula in ordei to ens�ue tliat the HSC is pinpeily based on all the activiiies to which it applies.. (Footnote 97 — See 47 C.F .R. § 76.933(d).} Under tfie second opflon, the laboz cost for drops is recovered in the chazges faz cable seivices only — not in installation ar customei equipment chazges (Footnote 98 — Foim I205, at 14 (Worksheet foi Calculating Pexmitted Equipment and Installation Chazges, Step A: Hourly Seivice Charge, Note Z)..) 36. Comcast makes it abundantly cleaz that it elected the fust option — to recov� the cost of'labor associated with tiie installation of'subsciiber drops ttuough the instalIation chazge. {Footnote 99 — Appeal at 24 ("Consistent with the Cammissian's policy, Comcast instead chose to include labar costs as pazt of'its installation chasge when initial instalIations requize cable drop instaltation") ) Ihus Comcast calculates its installafion chaxge by including snbsciiber drop installation labot houts in deteimining the ove�all installation time, and then multiplying the overall time by the HSC. {FootnoYe 100 —�ee Appeal, E�ibit Q {Comcast Version Foim 393}, at Attachment 4..) It is cleas however that Comcast Page ll of 26 Febivazy 2005 � As6pa�h & Sculco, CPAS, PL.0 and Front Ra¢ge Consulo¢g, Inc fill rights rcserved Report analyse conctusioos and �ecammendations c�noi be used without expressed written consentbY hoth Ashpaugh & Sculco CPAs PL.0 and Fmnt Range Consulting.7nc Z�5 a�3 ASHPAUGH 8 SNLCO, CPAs, PLC Ce�:i ied P.o1ie A:.can.zis u_ .unsdtarl5 � F� Range Cansu}Ling, Inc. did not include the Iahoz costs and laboz houts associated w7th insfallation of subscriber daops in the calculation ofthe HSC." In ifs June 21, 2044 response to Quesrion 12 in connection cvith this Filing, Camcast stated the foIlowing: Question 12. Please e�plain in detail Comcast's capitalization policy ragazding instailations in each sysfem included in the Narianal 1205, including but not Limited Yo: a) Does Comcast capitalize the cost of'the seivice drop to a home or business? b) Does Comcast capitatize the initial install of' a home oi business? c) Does Comcas# capitaiize the pxewired initial install o#' a home oi business? d) Does Comcast capitatize the initial install of' anylall additional outlets in a home oi business? e) Please provide the total gcnss amount capitalized per books per system, the net amount capitalized pe� system and the depTeciable life of' the asset. Response: Please see the attached exhibit tiUed "Accounting fox Subsctiber Connection Costs" from ComcasYs Financial Policies & Pzoceduces Manuai Answexs to Quesfion a) through e) aze piovided below. a) b) c} d} e) Yes. Yes. No.. Yes. Please see the attached extubit, "Capitalized Laboc" The excexpt from Comcast's Manual had the following tifle: "Chaptei 8, Section 5, Financiai Poficzes & Piocedures Manual, Subject: Accounting for Subscriber Connection Costs, Scope: Ihis statement of'policy addresses the general accounting fo: the capitaliz.afion of subsexiber connecriaa costs. Effective Date: .Tanuaiy 2004." In addiflon, Comcast pxavided the following responses on page 9 of'the filed Fozm 1205: 1. Have you inc3uded the labos costs associated wit12 subscxiber cable clxops in yoLu cflazges for initial installation? Page I2 of'26 Febmazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & ScuEco, CPAS, PLC and Froni Range Consultlng, inc rlll rights reserved Report �a(yses, conclusions and recommendations cannot be used wiR�oat expressed written consent by hoth Ashpaugh & Seulco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulling, fnc o5-a� 3 .� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC �i cE-vfiet c�,ois� �.cco�eta,:s ;na ��,:��:a�e. �T'OIIt �11i�C COIIti➢ItSIIg� TIIG COIDC3SL'S TPS�`AllS� — NO- 2 Have you capitalized the labor costs associated with subscxiber cable drops? ComcasYs xesponse — Yes_ ComcasYs representadons on page 16 of'its comments that the "Report's exclusian o£'any oontract labor costs � hoius associated with drop installation contradicts this FCC mandate° is inconect.. By its awn admission in the above responses ta the 'Consultants requests aud to the questions on the Foim 1205, Comcast indicates that it has chosen to capitalize the labar costs of its dtop and thetefore based on the Comcasf of TaZlahassee ordex must exclude the laboi costs (and hoius) associated with the drops frnm the Fozm 1205. Ihe exclusion is precisely what the Final Report did with the contract labor costs and the time estimates. {See Final Repo�t at 27.) Ihe Consultants iequest that the gaxticipating LFAs ieject Comcast's position and adopt the adjushnents in the Report. Finally, at page 15 of' its Comments, it "objects to the adjustments, because they aze not adequately e�lained " Ihe Consultants do not undeistand ComcasYs contention. 7he infarxnation attached to the Fina1 Report is the same saxt of infoxmation fuinished by Comcast cvith the F i�ing - a ievised Foim 1205 (F inal Repart Appendix C) and a statistical sample summazy (Fina1 Repoxf Append'ut D).. ComcasYs Comments at 15 state that it "has been unable to xepIicate the Consuttant's results." We do not undeistand the difficulry, and Comcast never requested any suppoct ot explanation from the Consultants. We have attempted to provide infoimation to Comcast even where noi technically required to do so. For example, by elecironic mail on Januazy 26, 2005 Comcast requested "Is it possible foi you to forwazd to us electronic versians of both Appendix C and Appendix D so that we can get a better undezstanding of how you azzived at your final numbers?" Copies of the Excel sgreadsheets foi Appendices C and D were provided b,y electronic mail on Januazy 28, 2005, and were provided in the same foim as Comcast's response to a sunilaz request by the Consultants I his was Comcast's only request conceining the Final Repoit. Undes the ciscumstances, Comcast's cxiticism does not justify sejecrion of aay adjuslment. F. Warehouse Personnel Consultants eliminated wazehouse peisonnel from Schedule B of the 1205 because (a) the costs had not been unbundled pieviousiy; and (b) the same cost appeazed to be capitalized in Schedule C. Although Comcast does not provide support for the asseition, Comcast Comments claim that the costs on Schedule B aze not the same as #he wsts capitalized on Schedule C Even if'one assumed that were the case, it would not solve the unbundling pxoblem. Moreovez, it does not mean that ComcasYs estimates are otheiwise reasonable.. Comcast included costs and houxs foi wazehouse peisonnel in some of flxe sample system data that implies that wazehouse personnel Page 13 of 26 Febxvazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Coosulhng, Inc All righis reserved Report analyses, conclusions and recommendations cannot be used withaui e�pressed rvritten consent by both Ashpaugh & Scuico, CPAs, PL.0 aad Front Ranee Consuiting, rnc a5 a.� 3 ASHPAUGH & SGllLCO, CPAs, PLC Ce�:i:ied P:hli: Acce¢rtaaex ani Censslxanis r Front Range Consulting, Inc. spend in excess of 70% of"ttieir time on conveiter issues alone. Considering that these wazehouse personnel also supporE non-regulated equipment and installation activities such as cable modems and telephone sexvice, that percentage does not appeat ieasonable, and Comcasf did not provide data that would support that percentage. Consultants theiefore conclude that Comcast has not shown its estimates aze reasonable with iegatd to this cost categoxy noz has zt proven fhat these costs were unbundled oiiginally (,See Final Report at 19.). The Consultants request that the participating LFAs reject ComcasYs position and adopt the adjustments in the Final Repoxt. G. O�iee Personnel Comcast does not provide any facts that change the conclusions in the ConsultanEs' Final Report zegarding ofFce pezsonnel (See Final Report at 19.) For exampie, Comcast's Comments refesence the discussion at page 20, footnote �3 of the Final Report, a discussion that has nothing to do with office peisonnel Foomote 23 in the Final Report deals with point sheets that weie missing fos ttie foiu identified sample systems. Ihe Consultants agiae that the missing point sheets were provided by letter dated Octobei 7, 2004. Comcast makes the statement "In shoxt, Comcast propesly piovided e�cisfing materiaLs xesponsive to the RFI "(Comments at 1'� Ihe iesponse "piopeily provided" for the Wildwood sample system was: Questions 23. Please pxovida support for amount shown foi "Office Converter Maintenance Hours" of "61 00" pei week on the "Miscellaneous Regulated Activities" woiksheet� Ihe suppoxt must include all studies, documents oi• other matexial used by the Wildwood personnel used to suppoit such amounts.. To the extent the individual responsible foi prep�uing such amounts did not use any suppoiting infoimafion, please state such and provide a detailed explanation foi the soucce o# the amount shown Please provide the name and title of the individual supporning the houzs shown on this schedule, (Emphasis added) Response: 7he FCC has stated, "We anticipate that cable opexators wi12 use their past eapeiience and histox•ieal data to make the best estimate of'the numbei of'seivice xepau hours for remotes. Chazges foF leasing of converter boxes and all other equipment wIll be calculated in the same manner as for remotes.. For installation charges, the cable opexator must elect a unifoim instaIlaiion chazge that is calculated based on eithei: (1) t12e HSC times the peison houts of the visit; or (2) the HSC times the av�age houts spent per 16 F ot example, see the Flint MI samgle system wheie the pexcentage is 79% Page 14 of 26 Pebanazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculm, CPAs, PLC and F�ant Range Consuiting Inc AlI ri�xts rese�ved Report analyses, conclusions and recommrnda6ons cannot be used witliout ezpressed writtrn consent 6y both Fsshpa¢gh & Sculco, CPAs, PL.0 and Front Range Consuliing, Snc �5�a� � ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Cer:.3e: P�014 nc<em:ao_> v. Loae,haMs Front Range Consulting, Inc. in�raliafion visit." {See FCC Report and Ordei, FCC 93-177, released May 3, 1993, Pazagiapk 296_) (Emphasis added) Comcast bas used the past expeiience of' its office personnel to make theu best estimate of the aveiage houxs spent pei week on conve�tet maintenance_ Ihe office conve�tei maintenance houis of 61 aze a sum of the acrivities listed on the Miscellaneous Regulated Activities worksheet labeled "O", indicating af&ce personnel perfoxm these functions Ihe usfoimation on the sample data wotksheet Miscellaneous Regulated Activities that was labelled "O" and totaled 61 houts pei week were: (1) 8 kours per week "trouble shooting equipmentrconverter problems ovei the telephone prior to sekeduling seivice call;" (2) 45 hotus pe� week keying of convextei sezial nuxnbeis to customer accounts aftei installation or exchange, and comp3eting associated paperwoik;" and (3) 8 hotus per week "time spent excbanging or retrieving conveztei equipment at the front countei" Ihis does not provide studies, documents oi othei mateYiais, does not provide a detailed explanation for the sozuce of'the amount shown, and does not identify the individual suppoxting the houis shown on the schedule. Ihe Consultauts asked for Comcast to provide details in the data request detailed above that would have encompassed "past experience and kustocical c4ata," Comcast grovided no such suppoiting data. �he Consuttants therefore were not able to evaivate the da#a used by Comcast to any suppaxting information Comcast has not shown in these comments that it has met ifs burden o# proof' on inclusion of'these office personnel. Ihe lack of'suppoit alone would justify exclusion of this cost, but exclusion is also justified by the unbundling issue discussed above. In light af these two flaws, Consultants iequest that the pazficipating LFAs reject ComcasYs position and adopt the adjustments in the Repoit. H. Inside Wiring Comcast's Comments on page 17 and 18 fail to addxess the piincipal concem with tha inclusion of alI af'the tcouble calls fos inside wuing. The Consultants wese conceined piimasaly that some of'these calls would relate to wuing that is not telated to cable seivice, such as home nefwoildng and telephone wiiing tUat aze cavered under the wire maintenance plans, thus inciudixig tfie time estimates and costs for these non-cable and non-inside wiring maiutenance plan customers in the Filing.. (See Final Report pages 27 — 29). The Consultants asked fox copies of the inside wuing plans and the numbei of' customers on the plan Comcast only provided the number of'cuixent customers on the plan but in almost all of the responses, Comcast never pi ovided the plan. Fuzthei, Comcast pxovided no estimate of'the time associated with these inside wire trouble caIls that would pexmit one to distinguish between cable service-related catls and call related to 17 It should noted that the wire maintenance plan is a sepazate chazge on the subsctiber's bill and none of the revenues genexated from these chatnes az'e offset against the inside wutng expenses Page IS of'26 Fetnuazy Z005 � Ashpauzh & Sculco, CPAs, pIC and Froat Range Consuleng Ine Al( xightr reserved RepoR analyxs, conclusions aud recommendations cannoE be used without ea�presse3 wrinen consent by botl� fsshpaueh & Scu�co, CPAs, PLC and Front Range ConsuiMg, Inc b5-a � 3 � �_ ASHPAUGH 8 SCULCO, GPAs. PLC Cern`eC 9e�i¢ q;:cuanao�v zrtd �an;ulvxrvtz Front Range Consniting, Inc. maintenance of telephone wues or home computer nerivoiks. ComcasPs approach — which tr�ats all inside wue calls as if they weie cable-related — therefore is not ieasonable. Ihe Consultants, fiowever, have not disaliowec3 this item completely, but have x�moved 50% of the numbez of inside wire trouble catls and left in the remaining calls as the best available infoxmatio� Ihe peicentage was based on infoxmation from Comcast regazding the number of'customeis wfio subsctibe to an inside wuing pian {while Comcast does not Imow how many trouhle calls will involve customers who subsciibe to wue maintenance plans, it is at least reasonable to assume given the absence of otl�ei infoimation that it will beaz some relationslup ta the numbei of' subsctibeis who have take a wu�e maintenance plan). Comcast has not piovided any infaimation that would suggest that the ConsultanYs adjusiment zesults in an wueasonably low xate.� Ihe Consultauts request that the paz#icipating LFAs reject Comcast's position and adopt the adjustmeats in #he Repoct. I. Customer Tronble Calls ComcasPs Comments on page 18 do not address the problem identified hy tt4e Consultants.. Ihe Consultants on pages 31 and 32 of'the Final Repoxt identified two issues with the inclusion of' customer trouble calls: (1) no supporting data and (2} no support that these amounts were unbundled in the o�iginal Foim 1205 unbundling. Setting aside the unbundling issue, ComcasYs comments at 18 do not address the failuie b,y Comcast to meet its buzden of pioof'with regatds to the support foi the customei trouble calls. If' Comcast had pxovided the suppoxt and had ieliable estiznates of the numbex� and time to complete these calIs, the adjushnent might not have been necessazy. While Comcast may befieve that the Consultants' estimate is urueasonable, it is in fact generaus considexing that Comcast has not actually supported inclusion of' any time, much less the 40 minutes it propased.. 19 Comcasi's Comments appeaz to suppoxt the notion that this is not an azea where Comcast has eithe� significant costs — Comcast seems to indicate that it will even �raive these chazges to promote customer safisfaction (See Comments at 18.) Ifle Consultants request that the pazticipating LFAs reject Comcast's position and adopt the adjtishnents in the Report �$ Based on ComcasYs Commants, the Consultants re-tan theu ana]ysis for ffie Ixenton sample system to revetse the 50% exclusion o£the number of inside wire h oubte calls. Ihe HSC calculated as part of'the Finat Repoit showed a HSC fot This system to be $34 93 After eliminatiag the adjushnent recommended, the HSC was lowered to $34 88 - a minor change modifijing the Final Report based on ComcasYs Comments s'esulfing in a sIigfitly lowei HSC 19 Comcast gives examples of cases wheie it could take mare than 2Q minutes to identify aptoblem that is um'elated to equipment But iE is also easy to imagine cases where it could take less tkan 20 minutes — where the customer has inadvertently unplugged equipment, foi example. Aside from drive iame (accounted fot in Consultants esf�mate) there is no basis foi assuming that there is any signi&caut time associated with the type of Yrouble call az issue, and as the company Las the bwden of pioof; it is appropiiate to assume that t6e time is short Page lb of'26 Febtuary 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculm, CPAS, PLC and Fmnt Range Coasutting Inc All righis reserved Report analysa, wnclusions and rewmmendahons cannot be used wiYhout ezpcessed written consent by botfi Ashpaugh & Seulco, CPAS, PLC and Fro�t Rauge Consul�ng 7nc 05 a�3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO CPAs. PLG Cetiae6 Pablic Ac:ca.r.av� ,ni C_�:il+.cntt J. VCRConnections Front Range Consulting, Inc. ComcasYs cominents at 18 do not address the fact that these VCR coanections aze al�eady included in the un-wued and pxe-wued installation iates chazged by the contractors. Comcast clauns to have "limited" records on these VCR connections. (See Comments at 18.} I'et VCR connections haue been a regulated activity since the 1990's and the Consultants continue to quesfion why Comcast has not caphued the number of VCR connecfions done each yeaz on its "field data reposts." Ihe mere fact that Comcast is silent on tfie potential for double iecoveiy — once in the conhactor installation costs and again via a sepacate chazge -- undeiscores the need to elimivate these chazges until it can be ensured tkat no double recoveiy occucs. Ihe Consultants do agree that VCR connections can be charged — if'it can be shown that (a) it talces addirionai time to hook up a VCR —time that is not xeflected in the initial installation; and (b} if it cau be shown that the estimated time fox those V CR installs reflect only the tune to connect only to a television, as opposed the tima to connect the cable to the average subscxibes's equipment Neither showing has been made. The Consuitants do recognize that the potential doable x ecove2y might not occui in a VCR eonneetion — sepazate tsip and therefore will modify theu recommendation to include a"VCR — sepaaate t�ip" chaxge with an MPR of � 13 . 78 ( 4577 kouts times the $30,10 HSC). Ihe Consultants request that the paxticipating LFAs reject Comcast's position and adopt the revised recommendation desciibed above. K. DVR Equipment Comcast misconstrues the Consultants' Final Repart and findings. (See Final Repoxt at 32.} Comcast claims at page 19 that the "Repoxt eizs in asseiting regulato�y authoiiry over Comcast's DVR seivice simply because the seivice happened to be inadvestenfly identified on certain iate cazds ,.." I his is not the case.. Ihe Consultants point out, and Comcast does not iefute, that "DVR sexvice" is not a setvice but is equipment — equipment that is used to receive and record . the Basic Service Iiet aIong with other pivgxa (See Final Repott at 32 ) Ihe FCC's iules oleazly indicate that suck equipment, because it is used to xeceive basic servioe, is iegulated and shouId be included in the Foim 1205 Comcast has failed to include the equipment in the Filing and should be precluded from chazging a rate diffeient than an addtessable conveitei rate until sueh time as it ffles a Fotm 1205 supporting a diff�ent amount I#' Comcast can show that it is px oviclixtg a seivice independent of'the equipment used, then it may be ahle to also establish a cate foi seivice (it obviously cannot combine a xate foi sexvice with a rate for regulated equipmenE) Fhe Consul#ants sequest that the pazticipating LFAs reject ComcasYs position and adopt the adjustrnents in the Repoxt.. Page 17 of'2b Februazy ZOQS m Ashpeugh ffi Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Fmnt Range Consulfing, Ine A7l rights reserved Report analyses, wnclusions and mcommendations cannot 6e used without expressed written consent by bo1Ve Ashpaugh & Sculco, GPAS, PLC and Front Range ConsWtiug Inc a5-a�� ASiiPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC ce:v.�� P,sis<,:::��,��a,-. =ni c�.,<.i;:�:� L. tnreturned Equipment Charge �� Raont Range Consvlting, Inc. Based on recent action by the F CC, the Consultants recommend the pazticipating LFAs do not set a chaxge oi requue Comcast to support such a chazge at this time as pazt of tlus F oim 1205, Baseci on the FCC decision, communities may wish to considet individually whether they have authoiity undez state law to regulate the chazges at issue. It may atso be wise to be cleaz in any Order that Comcast's unteturned equipment chacges aze not heing adopted or endoised. V, STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF COMCAST'S SAMPLING Ihe Consultants appreciate Comcast's fiu ther explanation regazdiug the sampIing conceins {See Comments at ZO} However, the pazticipating LFAs should also note that the sampling concerns discvssed in the Fina1 Repoxt weie not limited to the single point addressed by Comcast. Ihe Consultants continue to support the recommendations in Final Repott.. �. COMCAST'S COOPERATION �ND RESPONSIVENESS A. Generally In tiie Final Report, Consultants e�plained that theu review had been Ftampeied by ComcasYs failure to respond pxompdy and completely to data iequesYs iegarding the Foim 1205. In response, Comcast variously azgues fhat it did ieasonably cooperate with the Consultants and that fhe Coasultants iequests fox infaimation were urueasonable, ox unduly burdensome. In fact, given the scope of'this filing, and the methodology used by Comcast, the Consultants were consistent with the scape of theit requests submitted as patt of the Foim 1205 review piocess. Comcast seems to suggest, for example, that the number of'questions asked -- "more than a thousand RFI questions -- was eartraardinazy Comcast's filing was based oa data collected $om 20 sample systems. The same data request was submitted for each of'the 2Q sample systams Over 9S0 of the requests wexe thus duplicate ques4ions regazding each of the sample systems (See Comments at 1.). Faz from being a biuden, b,y having sepazate, albeit dupiicate requests fox each system, the Consultants and Comcast could more easily keep the data segegated foi each of the twenty sample systems.. ComcasYs refetence to providing "more than ttuee feet af'mateiial to the Consultants" is misleading (See Comments at 1.} Comcast collected infoxmation fr�om its sample sysTems in ordez to develop its own Foim 1205. Just copies of'the sample system matezial Comcast collected fox its own putposes aznou�ted to about ttuee feet of paper As ComcasYs answet suggests, Comcast gave Consultants the data it wauted them to accept, but it was not willing to 20 Chwte� Communicafions Entertainmentl, LZC, DA OS-392, ieleased Febtuazyl4, 2005 Page 18 af'26 Febivazy 2005 � Ashpau�h & Sculw, CPAs, PL.0 and FronY R�ge Consulting, Ine fill righu reserved Report analyses, conciusions arid recommendations caanot be used without exprzssed wfittrn cronsent by both Ashpavgfi & Seulco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc d5 ��3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs. PLC Ce-riFed P-uSLC F::car::an-s zc3 Lc¢s il:ar.0 � � Front Range Consulting, 3nc. provide a si�ificant amount of additional infoimation to peimit Consultants to fuity piobe the company's filing. Ilus was pazticulazly troubIing because infoimation that was provided indicated that there weie inconsistencies and eiiois in the Filing that could only be fuIly addressed tk�ough review of iafoimation that was nevez provided Among othet things, the Coasultanfs socfgkt infozmation that would allow them to identify and coFrect unbundting problems It sought histoxical filings for aSl the Comcast systems covered by the filing, and when that was refused, sought histoiical information for the sample systems. Comcast responded by filing a petition to quash the requests at the FCC. While Comcast claims in footnote T of'its Comments that its "FCC filing was well-intentioned" and that it "believed that it would be helpful to both parties if the F CC would quickly clazify this matter," the fact remains that the FCC did not authoiize the company to withhold data.. Ihe company, howevei, has continued to re£use to provide the infoimatioa that was iequesYed, so the Consultants were iequued to iesolve unbundling and oth� issues based on the best infotmation available to them � Ihe requests submitted by the Cansultants' in ieviewing the Filing wete not unusual or unreasonable. In fact, Comcast's piedecessor, AI&I Broadband, typically provided seveTal boxes of'suppoiting data with a consultanYs fust data z equest — fhat being the detaiied suppozt used fos the sample systems. Comcast has responded to these same zequests in piior yeazs whea the Fotm 1205 filings were at a local or system level. (See Supplemental Report Attachxnent 2— Pages I1 and 14 of ComcasYs Mazch 10, 2004 response to #32 and Page 9 of Comcast's Aptil 16, 2004 xesponse to #16 in the Ciry of' De4znit Cable Communicafions Commission review of the 20fl4 filed FCC Foxm 1205.) B. Invoices In this case, Comcast has been pazticulaziy reluctant to produce invoices tA support its cost claims.. Comcast states in its comments that review of F oTm 1205 cast data and supporting documents should be limited to "e�sting fivaucial zecords," a texm which is not defined or ° Ihe Consultants' Final Report does not mischazactetize ComcasYs ]evel of responsiveness as Comcast claims tn its Comments aE 6(See Final Report at 8) In facY, the Final Repoi2 meteEy summazizes the responses. Comcast did iespond (in some fashion) to `$undreds of quesrions," but the company did not provide ail of the infotmation requested and 'm numerous instances only provided nattarive iesponses when specific documentarion was requested (and v[ce veisa} ar provided a partial answer at best (See Finai Report at 13, 16, and 22 ) '� Ihe ConsultanES made it cleaz in an August 4 request [hat if Comcasi did not piovide the requested infotmatiou, the ConsuItanTS review would rely on the "best available infoimation " In iYS August 18 response, Comcast again refused to provide the requesfed infoimation. Fhe Consnlfants vubundling iacommendalions therefore bad to be based on histoiical information and data tfiat was available, and ComcasYs etiticisms must be weighed in that light Page 19 of 26 Febtvary 2005 � Ashpau� & Sculca, CPAt, PI.0 �d Front Rrmge Consulting Inc All rights reserved Reyort analyses, wnclusions and recommrndations cannot be used witfiout expressed mitten consent by bofh Ashpaugh & Scuico, CPAS, PLC artd From Range ConsuEting ]nc � 2y3 ASH?AUGH $ SNLCO, CPAs, PLC ce::ilee P�;It: Acccar:aa•: zr.. ..c � Front Range Consulting, Inc. explained, and "relevant exceipts from the genetal ledger." (See Comments at 2 and 3) What Comcast provided, by and Iarge, was "general ledge2" data. Ihe Consultants were conceined that "general ledgei" infoxmation may not identify costs that would be inappropiiate for the Foim 1205 filing. In order to address this concem, the Consultants asked fox Comcast to produce actual invaices suppoxting the costs claimed by Comcast in the Foim 1205 filing. In previoas fiIings made by Comcast, for example, such an invoice review identified that Comcast had inciuded cable modem casts incozrecdy in certain geneLal ledgei accounts and included in those accounts in prior Foim 1205s an@ had allocated piopexty taYes to conveiteis when said ptoperty taYes were not applicable to converters (See attached affidavit o#'Gazth I: Ashpaugh.} Comcast claimed in response to specific requests of the Consultants� concerning the Filing that cable modem costs were not included in the Form 1205, although examination of invoices showed that cable modem costs wexe included 2 Such expesience shows that a reviewer cannot simply take Comcast's general statements fox gcanted without examinnig theu suppoit Ihe Cansultants also were conceiaed that exazuivation of' general ledgex data would not, for example, pzovide the necessazy split of'contractor laboi beiween regulated (witlun 12 inches of' the home) and unsegulated activity, such as instaliation of'telephone sesvice and or cable modem sexvice.. Noi would it iflentify "combo" instatlations — an instatlation involving a combinarion of activities, some tkat aze regulated and some that aze not regulated.. Examination of'genetal ledger and "existing financial records," whatevei those may be, will not provide the necessaty assutance foi costs claimed in the 1205 that xeview of invoices will.. Examination and iecalculafion of invaices is not new to this Tegulatoiy ptocess It has been a key component of the LFA review since 1993. Fuzthesmore, Camcast did not use any infoxmation from its "eacisfing financial iecoids" to suppoxt its conttact labot costs. (See Comcast lettei dated .June 21, 2004, response 9.) The preparers of'the Filing "cieated" these costs by using un-audited "field data reports" and "cost sheets" which may ox may not have any coirelation to actual costs paid by Comcast to these contcactots Comcast states: Requests to iehieve contcactox invoices aze exceptionally raze, In ane instance when it did oecui, Mr Ireich, who then led the regulatoty accauating gioup xesponsible fox tate filings at AI&I Bxoadband, instructed his staff not to piovide invoices ta regulataiy consultants, because he regazded those requests as ovezly buxdensome.. (Comments at 5) � See Comcast letter dated June 21, 2064, response to question 71. 24 It should be noted ihat the Consultants' Report made specific adjushneni to eliminate cable modem costs from conv�ter costs and That Comcast has aot disputed that adjustment in its Comments Page 20 of'2b Febivazy 2045 � Ashpwgh & Scutco, CPAS, PLC and Fmni R�ge Consutting, Ine Aii nghL3 reserved Repat miaLyses, conclusipns and cecommeexlations cannot be used without expressed writCen consent 6y both qshpaugh & Sculco CPAS, PL C and Front Raage Consulting, Inc O5 ��3 .� ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC [.::�s�a a.,m�; qcco.,.iaa*: r�c c��:,i:a�:� 1 Fronf Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast fails to give aay specific reference oz supp�ort for that statement or the specific "requesY' to which Comcast atttibutes its iemazks_ 5 But in the end if does not mattei what 11�.. Ireich's personal views may have been As a factual matter, AI &I Btoadband actually did produce invoices For- example, in the City of Richazdsan appeal to the F CC, the company provided the FCC with copies of' afl of'the infonnatian given to the city, which compzised several lazge boxes of'material_ In the next yeax, the AT&I Broadband noY only allowed the regulatory consultant access to all of its books and recozds, but the company also ageed to reunbtuse the zegulatoiy consultant for his costs associated with traveling to the coTpotate headqvazters in Denves. Indeed, Consultants have been reviewing contcacYoi invoices associated with Foim 1205 filings of Comcast since 1996. In the Consultants' review of'CamcasYs 2004 Detroit 1205 filing, the ConsulYants requested and were provided conhactoi invoices and convestei iepair invoices for the entna yea� of' 2003 — the same yeaz the Filing covered. Comcast has also provided copies of' contractox invoices for ifs Montgomeiy County, NID and Ailington County, VA 1205 filings to the Consultants since 200d — the year Comcast took ovei the system Io be sure, Comcast did make some invoices available, aud where invoices wete made available, Consultants were able to identify costs ttiat were not propexly includable in the Foim 1205, such as cable modem costs.. However, tl�e Consultants were not piovided and wsre unabie to i�view any invoices for: Bonuses, Commissions, Pxopeiry Iases, Insurance and Con�act Labor. These five categoxies encompass ovei 20 percent of the Schedule B costs shown on Comcast's Foim 1205 filing (See Fotm 12Q5 filing, FCC Foim 1205 Capital AssedCreneral I,edger Audit xepoxt 2003, page 3) Comoast, in xesponse to the sample system data requests fos invoices, iesponded: Comcast will provide the tequested dacuments aftei we have ietrieved the documents from out data stoxage systems and copied them for isansmittal. In the meantime, please see the aitached Exhibit 1205 42_082404, the Geneial Ledgei foi account 46110, Conttact Labor — Installs.. Please note that the Conkact Laboi — Install Genexal Ledger balance is $773,086.32 or $386,156 32 more than the invoice total you aze xequesting that we tie out to of' $386,930. Also please refer to oui June 21, 2004 detailed tesponse to yoiu request fot additionai infoxmadon question numbei 9. As noted above, we ai e in the ptncess of' ohtainin� the invoices for additionai support. (For eacample, see Comcast tesponse to the Wildwood NJ sample system question 42. ) Ihe invoices rvere never provided (See Final Repoit at 16 ). � Comcast has attached an affidavit So its Comments supposedly supporiing the accutacy of that statement, although it does not appeaz� to he based on pezsonai lmowledge Mr Ireich can neifhei veiify noi deny the accwacy of the statement because of'his ageement not to disclose non-public infoimarion Page21 of'26 Febtuazy2005 � Ashpwgh & Sculco, CPAs, PL.0 and Front R�ge ConsvlHng, Inc AIt rigUts reseived Report analysa, w¢dusions and recommendations cannot be used without expressed written conselrt by both Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPAs.. PLC and Front Range Consuiting, Inc a5-d �F3 ASkPAUGH & SCU! CO. CPAs PLC Ccrtiam P_.bli: Accc�nxan:; xea Coaaol:antz Front Range Consulting, Inc. Ihe Consuitants specificaily and repeated2y asked for copies of'the invoices supporfing contract laboi and tlie sample system costs (See Finat Report at 16.) It is not unusual for Comcast to provide in excess of'2,000 pages foi a local Fotm 1205 review_ In the case of this Filing, it is a composite of 20 regionat reviews spanniug hundzeds of LFAs; in that context an 85,000 page production would not be siupiising z6 Even where invozces wei e produced, the company produced them in a mannei that made review difficult, via an electronic invoice rehieval system that was discussed in the �ina1 Report Comcast claims that the invoice ieixievai system it provided was adequate fox the Consultants' review and made the sequested invoices available. {Commenis at 3) The Consultants disagree. Fust, the access to fhe invoice system was over an Tnteinet connection Comcast could have easily made that InteLnet access auailahle to the Consultants remotely and not requied hips to the Leesbiug and Denvez offices While the Consultants made it cleaz to Comcast with the initial request that they would travel to ComcasPs of&ces if necessasy to view the invoices, the Consultants weie atso cTeaz that copies were to be made available.. Comcast does not dispute the "cumbexsome" process, but appears to be stating that this was as good as it could do. {See Comments at 3) Ihe ConsuItants disagree.. As noted above, in other cases, (Detroit is an exaxnple) the company has pr'oduced papex invoices.. Consultaats have no reason to believe that paper invoioes axe not available for, othei Comcast systems. Nonetheless, paper invoices — whick aze relativel,y easy to xeview—ware not piovided here. The Consuitants were prepared to go to each sample system location and review the invoices specific to the amounts claimed 'm the data pinvided.. Comcast nevei made available this an opiion, Comcast claims it provided "comptehensive lists of each aud eveiy invoice" ihat "should have facilitated a tazgeted ieview." (See Comments at 4.) Attached as Supplemental Report Appendix A ase the fust 6 pages for the Ann Aibor system from this "compzehensive list." Each en1�y spans 6 pages. For the Ann Aibor system, the total length of the list is 438 pages. In all, it is 5,550 pages for the 20 sample systems - hazdly a tool far "faci3iYating" the Consultants' review. Comcast never indicated such a list (1) would not be available onsite oi (2} that tfie list would be Tequued fot the review of'the invoices. (See email from Comcast attached as Snpplemental Repott Append'ax E.} IVotwithstanding this utiscommunication, the Consitttants weze able to get a partial copy of these invoice spreadsheets in I,eesburg that allowed them to 26 Comcast on page 3 of its Comments suggests in footnote 3 that tfie Foim 1205 should take 20 hours to complete Ihe Consultants believe that estimate was developed many yeazs ago and has not been revised by the FCC to encompass the use of the FCC's Equipment Aveiagiag me[hodology. It is hatd to imagine even Comcast believes it should be able to compiete a F oim 1265, and in addition respond to data requests fot ali of' its systems aarionwide in the 2D houts estimated fot compiering the foim foz a single system. This is particulaz�ly so in light of the unbundliag issues iaised by the filing, and the Commission's Tualatin decision - Page 22 of'26 FebruaYy 2005 � Ashpwgh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Coosulti�g, Iac elll dghts ceserved Reportanalyses, conclusions and iewmmendzlions cannoi be used without expressed �vriaen consent by both Achpaugh & Scuico, CPAs, PLC and Front Ranae Cansulting, Tnc o5-a�3 � r ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC Ce Pablic A.ccon:an's an� CcnnF,cnc Fr•ont Range Cansulting, Inc. begin ttieir review. (See Comments at 4} It was too iaz�e for the Leesburg office to print in total, even foi a single sample sample system. Moieavei, tlie electronic rehieval system did not allow the Consultants to access all invoices requested for the sample systems. {See Final Report at 13.} ComcasYs Comments on page 4 tl�x "the truth is the Consultants have had the optian of accessing that infoimation and chose not to exercise iY' is inconect Comcast ciaims that it was able to access all of the invoices. Attached, as Supplemental Report Appeadix B, is a copy of'the electronic mail message sent to Comcast upon ieriun &•om the LeesbLUg ieview. Comcast nevei xeplied to that message and nevet infotmed the Consultauts that the infoimation for the eight sample sysTems was available. Comcast also nevei disputed the Consultauts' claims other than to state that Comcast had previously hied to access the infoimation fiom its office and had been able to do so. (See FinaI Report at 13 ) Ihe locai Comcast personnel, while veiy coxdiai, wese not familiaz with the saftware used in accessing the data. Comcast had no one in Leesblug to assist with the review. As for "(w)hen Comcast staff ret�xrned 1V8 Ashpaugh's ca11......," the call to Comcast was placed while the Consultants weie at the Leesburg office and the Consultants had to Ieave a message foi Comcast. Comcast did not iehun the call until sometime later aftex the Consuitants hari le$ the I.eesbuig office. (See Comments at 4.) By that time theie was no sense in reriuning #o the Leesbuxg office until the pxoblem accessing the data fox the eight additional systems was resolved. As noted above, Comcast nevei notified the Consultants that the problem was resolved. In any event, the 2-day �eview of documents in Leesbutg using the data access progam demanskated convincingly that Comcast's ptocess clid not wozk well and was not conducive to the Fotm 1205 teview and that the Consultants would requue copies to be ptovided.. (See Final Report at 13 ) Comcast was specifically told this when Comcast rehuned the Consultants' call?� G The Process As stated in the Finat Report at 8 and as explained above, Comcast continually chose to withhold data and provided wiong ot misleading responses In Apii12004, the Consultants discussed with Comcast iepresentarives that the Consultants would be doing the review of'the Fozm 1205 filing for a group of'LFAs across the country and indicated fhat this should simplify things foi Comcast — dealing with one review foi a lazge numbei of LFAs (See Finat Repoit at 7_) Comcast's comments are a peifect example of this simplifxcation — one set of commenfs adchessing the xegulatory ieview of over 90 LFAs,. z � Comcast's Comments at 4 discusses titat "Mc. Ireich nevez visited the Colozado office." Ihe ConsuUants c$ose to have NIr. Ashpaugt�, who is a cecrified public accountaat, handle t3us task since he fias a background advantageous to tiris type ofreview and woxk Page 23 0# 26 Pebruuy 2405 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting Ine All righis �esserved Report arialyses, conclusions and recommrndations cannot be used wiihout expressed written cousent by bo�h Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs PLC and Froni Rauge Coasulting Iac 65- ��k 3 ASHPAUGH $ SCULCO, CPAs, PLC c�.nfled ?�ou� :-�:o,�.n,s x�a co..:.,i:_,,: Fr�ant Range Consulting, Inc. Comcast zeferences page 12 of the Final Repoit on page 5 of its Comments concezning the phrase "paper wai." Comcast takes the statement out of context. Ihe discussion on page ] 2 af' the Final Report deais with the faci that "(t)he Consultants e�cpressed a desue to meet and discuss the initial RFI requests with Comoast, so that the company could piDVide infoimation responsive to the requests and address any confusion oi discrepancies before assembling the necessazy infoimation. Comcast refused to have this meeting and instead ptepazed its iesponses without the benefit of'such infoxmal discussions " Ihat discussion has nothing to do with Comcast's statement "the Consultants iefused to rely on geneial ledae� reports and demanded instead that Comcast produce actaal vendor invoices." (See Comments at 5..) In fact, the initial request asked for cont�actoi invoices at #9 —"Please provide copies of all contractoi invoices fot fhe yeat ended Decembei 31, 2003 by systeu� compxising the total of $194,080,983 included ia the National 1205 and copies of'any analyses of' contract laboi prepaz ed by Comcast." (Initial Request foi Information dated May 21, 2004 } Comcast claims in footnote 5 that "(t)he Consultants are similarly disingenuous .,,,." when they asserted that the company had insisted, witfiout i'eason that data tequests be mailed zather than emailed.. Accoiding to Comcast, this xequirement was established onty because the elect�onic requests weie "Iocidng up" the D'uector of Rate Regulation's mailbox. Attached as Snpplemental Repoit Appendix C is a copy of'the Septembex 9, 2004 lettex from Comcast. Nowhexe does if provide any e�lanation for tke demand ta "submit additional requests via fiist class mail to my attenrion at: .. ." In fact, ComcasYs initial June 21, 2004 resgonse contained similax language of "subinit addi6onal requests to my attenrion at: .." Ihe Septembei 9, 2004 iesponse was the fust tixne tbat "via fust class mail" was inseited into that line of'the covei letter to any response.. Comcast could just as easily have requested faxing oi oveinight delivexy of the requests, but instead it only piovided reguIas U S, mail foi �eceipt of requests. ComcasY makes at pages 5 and 6 of its Comments the extraordinazy claim that the list of, pacticipafing LFAs piovided by the Consultauts misrepiesented the pazTicipants and that the Consultants withheld infoimation regazding pazticipants from Comcast. Comcast iequested a list of'participattts on June 18, 2004 and was provided the list by facsitnile transfei on .xune 19, 2004. Ihat was the fitst and only time Comcast tequested such a list. Each pazticipant listed on ,June 19, 2004 response and in all subsequent communications had a signed agreement with the Consultants foi pazticipation. Subsequently, by letter of'.July 23, 2005, the Village of Noxthbrook, Illinois, wIuch was completing its franchise renewal with Comcast, withdxew its pazlicipation fox no stated reason A oopy of'the withdfawalletter is attached as Sugplemental Report Appendis D.. While thexe have been addifions to the paxticipant goup, that is the only withdrawal Comcast makes the nnsuppoited statement that "at least one LFA who tfie Consultants elaimed to represent told Comcast othenvise" but does not name the LFA (See Comments at 6) Each of the pazticipating LF As has paid for this report and have engaged legal counsel to support theiz effoits in getting an extension of'the time to allow Comcast more time to Page 24 of 2b Febivaty 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range ConsWting, Snc NI x�ghis reserved Report analyses, couclusions and recommendationz caffioi be used without e�ressed written rqnsent by both Ashpaugh & Sculco CPAS, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc �-� �4 3 a� ASHPAVGH & SCULCO. CPAs, PLC Ccv9e� P.�31ic fc<oann-s zn¢ Ccax:kents 1 Front Range Coasulting, Inc. prepaze its Comments In any event, confusion on ComcasYs part about the paiticipants does not excuse Comcast's failure to piovide the xeqnested infoimatioa As for additions to the numbex of pazticipating LFAs after the .June 19, 2004 let#er, the Consultants do nat understand Comcast's concein. (See Comments at 5 and 6.) Comcast filed the same Fozm 1205 vrith all but a few LFAs across the country. Surely, Comcast is not claiming that it wouId have responded differenfl,y to diffeLent LFAs' identical quesfions conceining the Filing. Comcast, in the initial discussions between the Consultants aud Comcast tepresentatives, agreed that each pazticipating LFA would not have to send individi�al information iequests. Comcast ageed tliat the Consultants ware to send such requests direcdy to Mr. Fitting. (See Final Report at 7.) ComcasYs lettei of June 18, 2Q04 stated: Io date, we have not received the afoiementioned list of local franchise authoiities It has geneially been,youi pxactice #o have a&anchising autkotity provide us with a Ietter requesting the piovision of'tkis infoimation Befoae we respond to youc request, we need some confiimation that each of youz client franchise authotities has engaged yout sexvices. Upon receipt of this confitmaiion, we will respond to your iequest accordingly except as noted below In order to expedite your notifica#ion to us of this necessazy infoimation, I request that you provide us with a list of franchising authozities that have retained you seivices. Please show a"cc" to each o#'them on the ttansmittai letter providing us this infotmation which will sexve as a confirmation of'your representation for p�poses of'the review Ihs Consultants responded by lettei of .June 19, 2004, sent to Comcast by facsimile that included the following: I am in seceipt ofyaur lettc� faYed to me aad dated June 18, 2004 requesting the list of' pazticipants in oi.0 xeview of' Comcast's 2044 FCC Fozm 12Q5. Enclosed is the cuxxent pazficipant list who aze each being copied on this letter. Please note that we will peziodicaliy update this list as additional participants join this project. We have contracts foi pazticipation pending in a uuxnber of communities In subsequent cornespondence and filings, the list of pazticipating LFAs was also disclosed Evety RFI iequest tiunugh Augt�st 27, 2004 incladed a"cd' to each pazticipating LFA and on each of'the emails sent to Comcast, each pazticipating LFA was included with theu individual emai] address A copy of the email ttansmittal foi t3te August 27, 2004 I2FI is attached as Supplemental Repoit Appendix F. Ihe facts do not suppoit ComcasYs Comments at 6. Comcasf appeaxs to be claiming that its Comments ar its responses to the RFIs would have been different had it lmown an additionaI LFA was pazticipatiag. {See Comments at 6) Every pazticipating LFA has provided Camcast notice of'its process, a copy of'the Final Repott, a deadline for submitting comments, its willingness to use the Report and to issue an ordez_ Page 25 of'26 Febivaty 2005 m Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc All rights xeserved Report anaiyses, wnclusions and rewmmendations c�ot 6e used wi[hout expressed wntten conseni 6y both Asfipaugh & Sculco, CPAs PL.0 and Front Range Consulting Inc 05-��3 ASHPAUGH & SCULCO CPAs,PIC Cc�v9et P�S[z Auo-�nvzas ¢n: Ccn<�h.:ntz �% '� '�, Front Range Consutt'sng, Ine. Comcast has nevei requested the Consultants or the particigating LFAs to provide "notifica$on" othei than the aotification of "cc"ing each pazticipaut requested on June 18, 2044. The Consultants wete cleaz in the response to the June 18, 20�4 request that othei LFAs may j oin the process and Comcast never requesfed noftfication o#' any new additions. Never the less, the Consultants did continue to identify the cucient list of'paTticipating LFAs on each email RFI sent fo Comcast. VII. CONCLUSION The Cansuitants iequest that the pazticipating LFAs ieject ComcasYs position and adopt the adjustments indicated in this Supplemental Iteport,. Page 26 of 26 Febtuazy 2005 � Ashpaugh & Sculw, CPtU, PLC and Front Range Cousulting, 7nc ell1 rights reserved Report analyses, conctusions and recommendazions canaot 6e used witfiont �pressed written consent 6y Loth Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consul[ing, Inc �5-�� 3 Comcast 2004 FCC From 1205 LisE of Participating Locai F'ranchise Authoriizes City of'Albuquerque, New Mexico Arlington Couniy, Vuginia, Butnscille/Eagan Ielecommtmications Commission (which is compzised ofthe Cities of Buinsville and Ea�an, Minnesota) City of Coon Rapicis, Minuesota Dishict of Columbia Village of Downers Grove, Illinois Cneater Metro Ielecommunications Consoi�ium (which is compzised of'Adams Counly, Atapahoe County, Aivada, Auiora, Biighton, Bioomfield, Castle Rock, Centennial, Cheiry Hills Village, Columbine Valley, Commerce City, DenveT, Douglas County, Edgewater, Englewood, ETie, Fedeial Heights, Glendale, Cneenwood ViIlage, Jeffexson County, Lafayette, Lakewood, Littleton, Lone Ixee, Northglenn, Patker, Sheiidan, Ihotnton, Weshninstei, and Wheat Ridge, Coloiado) City of Los Angeles, Califoznia City of Mentoi, Ohio Metropolitan Aiea Communications Commission, Ihe (which is compiised of the Cities of Banks, Beaveiton, Coznelius, Du�ham, Forest Cnove, GasYon, Hillsboro, King City, Lake Oswego, North Plains, Rivergzove, Iigard and Iualatin and Wasitington County, Oregon} Montgomei,y Counfy, Maz,yland City af'Nliufseesboro, Iennessee North Metro Communications Commission (which is compiised ofthe Cities of'Blaine, Centeiville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake, Leicia�gton, Lino Lakes, and Spiing Lake Pazk, Minnesoia) North Subuiban Communications Commission {which is comptised of'the Cities of'Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, I,audeidale, Littie Canada, Nlounds View, New Biigbton, Noxth Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthon,y and Shoreview, Minnesota} Ciry of' St. Paul, Minnesofa Quad Cities IelecommunicaUons Commission (which is comptised of'the Cifies of'Andovez, Anoka, Champlin and Ramsey, Miunesota) RamseyJWashington Counties Subtuban Cable Commission (w2uch is compiised of'the Cities of' Lake Elmo, Maplewood, Noxth St Paul, Buchwood Village, Dellwood, Mahtomedi, Vadnais Hei�ts, White Beaz Lake, Wi3leinie, Cnant Fownship, White Beaz Iownship and Oakdale Minn esota) City of St. Paul, NFinnesota City of' Sanfa Claza, Caiifoinia City of'Skolde, Illinois South Washina on County Ielecommunications Commission (wluch is compxised of'the Cities o# Cottage Grove, Newport, St Paul Pazk and Woodbuxy and theTownship of Giey Cloud, Minnesota) Cit,y of' Wheaton, IIlinois b5 ��3 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT APPENDLX A a5 -�`l 3 o�raivvv�ir�r�nrr:�r� oi:aiciriTcic*ia+ic•i�ro�� i:�� rico<occn � �' (O (O Co tp (C CO CO c0 cC N iV N¢l c7 r o] O] !� I� 1� I� N fV N r.' V M Nt�G07� OOOr o�CJm Q[D 000 �00 W�o�wm W c6COGOtOR7 V Rm m(7. tD u] R 65 O� O N N(V 0� N[�! (V N N cM c7 C9 [D O c9 O W D] C) o� c� W fh M Ifl W ifl �t3 � 1n �[J tn tt] t�j ,� O N�fi(0�00 o W OOOOON N NCV k)�CQ V s{��Qe(�� ipy{�� p �p �p ^� b V.p cvi?NCJ C'i c•l t+}{�e p'� (.�MmcOtO [omtrTNN NNNNN(V fV NNNN NN N NGV h}N N 9� 6i6i�� 6)� ��(yjOi 601�� oi tflm W{AOi 6i OiOiCJmG7610i61 W� pj m 6)00� a) V Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N N N N N N N N C_1 �O C7 � N W 0�1� ttJ tOI� W W NCOeT<`E��I�N- ��mQm n�-o m�io rn o i m m mnOT CV OQ� Op 00 M�N NN�ar- tOt� M7�OQ W N N t77 f� t9 V O�OOOOOOOCV th� V{Q7�1�['). �Q `iV (�2MM C]3'd'RSC] l7EIJ�t�i�I� W N SA � � N N N�--� �(� N N tV CV N N N N N a N N N N N N cV N N N fV N N N N N N N N N C 2S � M SS S 2SS S=2 252=2 S T22=.Z N N �� y o me� mc�a�.-c-amrnrno�a�ac`oomrcocflvc�rc<ovus�wawrrommvvcoc'n > p`� N OOOOO�NNN N r-\\ O N01N=YO O N N ora O� 00 a-�p c - C � tY � m W W 6f W W� O1 � � �- r t� R � r e- N N N N l�'T f7 V' d' a V��O tp t0 t0 1�. 00 O 000'00 O 0000'-e-�'- 0000 O 00 O p p p p 00 O 00000 D C M M aJ M M t7 c9 � C� M M C') c7 v') f0 M M F} c] c�'i t0 (h (9 (7 p� M M t0 C'! (9 M M M c� M M C� M � m o o a O O O � o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 o O o O O O o O o p o P o Rt�� a=�[JOOObMCJ M[h ctiA � I� C] p�� O3� m� �•�• V G] O i-" r-Nr��c-\ r� N N NN£1=N NNNQOO O� O r�-��p U OJ N� f`O HJ O O O W O O O O O N T� C�V V V' �' d' �? V�' '� ��O � t0 tA ip h m m c�9 t� t+ W a 0000r� o � �r o00000000000000a00000 � 0 p M O M� M MthC')00 MMi+i0000 C� M(ncJ Mo7 t+] i7MKJ c7 tOMMMC]cntq �yM C7 o R 94Qq ,QqQ q az�¢�ac ��o ou�000000000¢a¢¢�d¢¢¢¢��»�� m M � w. O ❑ O 0 0 Q O A 0 � Q � m i-�Q-Fd�-FW-QFF¢h�-1�-F}�-Ha a KK�2R��EL' ad�aaaaaaa tC��rLrL�� 0000000000 UUVUUUUUUU dQdzzzzzzzzzz m �»---------- oonnQOOn0000c�QOaQOno E OOOmmrnmuarnrnrnmv� wwur[.uwwww€uwwu�wutwF.u3,utliryu� �o ��zzzzzzzzzz z (7(7(g0000000000 �"' o` intQfnF-F=1=F-F-F-F- F- ��KKE�LC KfL K�Y�CL [CK[C ��CC K � �W��» » »�S� ooa00000000000000000 � J1JJJ'JJ�J1 � aaaa a p� aaaaaaaaaaa a� U` C7 U` O d O O O O O O O O 2 tL �� R' 2 2' � fC K� K!1: CL R fY CC fY tY �� > 000u,�nu�v�u,cn�r�u�rngQQOOOOOaaoo�000000000 p Q p p O O Q�+� � g�� O D U U U V C3 U U U U U U U U U U U U U ZZ2ZZZZOODOQOQfJOOQZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZ2ZZ2 Q G¢¢= 2 S U U C3C} U U U U U U� Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ooQOu QQQ QF-l-FOQ OD00 ��D�UfAfA (Ay yfnfll(qfAl�yfA(�tA� �� C�L 0.' Z Z 2 »»»»» � d' 1 Y C r Q' d' d' C C L C K 2 K� E Y K C L d' C L��' m 0] m fll W W lL Z Z Z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Q w� W�� W �� W �N�N�� w w OOOO JJJ J � _IJJJ g�gS�� JJJJ�JJJJJJ�_IJ ��i»tLLLIL dd0 _ fLLLO.O _a > LL1ilJEl7W [itWliJ W Ii.l W11lW UJLUL[I W llJ WLl3LLF OOOOZZZ ��.IJJJJJJJJ � U` U' L7U' f.7U' U' f.9(7U` U` C7U' (7C9t7C'JU' U' C.? Z Z Z Z O00lLf W W it! W CLJftI Lti Ii.11S! ��-� ��» >-� ��» ��- -� QQ Q 4U U U F F-F-F}-1-F i-1-F 2T2 2� 2SS 1�2 SSS T2 S ST22 S 3 z �� NNN NN NNfVNiV NNNN 00o Q (V N�o ��t0 [btnNU]US � D C'7i01fJtPeot!] VJ tn �SJ�n �tJ� ttJ �1n�4J Y] tn�p N O C�ACO M � W.-.--��.-.-� �630�6�6]m@ m W�� 6] � W W 6f 0f 41m� 'O �� I� I� 1� f� I� i� e0 CQ Q} W c9 W W O] W� � P T � Y.- !" � N N CD N W N W N CO CS r, a- a- '- � � l- !_ T � p �c-� a- �� r Q ¢ � N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N� N N N N N N N N N N N N N �5 a� 3 m aa r � j V HF}_-F}_-H� FF�F-FF-H �l� f_F-!_'r_HHF H F H FH F}_-'r_i_'r_FI_�F-H J C O R � U1 ❑ m 0 J � _�y W U � m � � � 0 N d m � a itJ N1� a N OOSC)3p h hN17eFP. N 1n (D� {{ LL] tDC7 chl�0� �9QC0(O <N6TiC) @...hd'3�.-Of00� d' �N NaJd;NUJ chtqRfG t0 rn t� NN O] �00 N W 1`; t�J�1tF6��tJ M- d�FAiV N�06itnOQ W CO M(DOf ttJ Nd'SD t0 (O � ��fC 1nOi �fJN In d' HN 0=614')P] W � Q V ho��p�h� N�C9L0(DlOW�N tL1V N � i�O�tD fht0 ��Q NVf � Q � �tt! � tOM W N63t�t�I�N W MchN �COt� `d'v�m mcnh vJ�- W cOIOCD NO��O �OM[Q 6)N M6f W CDt01� u]mf..t� v>tD�nuS .-t�NN W u�oN c0t�t7u)�Of�nt9 O�f7LG O i�LOtO t0 4icp (O�p �i�d' f0o c7(C fD�fJ^ V f0ui a) �lSCV h d' � fV Oc�fOJ c9c`�Oi � V�0]�� N�MCOtDfO �Ntfl V�A r I�oc-�L] MR7 r� vN ¢ N A � N Q N N ❑ v . > In t[J f0 N N lV 6f IA f�- f� N O M KJ N f0 f� N d' tD c0 �l M A oJ m N(D f0 s- N 0i tn O cJ t•l W N� M W O� �O CO l� cD � N i� i� �(O � tn � � F� N N m�A O N N t� e� �O 4J m t[S c7 �-p� NOt�� t41t] O�f0C0 tPfMf��cDOth LO (O!f)'�tcfit010 cn lf) N tria['� (�IO TOic+'I c�0� O t6� � �r ti c7LOto CPN� �CD� [� <-I�O a-Y� M SJ � � C ci'� ¢ � � N usrlACO N W Nm �n l� f�NOCns9c�[ m r� c�lT.n[O <*smnm a� m co ta cV O) �n O M M� tV M OT W(9 (C 1�- a6 t0 W I� n�(O YJ �O � A N N� YJ O[V � f� �+J �n tp p� � m p C � O l� W<D � O Df [O (D fI) C) I� (O O C) (D t� tn � C' (9 �� LfJ fV � d' 10 � p� 6) t�') C'j � D O a '� 0 � C�]rm Nn i`� C4 f0(00�� (C� efJ c- t�0 In c+Jt*1 � Q Qy� L � N a a r ¢ NNI� e7'NO(`7M �lrt�NC07f�NCnCOPC-rNC'lntDM Ml� W � C f� V t� � O<O ��t W N N M? N tfJ M f0 V Sb � t0 � � n N N��1J O N� 1� C� �� tn � Q � f`- N fV d' O W tt) C� tti �D o� tD Of �� y� W CC tD N� V' f0 t0 W 3[3 N� 7 T= O fV W C) tM W QC^ W��`�c")to<O(ON�N(07N I� O�tnMtO a � � ` � ❑ a5-ay3 :uwwauuawu�r.uwwwu�wcuwuiu�u�wu1 rc��crctr��ct��c m ��3��3��3 � FFi�— „ �'�'��4.'KK�fC�d.'fLf�L � �» ll16Q � 000 �x2=Sx2=S2x22222x2x22 m �� J J 1 J��.1 J.. ] J J J�_�. i J 1 J J J J J J a cococc = 2¢4Q6QQQ 4<QQQQGQQQQE a yooflflonn00000noononQ❑ �v�rnrr�v�cn�nsnmmcn�nvJ�nmrnv�mmu�v� � J �_1 _! J J J J-1 J J J J J J...1 _! J_,J ..-[ � J J J J J J._I J J J J J J J J_f J J i S 2 S= 2 S S S 2 S 2 2 2 S= 2 2 S= r-rrt-�-r t-t-r rF-i-�rrt-rr N � � � � N � y N � � y � y N y � � � y ��J L� � �� T Y ❑ � O � � 0 Q � O( p J J J J J J J J J J� 1� J J J J J 1_.�. F J�'1� JJJ JJJJ JJ�llltllllJllll21 U! CLlllILi3.1S.lI[!!L!!L 1L W W LL 12I[L �mma�m �»� a� J J 1JSS= J J J�1 J J J Ja 2 S ST2 ==S S S S 2 2=S=2SSS mt7_U' C7U_' Cn�dlbC7U_' U' C7{�_U` C�C7C�d •p» 7�»>ilJ»>7��»�Z ~ R`�K ��K��0.�� K � Q ��m000 coco<ocomcomtacoSZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ � �� m � �� NN NN N tV t�(�( NGY[V Nt�(NNNN NN N� °- ��-� r��• <oco�o`4c4Wco�cmco�o°?plWmmmm�co � u�iu h� �u�j �i �i�i �iu�i�sah� � mt�UUn �nofl000 Zc t��t�OpO�O�Jt`�')M�Mn� nm ° v 00000000 �o�o @ �o�0 00 �o�o� O�c�a-�N� �c-a-�rr� N �(V iD tD sn O O O OI O O O O O N tV N N V V � V � 7�� V t�0 b�[�fJ � t� CO (O (O 1� 1� � m��'ss��s'��'s3�3�3��3��s�333S''��s}� ��g��g�� n D o ° o °O OO ° o °° o ° oo ° o ° o °° o ° o ° o ° oggo ° oo °° o ° a ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° oo °° o ° o ° oo ° o °° o o ° � O O S O O O O O¢ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h m O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O S S O O O O O p O G O O O p c �e �� c � � N N N N N N N��( N N N N N N N N N P�') M f+�] M ff� M M o�] M M M� M M m M� M� o�j (h S O M(D m t9pJ t+fK1e� MMC] Mc� mcnmo� cflc4mcocomcoSflmmcCm �D�DCa�o� tDfDfO f0 ¢ V lCJ [n � �Q UJ 3n W� KJ Ln t/3 VJ t/J tn K) b�tJ tn I� � �fJ � tfJ tl� uJ llJ [O �q tn �n N� � N t6 Ln c ¢ va�vvvvvv�v e�vvvvav�svcvvvvv v�svvvv �ravvav Q �5-ay3 t0 N1� [FCY(6t`]C)10 h I�N:O V'hNflSCO h �-N V �'I/DMM h oJ<-6] 07 f0�p Na11[I �� f�Rt�rO � 6J V mN N CJ�(�LiOMCJd'(O IiJLL� r � I�N N W lp O N�1� [7[(}�p��M '_ �-p f� N f�t R O t� ICJ O O> W m C^i Oi m eJ � c0 c0 CD tn V� c0 +p 6i t[) tV �IJ C' u) ` O N W o� c7 pj �� E' ^4��W (4N^MS(9C0 W� N CO�N � �O� t0�'7C3 � eT� N ID a = r C ' A 3 w m II. � > H O . Q .�-. Q � m W Q g N m U C W U �� a � t[. }}�•]}�}}}}}}}}}.}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}.�}}}}}} �r< �.-�.-.-._.�,-r� .=�.- Z � `- '- � J n m _ rs v a� Q N N N a O O O O �< O O O O O O O O O f�{ N N N N f V N N N N N N c V N N N N N( V N N � NNN C�t000 �N NN NNNN NN V'd' V v er7Q V'7p d•d•.�{�d..ti.� d . �. � ��^ ��o�n]�I�i�til`�hI�NNNCV tVN NNNN NNNNNNNCV NNN n. osw a� rn Mm e7 a0] W rno�a�rnrnrna)wrnw wo� o> 6)rnm rnrn W W m w rn rnrnw0� � �cO m�ow � .-< rvvaavvvvvvvv�v�rvvavva wwww �wwwwwwu ~~~� OO O tiJ ~ F F- 1- F F F k- f^ J� J J J J� J� J J J J� � J_�„t � W W LV �¢¢¢¢� �jUL)L.JEJYYYQUUUUUCSLIUU Jw�J..�.tJT1J��J3��JJ��_]�� W W W W 4� V7 tn p tl�1 W l�l! W W l�Fl W W� 2 2 S 2 2 2� 2 2 i 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 S 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2 � Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 �A�ao��¢000000000�� m m c � N N � C .a a Q ¢ c c Q � a� 3 � a a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y�1 Y Y Y Y y y y m o o m U U U U U V U U U U U U�U U U U U U U U U U U U t� U U U U U o U U U U U U U �`@ OC3=SS=22S22222=T=22212222=�i22222=2i�2=22 a�� o��o�ov�oc��c>��UOO�c>��u�c�ac��o�t>��oovU s � z 0 a d a> nrn � o rnr-�nr�in�u� v�rcv�v.t�� N [Dtp tnNNN�tCJ1e] �(] �'nICJ 1ntbin t0 m(OLfT �� G� O�m01 i�t�[�NN NNNt��tNNNN Ch �] mM4)m61m01 W�6�6�6] W mrn E N N N� O t0 fD cO CD (D t4 t0 (9 (O (O CO t0 � � r � �.- OOOpO4OO oQ Z m M C n C] � Q� O O O p O O O O O O � ¢ C C Q U Q `�� QC d d��dC3OC C3 m ,G y O o 4 O O O o O O O o O o O o 0 o O G o o O O O o a o O O O o o�p O O o 0 0 (� � Rl (V LV LV N iV (�J N N N N N N[V N N N N N(�' N N N N(Y (V N N N N N N(V N N N N N ❑ U „�, � ,O T C �•'-' '-' +- d ^ +-� U U U U �. �+ ?. >. T ]�; T V��gO a_ a °� p V �= c c c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c� c c c � c c c c c c c c v �� 0 o c o 0 o a a o p 0 y 0 o a o 0 0 0 o p a� p o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � S � °� m m a�i m m m m a�i Oi m m a�i m m a�i a�i m a) m m a�i o m c�i a�i a�i m�� 7i � m a�i N�i m m � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ro � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � °. c�n�o')MMfOC]MMChP'J(7(qMthMMM MtOtnMMO�mo)CTMOICOC*)Mt�)t+)(7tqMt0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mw�-q�o��W�� a L c4rN N r N � � NN N NN ( NO O � r .-LV Uoc��ncoi`n000m0000ac�`. aAc�+v`evvvvvv��n�nin�n�nwm`�`ocac�.n� 0 0 0 0 .- o � � i- � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c � ��}}}y}}}y}}}y}}}}}�}}» }}}}}}}}}}}}}}y} � c � m � � LL ' � l6 � y� Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q � m O l.L � } } } } �. } } �. } } ? }. } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } �. } } } } } Q @ t�D � 9 �6 N V ' � � � � � c> a � m w�->.}}y}}}}}}> >.y �> r> �r}r>r>�r»-�yr>.rr»>r � a� 3 Y N �� N N N d d d- M d' c I' � d V' d d- N N N N N N N N N N N N L V N N N N M m t+1 � 3c�cresaorsot�ooacsatsorsrsac�c�csQaooactoaQCtaocsaac�o c� Y j m yC7 Mth C3 th(7 MMM C7M thMMMC7(+'1M MM MtnNJ(7[7L7 M M[� cq c7 NJCI MCJ Mah(•J z�� °000° c °000° oo ° o ° o ° o ° o ° oo ° o� ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° o ° oo °O OO °° 000 ° a ° o °° o ° o ° o ° oo ° () 0 }� N N( V N N[� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c V N N N N N N N N t V N N N N N � m"' �( C � U U C1 Q ' U U i� U U U U U r.. c. i i�+ T�. �. >. `�. C C C-- m �o"�� OOOm000000�00¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢��g�� »��a � � 0 m � _ �Z a 0 � a o - o<<-��-� � c-��c-�� -��_ �� U O �� E � O D C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M p�p O O O O Q O O O O O O �� z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O � Q C C a o5-a�3 SUPYLEIVIEIVTAL REPORT APPENDIX B ., Wazren Eitfmg, i2:01 At�I 12/15/20{14, Leesbuia Review To: WurenFIIfmg Fzom: Gazih Ashpaugh <gashgaua �a cpas com> Subject I,eestnsg Review Cc: "Bick Ixz�h" <dick@frc-mc com> Bcc. Attached Wai�n As c�'e cliscnssed yesteaday, the pmcess you set up fot ieviewmg tfie mvoices d"ui not woik very weA aaci was vexy ciw�bexsome No mstructians on how to use the t�'s were provided othei flmn the s�nple e�� 3'he search and doc�ents Iocated had options tl�at were not explamefl and lrad to be "found^ Theie signifiGant delays waikmg fox the dawnloads of �fozmation T had to speci&cally 3mow what I was boicm� foz - system and account munbeF I could not go through and see what was avaa7able then gezuse tlnaugU what I wanted to see I Lad to manvaIIy e�ex the info, waII fcrF the seasch mhich aiways took 15 seconds ox mote I cwid only see one page at a tmie and had to wart fox it to load each page 1'his thea only produced a list I then had to choose the speciSc invoice andwait anothex IS seconds oa moie foi the "pd€' dovument Agam, onty the fust page, I had to manuaIly request � to then pt ovide "aIl" pages If I wanted a copy, I l�ad to thea go to pcmt and wait anotbei IS seconds oz more foi the p:mt fimction to complete and free up the aos}sutez ta move To the ne� rtem In ordex to move to the neat item, I k�d to go back To the tisY and stazt agam Ihere seemed to be an npEiou to choose umitiyle documents, but I cazld not get it fi o� and I did not l�ave any ats4vcta�ns It woutd be mzposs�ble fot any audrtor to ixe producrive usmg il�is sektp. F was �mable to access any data foi tite followmg: E332 Wildvvood, E840 Trenton, A54 Chesapeake Bay, II�32 New England East, F858 Montgomery Coimty, E346 Coanectieut, E858 Vme�nd and BSb Ann Arbox On the fac�ties, lYtx Fullez and bis staff weze excelleut basts When we eneotmteied tt� comgutei prohlem to shrt on Monday, he and his people were mtmediately on rt Unfoimnately rt did fake a wlvle to resolve I wc�uld l�ce to express my tUanlss to NFa. Fullei, G7nB, Do�ta and the othet people I met m fhe Leesbu[g office Cmrtb. Gatth 3 Askpaugh, CPA Ashpaugh & Scutco, CPAs, PLC 1133 Lairisisna Avenue, Surte ]06 Wmter Paxir, FL 32789 Phone (40'n b45-2020 Faz {40� 545-4070 �5 -��I 3 Pri¢ted foi Gazfh Ashpaugh �gashpangh@ascpas.com> 05-�� 3 SUPPLEMENIAL REPORTAPPENDTX C' 05 -au3 �omcas� �� ,��:� cn�,�, co �„z V7A FACSILiIIL.E (Quesflatts aud Responses Onlv) ANA OYERIYIG'�T DEI.IVLRY TCS ABI}RESSEE$ Septemher 4, 2004 h1r Gsth T Ashpaagh Ashpaugh & Soulw, CPAs, PLC 1133 Lauisiaaa Aveaue, Suife 106 WiaterPazk, FL. 32789 RE, F'CC Fonn 1205 for Comcast Your Letier Dated Augost 27, 2004 Ano Aibar, MT S2mple SyStCm Dear Mr_ Ashpaugh: Enelosed aze respoases Eo rhe ieques#e fnr additionai informatioa regazding the pCC Fo:m I245 sabmitted by Comry� ��e �o,,,,,,,,,,;,,,fions, LLC ("Come,�sY' or "Compauy"} ta Yhe municipalities who kave engaged you� Semces 1'he responses folloti the order ofthe questions contained in ynia lette= perfaining to the �r, Arbor sample system. Additianal support is grovided where necescary and wkere we Bave 6eca able to rahieve the supporiing doeumenfs We are siili ati�mpting to obla� ad3itianal supporting documenrs. Please let riie lmow i£you roquve ary additjo�al infortna[ion Ylease submit req�sks frn additiana[ inForrnatioa in writing via �1�st c13ss amil to my attentian aC Comcasi Catsic Commvnications, LLC 150Q Mar}�t �x.e�t __ 32E P7utadetpIus, FA 29f9Z �Sinc�elY. ��.�... LS -�.�.,�, W�ea Fitting ai+aetor, Rake Regulation Comcazc Cable Commvaications, LLC C:c: R Zicich, Front Range Cansulting, Inc M. Anderson P Fei¢becg a5-�,�3 SUPPLEMENTAL REPdRT APPFNDIX D �s-a�3 VII.LAGB dF �• ��, :' `. �f: - - t225CE1}ARLAbL NO%IEfBROOK,IILATOTSbDOG2-45� 8?772i2-5050 � _ FAX 8 4 772 72-9 76 0 - BOARD OF IRUSI�S Aobeci7.Jaeger AC.BaeLIezIII S�ndrnEFwn Krnt?,Donewatd 7amcs A Kaxagiams Brian F l9eek PRESIDINI — PtIIage Mmlago Ma�W Danvsch Eona N I.ouis I5(lage CIEr's 7oLn M Novinson 7aly 23, 2004 Gazth I Ashpaugh, CPA Ptesident Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPA, PI C 1133 I,o�isiaaa Ave Suite lOb Wintei Patk, FL 32789 Deaz M: Ashpwgh, Pec out teIephoae convecsation today, tiris lecte� confums that tfie VIIlage of Noitfibrook Il7iuois, will no loagei be pazticipaEing in the aaatyses and iepoat regazdiag the 2004 FCC Form 1205 filed by Comcast Cabie Ptease remove "VilIage of Northbeook" fr�am ttce list fot FCC Foxm 1205 Review Pazdcipants Ifiank you 3incetely, �� i � Cheryl Fayne Commm�icadons ivIana.vec Cc: Richard Natustadt, Assistaat Village Manager www no�thbrook il us e-mail:village@northbrook il us r- ��' a5 a�3 SUPPLEMENTAI, REPt7RT APPENDTX E �5-�C3 F:tting, Wauen, 0935 AM 11/412f104, Sample Systems Invoices Review Page 1 of 2 X-Odginal-To: gashpaugh@asopas com Delivered-To: gashpaug@Iocaihost woxldramp net Fizam: "Firting, 4Janen" <ZVatren Fittiag(o3cable comeast com> To: F��a�P��P� ��, �ashPaaSi� a) epas.com> Cc: "Fullet, Fred" <Fred Futler@cable-comcast com>, "Feinberg, Petez" <peteT Feinbeig@Comcast com>, "Anderson, M�cia" <Marcia Anderson@cable comcast cam> Subject: Sample Systems Invoices Review Date: Thu, 4 Nov 20Q4 09:35:24 -0SOd X-Mat�feL: Inteinet Ma� Service (5 5 26�3 13) Gacth, We are set up to have you review the sample systems' invoices you iequested in our Lake County! Leesbuig, FL office Ihe adchess is 8130 Coimty Road 44, I,eg A, Leesburg, 34'788 The contact person at thaz facility is �red Fu11ei ITOU may contact Fsed at 352516-6862 {cellj ox 352-787-9601 ext 126 (office) Ouc houfs of'operatioa in L,eesbcug at e 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM You are welcome fo work ducing the entue 1 � hoius of operation each day 'Che PC you will utilize is co�mected to a nerivotk pxintei so that you may piint cropies of the invoices. Attached aze nvsfcuctions on how to access the documents tl}rough the web poxtal In a sepaxate e-nafl, I cvill send to you lists o£' all the invoices sorted by sample system and account mm�ber. I'Il be sending a similaz message fo I}ick If you �ave auy questions, please coatact me at 215-320-74-05 Wazrefl Wazien �itting Duectox, RaReReg¢laiion Comcast Cable (:ammunications, LLC ]SOt3 Market Skeet East Towet - 32ud Flooz Philadelphia, PA 13102 215-320-7465 (office} 215-�981-7855 {fax} 510-742-2861 (cell) Wazren FittingQcable.comcastcom «6 14 The Web doc» Prinfed for Gazth Ashpaugh <gashpangfi@ascpas com> 2/21/2005 �-�� 3 Fitting, Wazren, 09:.35 AM 12J4/2fl04, Sample Systems Invoices Iteview Page 2 of 2 � 6.14 Zhe Web.dac Printed fox Gaztk Ashpaugh <gashpauah@ascpas com> 2/21l2005 os au3 Searching for pocuments on the Web �� Documeefs or� the Weh Page 1 of 4 Searching for �ocuments an the Web 05 a�3 Searchmg for Dacuments on the Web Searching for pocumeit#s via the Web To search for a document (or documents} on the web, you wiil need tc� login to the Website address: hftp:l/10.20.11.56:8080fwebfddlloqin.isp The login fhat you have been provided is: Login: auditor Password: eomcast5 After you have accessed fhe website, da the folEawing: Step 1) Login into the Feith Documenf Dafabase ��t� ��currse�t C��#ab�se usemame �—� Passward �� Databese idd " �, � � �� ffi � m .� 1��. Page 2 of 4 SearcP�ing fior pocuments on the 1Neb 05 a�� Searching fior poeuments on fhe Web Sfep 2) Seleet ifie Fiie Cabinet Audit_ACCT_ENT and the Search File Ca6inef iinage wil! display on the screen _ -� -= ==��3 �� ncu� _,� in�mr �_.�s::=€°'� Sesrds � File Cabina3 AudT ACC'T E�+1't' - BR7CH_NAIdE - VENQ6R_Ka�E r �- WEPA50R F7l�A7HER " il."lOICE IYA'T^c � - INYOlCE NVkf � �_—� 1�.—� — � ..• aPIOiCE APAOU.YT ° YWCNERJWEA -� EtYTRY •. RCCT NUllf ��_ _ �� '�-�a�'�:a� : Rows➢erPa9g�2Q �.,�`� I Case9ens�irs �; r� � s�vne�as s�-_�re � F � = Step 3) input your search criter�a in the file cabinef fiatds. Use the tab key to rnove from ane celi tfl the next. Step 4) Cfick on Search Step S} After your results are retumed, ciick #he box view and your image wili be retrieved. Audit ACCT E!!T � �o�rn�[�� soo�r�rews[s--_j. r Step fi) To rntate #he image click on the rotaie buttons: To returrt to�our list of invoices, ciick on the back arr�w: Page 3 of 4 Searehing for Dacuments on the Web os a�3 Searching for pocuments on fhe Web ��. � 0.m.mstCabawkbnvfPM11ffiaemb�Area4fu� __ '"__"_ � Otuelm Aht � � lei �_ LiF/ lPhlla�tlot� .-•_. �� $akn d __� P4mdrloNaAm 14c S1T Omm41:T4 alRawmm 4 � � �� ` CC'JOfPh41dBN��e --� n.aa�is2s ....._._.- }9Saaxi�kRn.GAib1061d28__ _Typeartcn &l� 6Ydhln -'dYE P1wt �e9ro �wpitII-l.¢uRW PwPTa�s ••••n•_ �ee-t��e.x�veer,amnc `"�.'.... 6r�eP..eetr/s'fii vmm Page 4 0€ 4 Searching for pocuments on the Web �5a�� SuPr�,E��vz�. R�rox� AP�s�n� F 05 � 3 �o��. FCC F�m 124U and Foim E205 Fehxnzty 1, 2004 It�o�e: Ihe hoius �ed above were s¢gg�fed bp t�e City and A&:S m�e Cit}�s lellex ta tfie Company date3 Jaztnary 1 f, 7ADI and were vsedby Comcas�E in �s pzevious fiimgs 3 f Regardi*�g q2reliovse peisonnel for the yea 2063, p7ease specifica]Iyidentify a Eacfipersorz; Respanse: PleaseseeAUacLmeat�l5 b The numbet of houts woikefl bYP�� Response: Please see Attachwent � 15 c AflactiviryandfaskspeifoFmedbywazehonsepersonnel;and, Kesponse: PIease see Attachmem # 22 d All. rypes o£ eqaipment and inveatory stored �d mamtained Respons� Please see Aitaclmieat # 22 - 32 Pmvide copies of ati con4acfo� iavoices foz the yeaz ended Dec�be: 32, 2003, inclac�'ma any � aaalYsis PrePared by Comcast suppoiting �e ammmt shown m Schrdule B Respouse: IheamonntmScLeduteBwasiakenfromYhefinancialropoits Anacfiment�-i.ya 7 + �P of alI oontractor i�oices paid, and Af#ac�meni �mclude copies of all fhe contxactor mvoices foi tltis type nf la5oz. 33 Regazd'mg the "Suppleme�Fal Iafoxnmtion" 3i?P A, Line 6, Pkase pzovide deta�Ied sopport for the. awommt of ° TutatInsmilation Iwurs° of 223,016 Response: PIease see A7acBment #. 26 34 Pkue provide &ie toial �ba of msbIIs in 2i103 by type ef utivity Respanse: Please sce AblacLme� # 23 35. Please provide the "avalysis of sexrice calls° for 2fl03 insfalla4on actiritp Response: in the FCC Fomi I2p5 and sappoxfia,�, docnmeafation s�ibffiI�d to tfie Ciiy, there was aotanattacbmeni3aheled "analysisafsetviceoalls" 3b PIease pravide a lisf of alI in hovse employees of 2pp3 mcladed 'm ihe detem�atioa o#the amnums refeienced'm the responses above Far all tmpIoYees, show Ure �te hsed, if duriag 2003 tlie da� teEU�aTed,lhe nrm�her of vacation bows taken, tiu mnnUer of holidayhovzs iaken, tlxe aunilxt of sick leave hn¢is Eaken, fhe nmvber ofpe[soffi2 ]eave hoars takea, aad t�e muIIber ofhotus oftraiaing Respovse: See AttacItment # 15 Ihis worIafieet mcIudu zegular hrnus worked and ovettime Itotas woiked 3 7 Please provide a copy of ComcasYs employee po&eies for ihe Deiroit sysfem on: a HafidayHotus; b VacarionHo�ss� c PersonalLeaveHoias;and, d Fi�Hours;and, e. SickHovis Respoase: Page I7 3 / io C,omcast of betroi; GP. FCCFomi I240 �dFomt 12flS FeUru�y i, 2004 Detroit 20Q4124D1120.5 Raspanse Lisf of AfYachmeirts Attachmen� 1 Amended 20Q31240 Forrir AttachmEnt2 SubscrlberFr�iormation Attacf�menf 3 Caps Chanrte[s Attachment 4 qverage BST Channets Aftachment 5 Frogramming Cost Infortnation Attachment 6 Copyrigh# Form Aitachment 7 Frenchise Re(ated CosElnforma5on AEtaohmen# & Channef Lin�ups and Rate Cards Attacfiment 9 Depreciation Expense Report Attachmeni 1D Supplemenfat Balance Sheet catculations Athachment � i S8T T'ax Rate - Sfafe of Micfiigan Attachment 92 Balance Sfreet Aftachment 93 SaFary lnformatlon by pepartmenf from P&L Atfact�ment i4 P/R Wages and Fiours by department Alfachment 15 P/R aetaded Hours by Erttployey Attachment 16 Schedule C, Line B Ha3rs Attachment 17 Converfer and Remote Subscn"ber Information Attachment 18 Raconclliation of InsfaUafion Casfs Atfachrnent 19 Contract Labor AQocafcon Calcula3ion Athachment 20 Avarage Contractor Rate Attachmenf 21 Repaic & Maintenance Hours - MfR Aftachment 22 Warehouse Job DescripUon & Inventory Listing Atfachment 23 Task Summary Attachment24 Copies o€ ContracE Labor fnvoices Page 14 os a� 3 3/fo 05-�43 � Comcast af De[xoit, GP. FCC Fami 1240 andFomi IZQS Febxaazy 1, 2fl04 ¢dingPinpertyTaxes, please��ovde: The calcalatioa of the amoimfs mvo2ved wYh scpport fot eack amou¢� A caag�]e`�e }isting aad "mventoty o£ all �¢ipmeei inc3ndedm £ue zeAUn; and, Copies ofE�eta.zze,tmffis Response: Adaitionatmfa�atianw�72bepcovidedmtheCov�issioab'yApriI36,2t104 16 ComcastS�ledtorespondta�30aiathePebrvazyI3seqnest ComcasEprovidedras�nses�ply identified aa amwmt ort a page, tfie response does not provide �y suppozl"mg dehilfor dxe amoimt of conver�r tepait expenae of$1I4,389 and does not provide azry explaaation of the chsxges. Please provide suppor�gmvoices for ihese ehazges &a� a} Fdeatify tLe sp��'ie Yype of enaipmem reparzed b) Who peifo�edtbe wo3t and. c) The associated chages Respoase: Comcast responded m its March 10'� ktta ideatifying tfie amowrt inAriaci�me� #13 2he atracS�enE was a copy ofthe fmanciai sfaze3nen; aad showui aa amoimt of $114,384 f� ConverferRepait L'ipense. This doc�ent was the source documeat fo: t6e �ount urtered iato ttre "Sapplemeniai Calculations fot Schedute C, Ime B" Ihe newly xeqnesffid "mfa�ation fisted in 16a flsongh 2bc above can befoimd inAitaclwient #32 Iha copies oftlxe iavoices will anlybe sent to A&S 17 Covaca.qtfailedtoxespondto�30biatheFebrnazyi3xeqnest ComcastpmvidedAttachment#26Hiae shows the $3Q 33 conhactox rate bnt actvally coit�i�s aa average rate nf $28.81(�4,123,724/143,i5'�. Please pEOVide tha calc�ilation s�poitmg the $30 33 ors gravid� an amended 1265 co�ctmg the previous fiimg Response: Comcasttesponded'm.theMarchl0 previduslysnbnuuedAitaGl�enY#20withvazxativefhatidenti5estfiecalculations Theassermptionby@�e Cox�ission ofthe catw7ation of the $3033 was mcoatict I� as suggestad, the tafe was calcvlated hy takeng tt�e exTOaded con4actor amo�ts of $4,123,724 aud diridiug it byttie totdl eatendedhovrs of 143,157, 4e forfmilawovldbe cucalaz since a pofi.on af the m�;++�*+�++re hoius are based on ffie aveiage - conhacWrmte, Insfead the calculatioa is (as soa�cte� $4,123, J24 divided by $�e sum nf the imstal2atian task3mucs of 123,0?6 pins ffie servioe call hrnas of 12,669 The othec 2 categoues fcn eqiripmeat maiaten�ce and zepair {eoahactor conveifei xepaa and �house eq�sspment repau) are aof iacladed'm this calculation becaase it;ey aze not included'm the extended amotmtc shawn Only instal3aiion and eeivice cafl activity is xepresented and as such, wete fl�e oa3y items included ia ihe zecultmg caiculafion 'Ihere was a slight eaox ia tfie calcn]ation aud an amended Foxm 1205 w11 be sent wiYk the remainmg docmmentation. The revised average con4act labor iate changad &om $3033 to $3639 I7ie changes to 9�e �offi1s mflected anfl�e Foim 1265 were anmstedal and once the amoimts aze ro�dod to 2 e3ec�a1 piaces, these weze no cI�anges to tUe calcuia�d maximmmmpemritted:ates. Please see AttacLment #25 18. Comcastfa8edtorespondM#30cintfieFebmazyl3xequesE Comcastwasrequestedfapxovide "ileta�led expI�atian and supporP' Comcast only pxovidedAuachment�21. No suppaxt was pmvided far azry of the amoimts showa �d ao explanation was grovided Please provlde ffie reque.vted "detailed explana8ou and sngport" for the total repafr andmamteaanca sexvice homs of25,33&. Response: ComcasPs tecl�aical xepoiting database pr�ces a Mondily Pectuucal Repoif ("M1R'� , Tlvs xeport shows the tatal service calls per month, the percentage of coanects by covtractars, percemage of totat activityby commctors and a factor of coavertex zelafed sexvioe ca11s pa 1,006 snbseribers A+t��'h,+*�r #31 shows tfiese items The caleviation of Secvices calls oa comertexs is equal ta the findiag Basic SubscnUecs, divided by 1,000 andamltiplied by the factor showa Page 9 ��i� . ► � 2 3 4 5 8 7 , 8 9 1� 17 12 13 94 15 9$ ! 17 98 99 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2$ ,- � - i� DECLARATIfl1�T OF GARTH T A.SHPAtiGH � I, Gazth I. Ashpaugh, dec2are as follows: 1. I have secved as Presidem and Membet of'Ashpaugfi & Scuico, CPAs, PLC, ("A&S'� since December 1999 I am licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the States of Flaiida and Missouii I greviously sesved as an Audit Supervisor fot the Missatui Public Savice Commissian. I eamed my Bachelot of Science in Business Adivinistsation frotn the Univezsity of Missouti in 1977 2 I have ovei Ycventy years af eicpetience in cable and utility iate regtxlation mattets. Since 1992, I have worked with ovet 200 cities and cauaties in cable-2elated maitezs I have financial analyses and andits of cable operator rate and equipment fiiings, renewal ptnposals, and transfec agp&ca8ons in Aiizona, Califoznia, Florida, Kentucky, Mazyland, Miohigau, Miiu�esota, New Me�co,lVecv Yotk, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vi�ginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming I have alsa assisted cliems iu evalualing me�ge�s and piuchases including Kaasas City Powa and Light and Ub'IiCozp, Baltimore Gas and Electrie Company and Potomac Electrie Power Comgany, SBC Media and Piitne Communicaiions, P2ime Communications and Comcast, AI&I Communieations and Ie3e-C`,ommunications Fne., andAT&T Broadhand and Comcast Commuaications 3 I have petfotmed expert ieviews of the FCC Fozm 1205s filed by Comcast Cable Commimications with the City of Dcfs oit, Michigaa, the County of Nlontgomery, Niazyland and the t;ounty of Aflington, Vixginia since the mid 1990s In these xeviews, I have reguested, been provided and have xeviewed invoices, including confractar invoices and convertex tepair imvoices This is a normal reguest and s eview step in the Foxm 1205 1 �5-��}3 DECLARATION OF GAIZTH T ASFIPAUGH r °Y 9a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T3 I 14 15 16 'i'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L" DRAFT 4 I have aiso re�iewed the nat9onal filing of AT&i Broadband I was grovided cest suppoit foi ihe samgle systems that I seviewec3 That sample in£oxmation was the basis for adjusfinents and iot additional questions subgitted to aad tesponded to by AT&T Broadband 5. I declare tl�ax tlie cagies of ihe data iequest respo�ses inchided as Snpplemental Rzport Appendix P aze true copies of the responses af Camcast 6 I@eclae that the statements contained within the 3upplemental Itzport conceming reviews of Detroit, Nlontgomery Counfy and Ailington County are accwate I declaze nndet penalty of petjtny fhat the foregoing is E�ue axtd coirect Dated: BY: Gatth I Ashpaugh 2 b5-a�3 GARTH T ASAPAUGH Council File # �' �� Resolution # Green sheet # 3025567 RESOLUTION OF SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Re£erred To Committee: Date � WHEREAS, the City Council on Apri14, 2001, adopted the Phalen Corridor Development Strategy Suuunary as an addenduxn to the Comprehensive PZan with the goal of enhancing, stabilizing and sustaining the economic, social and physical prosperity of the East Side through the development of housing, industry and jobs; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the City has prepazed two amendments to the Phalen Corridor Development Strate� to address development issues in the western and central sections of the Corridor — specifically, the Westminster Junction and the Middle Section areas — which were prepared as construction of the first and second segments of Phalen Boulevard were underway; and WHEREAS, construction of the third segment of Phalen Boulevard, between Arcade Street and Johnson Parkway, is scheduled to begin in April 2005 and to be finished in November 2005; and WHEREAS, the City is preparing planning studies for the eastern section of the Corridor, between Earl Street on the west and Johnson Parkway on the east, and for the Middle Section South area, south of Phalen Boulevard and west of Arcade Street, to coincide with the construction of the third segment of Phalen Boulevazd, with the Planning Commission on Mazch 11, 2005, initiating the prepazation of the plan amendments and accompanying zoning studies for both areas of the Phalen Corridor; and WHEREAS, the study area far the eastern section of the Corridor, with said area depicted on the attached map, which is incorporated herein by reference and commonly described by the following boundaries: From the intersection of Earl Street and East 7 Street north to York Avenue, from York east to Frank Street, from Frank north to Case Avenue, from Case east to the eastern boundary of the Duluth Piayground and thence northeasterly along the eastern boundary of the Duluth Playground and extending northeasterly to Magnolia Lane, northeasterly along Magnolia Lane to Johnson Parkway, south along Johnson Parkway to the alley between East Seventh Street and Ross Avenue, west along the alley between East Seventh and Ross to Earl Street, north on Earl to the point of beginning at East Seventh; and WHEREAS, the study azea for the Middle Section South area of the Corridor, with said area depicted on the attached map, which is incorporated herein by reference and commonly described by the following boundaries: From the intersection of Minnehaha Avenue and the Bruce Vento Regional Trail, north along the Bruce Vento Regional Trail to Phalen Boulevard, east along Phalen Boulevard to Arcade Street, south along Arcade Street to Minnehaha Avenue, west along Minnehaha Avenue to the point of beginning at the Bruce Vento Regional Trail; additionally parcels south of Minnehaha with the following Properiy Identification Nuxnbers:322922110001,322922110002,322922110003,322922110021,322922110022,322922110023, 322922110024;and 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 ' WHEREAS, the planning study is for the purpose of examining land use and zoning in the eastern ,' a �� section of the Corridor with the intent of Planning Commission review and recommendations to Che City Council for adoption as part of the Comprehensive Plan and as part of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, development within the said study azea, undertaken before the said planning study and zoning recommendations have been completed and acted upon, could result in land uses which would not be consistent with the City's ongoing goals or its present requirements under the land use plan or comprehensive plan as several properties within the said azea are occupied by aging, low intensity and industrial uses which contain great promise for redevelopment; and WIIEREAS, the potential for incompatible or inconsistent development within the said study azea raises substantial questions relating to the ability of the City's present officiai controls to provide compliance with the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, in light of the pending study of the said azea and for the purpose of identifying an overall vision for this area and for the immediate need to preserve the status quo with respect to land use within the study area and to protect the general health, welfaze and safety of the public pending the conclusion of the said study, the Council of the City of Saint Paul desires to immediately temporarily prohibit development on any parcel of land or part thereof within the boundaries of the said study area until such time as the aforementioned study has been completed and the Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that under a separate ordinance, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will prohibit on any parcel of land or part thereof with the Phalen Corridor study azea as described herein, the issuance or approval of zoning and building permits, plat approvals or lot splits, until the expiration of twelve months as provided in Minn. Stat. 462355, Subd. (4), or until such eazlier time as the Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations contained in the study; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of the interim ordinance prohibiting any development inconsistent with the pending study and any amendments to the City's zoning code within the boundaries of the described areas, no zoning or building permits, plat approvals or lot splits may be issued or approved, unless exempted as provided under the terms set forth in that same separate ordinance noted above, from this date and until the expiration of rivelve months as allowed by Minn. Stat. 462.355, Subd. (4), or until such earlier time as the Councii of the Ciry of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations contained in the study; and 93• 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic Develo ment By: (_�.%�h ��G "6""O Approved by Financial Services By: o�,-a��► " BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, until such fime as the said study has been completed and the Council has reviewed its recommendations for possible adoption into the City's ofFicial controls, City departments receiving written applications for the approvals noted above shall accept the applications and immediately process them in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. 15.99, Subd. 2 and with the intent of this interim ordinance. Adoption Cer By: Approved by By: Form Approved by City Attorney b} Adopted by Council: Date /f�lj//l��j�3��/�jJjr ��reen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � pE — P�a+ining & Economic Development Conqct Persort & Phone: Penny Simison 6-6554 Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Dat� �85 �YtO-S^c{�.-l`iZCO� Date Initiat 07-MAR-05 � Assign Number For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) To approve Resolution related to devetopment of properties in Phalen Corridor, including the Middle Section South & Phalen/Atlantic azeas. iaanons: r�pprove (N) or n Planning Commission CIB Committee Civii Service Commission Foilowing 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has ihis personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normatly possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Facplain ail yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWpes If Approved: Implementation of coinpatible development can occur in tnnely fashion. ,� � Disadvantages If Approved: none � �c �;a�r� MAR 1 0 2005 �� DisadvanWges If Not Approved: P' ,� �� Development that is not compatible with the plan `�� ^� "� MAR 0 8 2005 . �- Total Amount of Transaction: Fundinp Source: Fina ncial I nformation: (6cplain) . . a � .�'3+."s,.,'-iLf:'� .�^P's+#»Z Y:`' ` 14 - �...�,>m _.�' Green Sheet NO: 0�-a�a 3025567 Department SentToPerson InitiaVDate 0 lan in & Ec n mic D v lo 1 lan in & Economic Develo De arhnentDirector n- 8 2 iN Attornev _ _ (� ?� �— 6 3 a or's Office Ma or/Assi fant 4 ouncil 1 5 i Clerk i Clerk CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: � � � � � , ' . � , � � � � � � � � � � � � � , � � �, � � � ��,m� � CouncIl File # 05- a `�(o Green Sheet # 3025735 RESOLUTION Presented By Referred To CITY,.QF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA l ��--_. Committee: Date 2�- 2 WHEREAS, Joseph and Judy Rossi made application to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals 3 (hereinafter the `BZA") for a variance from the strict application of the zoning code for theu 4 property commonly known as 1899 Sargent Avenue and legally described as: BERRYHII,L 5 PLACE E 30 FT OF LOT 23 AND W 20 FT OF LOT 24 BLK 1; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the purpose of the Rossi's application was to vary the zoning code standards for the purpose of building an addifion to the existing shucture: 6-foot sideyard set back required, 3-foot set back proposed for a requested vatiance of 3 feet; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the BZA conducted a public hearing after hauing provided notice to affected property owners and in its Resolution No. 04-112170, adopted September 13, 2004, the BZA granted the Rossi's variance request based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the Code. The applicants have lived in this house for about 20 years and would like to confinue living here into their senior years. The house has no bedrooms or bathroom on the first floor. This makes it difficult when the elderly or disabled visit and eventually will make it impossible for the applicants to continue living here. The proposed addition will provide a bedroom and a bathroom on the fust floor as well as expand the livingroom. This is a reasonable request that would make the house more livable and accessible. However, the location of the house on the site and the room arrangement within the house prevent accomplishing this goal under the strict provisions of the Code. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. The room arrangement makes it unpractical to build the addition on the back of the house and the location of the house on the lot makes it impossible to construct a funcrional addition without a variance. These are cucumstances that were not created by the applicants. 1 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code, and is �—°�� 2 consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of 3 St. Paul. 4 5 This house was built in 1923 and was not designed to be compatible with persons of limited 6 mobility. The proposed modifications will update the house. Renovation and improvement of 7 existing housing stock are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Capital Plan and in 8 keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. The requested variance will not afFect the health � 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 or safety of azea residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed single-story addirion with a 3-foot sideyard set back will not significantly effect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Although the current code requires a 6-foot sideyazd set back in this district, when the homes in this area were built a 4-foot setback was required. Many of the homes have non-conforming sideyard set backs and many of the homes have similaz addirions on the side of the house. Provided that the addition is finished to match the finish on the rest of the house, the requested variance will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on surrounding property values. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is located, nor wouZd it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variance, if it is granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potential of the parcel of land. WHEREAS, on September 23, 2004, and pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Kelly and Mary Michael, 1893 Sazgent Avenue, duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the BZA; and WHEREA5, acting to pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, the City Council duly conducted a public heaiiug on December l, 2004, where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heazd; and WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made, and hauing considered the variance application, the report of staff, and the BZA's record, minutes, and resolution, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby upholds the BZA's decision in this matter based upon the following findings of Council: The variance applicants and the appellants in this matter have advised the Council that they have reached an agreement which would establish the sideyard setback distance at 3.5 feet. Based 1 upon this mutually acceptable agreement the Council finds that the BZA did not err in their 05' a.��p 2 findings or facts granting a side yazd setback variance. However, with the reported agreement 3 between the Rossi's and the Michel's, the Council, exercising the authority granted pursuant to 4 Leg. Code § 61.704 hereby modifies the variance ganted by the BZA to allow a sideyard set 5 back of 3.5 feet subject to the condition that the Rossi's eaves project no more than 12 inches. 6 With this modification, the original findings, conclusions and gant of the BZA in its Resolution 7 No. 04-112170 remains the same. 9 AND BE TT F[JRTI�R RESOLVED, based upon the findings, the agreement between 10 the parties and modificarions noted above, that the appeal of Kelly and Mary Michael is in aii 11 things denied; and 12 13 BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to 14 the Rossi's, the MichaePs, the Zoning Adiniuistrator, the Plauning Commission and the Boazd of 15 Zoning Appeals. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � a.c _.�.tt Departmenf/officelcouncil: Date Initiated: V,� - d'{ti �P -��„�t ,¢�� Green Sheet NO: 3025735 ConWct Person 8 Phone• �e�rtment SeM To Person Initiai ate � �, Peter Wamer � 0 os n ron �� 266-87'10 p 1 'ceo ' dEn roo Pro D ariment Direc[o , Must Be on Council qgenda by (Date): Number 2 • A � � 3_ {(-oS Por � RoUting 3 or's Office a odAssistant p�r 4 ocil 5 Clerk Ci lerk � Totai # W Signature Pages _(Clip Ali Locations for Signature) _ Action Requested: Approval of a resolurion memorializing previous council action taken December 1, 2004 which upheld and modified the Board of Zoning Appeals' (BZA) decision to grant 7oseph and Judy Rossi permission to build an addition on their home and denying Kelly and Mary Michael's appeal as the parties reached a compromise. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Pereonal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following (�uestions: Planning Commission �, Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? CIB Committee Yes No � Civil SerJice Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city empioyee? Yes No �� 3. Does this erson/firtn ossess a skill not nortnall p p y passessed by any �- current aty employee? - Yes No 6cptain atl yes answers on separdte sheet and attach to green sheH � � � Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Rossi's applied to the BZA for a setback variance in order to add on to their home. A public hearing of the BZA was heid on September 13, 2005 and the BZA granted the Rossi's variance request. Kelly and Mary Michael appealed the BZA's decision to the , City Councii and a public hearing was held on Aecembez 1, 2004 whete it was announced tt�at the vaziance applicants and the appelates . had reached a compromise agreement. � Advantages If Approved: , "t >, -.�. , � - r iJ�.: c -�-7.J � � Disadvantages If Approved: MAR 1 s ?Q�� r � � � MAR 16 20�5 DisadvanWges If Not Approved: �'� �� Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: � � Transaction: Funding Source: Activity Number. Financial Information: v�. z i��r�lC�1 �u�P1�EY `, (Explain) , MAR 16 2�05 OFFICE OF 110ENSE, INSPECITONS AND p5 - a�C, ENVDtONMENTAL PRO'IECTION Janeen E. Rosas, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor November 9, 2004 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUbDITIG Te[ephone: 65I-266-9090 350 St. Peter Street, Sui7e 300 Facsimi(e: 651-266-9I24 SainiP¢u1,Minnesota55102-Ii10 A'e6: www.cisryauLmnusQiep I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 1, 2004 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staff: District : Board: Kelly & Mary Michel, 1893 Sargent Ave 04-112170 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a side yard setback variance in order to construct an addition on the east side of the house. 1899 Sargent Ave. Recommended approval. No recommendation from District 14 Approved on a 5-1 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Patrick Harris. My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazfiest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! xancE or' �asuc �u�tG Sincerely, John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer The sa�t ra,il GYty eo,mcH wsll. cwa- duct a public hearing on Wedaesday, D'e- cember 1, 2004 (reacheduled from Novem- ber 1'n at5:30 p.m. �in the City Conncii Chambers,l7vrd Floa¢; City Hall, to caa- sider the appeal of KellY and Mary Miehel. 1593 Saxgent Avenue, to a decision af'the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a�de yard setback variance in order to eun- strueG an addition oa the east side of'tlie hovse at 1599 Sargent Avenue. , Dated:. Nwember 9, 20U4 MARY�ERiCLiSON, � - � Assistant CStY CoimcIl'Sec�'eYazy ., fNwembe� IIj . , �81: f�SGAL L� '1�98523 ° . . . CITY OF SAINI' PAUL Rm/dY C E'e113; Mapn� OCCObCf S� ZOO4 Ms. Mary Erickson Coimc� Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECITONS AND ��, �� ,� �� x� n�, IAIYRPPROFFS,SIONALBUILDA'G Td�lrom: 651-266-9090 3505[PaaStreeKSuite300 Foovnile: b57d669714 Sau¢Paul,Arnu�efota55702-I510 Web: xM�w.cislpmdnmwr/[iep I would lilce to confmn that a public heazing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday, November 17, 2004 for the following wnmg case: Appellant: Zonmg File #: Kelly & Mary Michel, 1893 Sargent Ave 04-112170 P�spose: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a side yard setback variance in order to constxuct an addition on the east side of the house. Location: Sta� District : Board: 1899 Sazgent Ave. Recommended approval. No recommendation from District 14 Approved on a 5-1 vote. I have confumed this date with the office of Council Member Patrick Harris. My understanding is that this public hearmg request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at yo� earliest convenience and that you w71 publish notice of the heazing m the Samt Pau1 I.ega1 Ledger. Thanks � �iOTICE OF P176LIC HEARII�IG .SIDCEI'C�� Jolm Hardwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA �O Employec The Saint Paul GSty.Council wi�]. con- duet a public hearing on Wednesday, No- vember 17, 2U04 (rescl�eduled from Octo- - ber 27) at 5:3Q p.m. in the �Sty Couneil Cliambers, Thu•d �oor, CitY FIall, to eon- sider the appeal of Kelly & Mary Michel, I893 Sargent Aveniie, to a decision of the Board of Zo nina Appeals granting a side yazd setback vaxiauce in order to con- struct an addition on the east side of t}se house at 1899 Sargent Avenue. - Dated: October 21 2004 MARY ERiCKSQN: � . Assistant City Courici] Seii-etary " . (OckobeC25) . ' ' =+__ 2208R742 '• " , •i � � • APPLlCATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economrc Developme�u Zoning Sectian � 14D0 City Hall �nnPx ZS West Fourth Street Saint Paul, :YIR� »702-I h34 (651) Zb6-6589 City St. Paul g{, nN Z7 55105 Daytime Phone 651-698-6083 Name Kelly and .iary ;4ichei a�iriro<c 1893 Saraent Avenue APPLICANT PROPEf2TY LOCATION Zoning File Name Joseph S. and Judy Rossi AddresslLocation 5899 Sargent Avenue, St. Paui, MN 55105 Zoning office use onfy. File f �� 1 �� Fee: �/✓�<� Tenfafive Nearing-Date: l� �2/ l YPE OF APPEAL: Apptication ls hereby made for an appeat to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council • Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section Paraqraph af the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Board o£ Zoning Appeals on September 13 , 20 � . File Number: 04-112170 {date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an adminisfrative official, or an error in facf, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Gommission. l. F.rror made in findinqs 1, 2, 4 and 6. 2 3 Failure to submit to District Council. Inadequate findings to support determination of hardship. 4. Arbitrary and capricious. • (attach additionaf sheet if necessary) AppJicanYs � �te�� 7" CityAgen# —� r�-;� � �' f 1 �' `"�� -7 i�:7,,`�;ft^ � t: ; � • '. �o� o� zaivnv� ar��,s s�ra� x�rax�r �rYr� o� a�rLrc��rori: APPLICANT: HEEIRING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAIL DESCRtPTION: PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: REPO$T DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: r��or v��e JOSEPH S". & NDY I20SSI September 13, 2004 I899 SAI2GENT AVE ZOlVING CODE REFERENC�: 66.231 BERR1'IIII,L PLACE E 30 FT OF IfOT 23 AND W 20 FT OF LOT 24 BLK 1 14 R-3 September 8, 2004 October 3, 2004 FILE #�44-i 12170 BY: 3ohn Hardwick d3ATE RECEIVEB: 7une 29, 2004 A. PURPOSE: A side yard setback variance in order to build an addition to the existing house. A side yazd setback of 6 feet is required and a setback of 3 feet is proposed, for a variance of 3 feet. B. SITE AND AREA CONDITION: This is a 50 by 125-foot lot wiTh alley access at the rear. Surrounding Land Use: Single family homes. C. BACIiGROiJND: The applicants are proposing to build a 15 by 26-fooE additions to f1�e east side of this house. D. F'INDINGS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabte a�se under the st,tict provisions of the code. The applicants have fived in this house for about twenfy years and would like to conTinue living here into their senior years. The house has no bedrooms or bathroom on the first floor. This makes it di£ficult �uhen the etderly or disabled visi# and evenfuaIly wiII make it impossibie for the applicanTs Yo caniinue living here. The proposed addition wi13 Paoe i of 3 � n U � � o5-a� � File �041 i2170 Staff Report Provide a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor as well as expand the livingroom. Th;c is a reasonable request that wonld malie the house more livable and accessible. Aowever, the location of the house on the site and the room arrangement within the house prevent accomplishing this goal under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circzan2stances unique to this properly, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The room arrangement makes it impracrical to build the addition on ±he back of the house and the location of the house on the lot makes it nnpossible to construct a functional addirion without a variance. These are circumstances that were not created by the applicants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciiy of St. Pa¢al. • This house was built in 1923 and was not designed to be compatible with persons of limited mobility. The proposed modifications will update the house. Renovation and improvement of existing housing stock are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. The requested variance will not affect the health or safety of area residents. 4. The pt variance will not intpair nn adequate supply of Zight and air to acljacent property, nor will it alier the essential character of the surrounding area or- a�nreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed single story addition with a thcee-foot side yard setback wiil not significantiy affec# the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Aithough the current code requires a six-foot side yard setback in this district, when the homes in this area were built a four-foot setback was required. Many of the homas have nonconforming side yard setbacks and many of the homes haue similar addi#ions on the side of the honse. Provided that the addition is finished to match the finish an fhe rest of the house, the requested variance will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on svrrounding property values. • 3 Pa�e 2 oi 3 �-a�� File �04-112170 ! Staff Report S. The variance, ifo anted, would not permit any use that is not permitted undef- the provisians of'the cocle for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor would it aZter or change the zoning distnct classification of the praperty. The proposed variance, if it is granted, would not change or aiter the zoning classification of tha property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vala�e or income potential of the parcel of land. E. DISTRICT COiTNCIL REC0IYIMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendarion from District 14. F_ COI2RESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regarding this matter. G. STAFF I2ECOMIYTENIlATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends • approvaI of the variance subject to the condition that the addition is finished to match the finish on the rest of the house. � . Pa� 3 ot 3 AP�L6CATfON Fdtt ZDNfNG V,Ai21AA10E � OFFICE OF L10E'NSE, INSPEC370N, A1Y� EN3'IRONMENT,4L PROTECTION - 30� Lowry Professional Building . 35Q SL Peter Street Saint Pau� MN 55702-7510 (63I) 266-9008 APPLICANT Pt20PERTY INFORMATIOM � U Zoning offlaa Fite #_. � � Tenfative hes City agent 05-�I,� oniy ��I"?��' __ ° � ' - late: • � '� 1- -# - n Address E�"� - ��t`� 7°i;i�i,i:.r. City 5�: �zq.�� S#.1�€Ya:' Zip '� i� Daytime Phone ;-: � i-t a' -� �:.c �,s aak� _ Property Interesf of Applicant (owner, conYract purchaser, etc.} r�:�, ,,,=;� Name of Owner (ifi (attach addifional sheef itnecessary) 7 Lot 5ize �ir�s.; � �.�� reserst Zoning ��Y.- �r�sen4 �� A p � d � dress � p / � Location i.,� �?a°��:�;oY t°tvrs�az��.., `�-�, ;�;,;�.E . 4��ati+wR �S14. 14itsl� �� Y.lC� ��c Ko �L"K�$ vv E«�.L.� '�.I�yi�Z Legal Descr t�on �T " � j ¢�:;r: t�<��:� ��:a dJs� ;%�:rnz�:it�`i;:.a^ Proposed Use .na�s.a;d ° n.�:� 1% t° 9. Vaaiance{s) reyuested: ��: ; �;.;:�,� =.;�;';:�:�� e�. �a` �,c-� isL€ .i�=�-Ltt�: ``� L' za.a�"� _�.-as�s' �a� �'t�,��.;�,_ n, 2. What physica! characteristics of ihe gro�erty prevent its being used for any af the p�rmitted uses in your aone? (topography, size anai shape of lot, soil condifiioe�s, etc.) }} ,r � _ � $ i:c;vui�k,+�a-L-.�a.� t=�,..X��' . 3. Expiain how the strict appiication o# the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resulE in peculiar ar exeeptional practical difflcuities or excep�ional undue haedships. i,., �.q ,. c3�. K��ci.g�...sex:i _'-�'`�,`} .z`Eau�: e�u Z.:..>r�t�.�'� ..,,, �. .. t< ,.. . _ .. CASHIERS USE QNLY A.. Explain how the granting of a varianex w111 not be a subs4ant6ad detriment #o the public goad or a sc�bs4antial iropairmeot of #}�e infent and purpase of the 2oning Oraiinance. �,��,°��.� �'�� -c-��;'::�- � � j �s � �� f'°; � F � ° :.�*-° �' � - : � f t'; �;. , � � -. �± .s-" l ; 'v 4 � i 6 it /,� �,,,... � �¢ �� ' ; f � �� '� i # �},.;, t AgplicanYs Signa±ure ,rt��' � ��'� � � � � �a�° � � � �:°�- s ° ° . _ ° vs—a�� _��. <� ---- � �' � , ��y— -- ------�---�- - - -- - - --- --- [ � - `� � � �_- - \T Y-YJ L` t�! E s C. ( (i� :; �d:. - '—' --�'�----- - --- �..:. .::;.::1,.ti:;'� - � � R Z .s?:<:t;-,:' ---- --- -- ------��-L 'C�! �t=-_I__�-�_------- _.,. = ' ;...°. --- ----- ;- � ---- -��' - - - —� '` � -- ----- � , . -- � a � �=�� a - ------ ` t> �3%aia� �n a��t��',c� r.z-xr� ----- - --------- � —� , , � �} ,;`� �. --�---------_�__.._ �r rtLt�=L"s,-------- . � '\ . _ - ------ .----------- -- , , ��1 .. . � -, -- --- --_:�aC.!_ _ , -!^ ��fi ��1 �.__. �et �- ----- ---- -- ------- ('�� +'lJ -- ---- � c�j_�� . s�P"1Z=� e� �C1 c'- `j. --- -- ------ -- -----�-------------------- - - - -- - - �- ----:��__��u. t�Lj� ---- - - ---�-- ----. --- - - � - -- --�=_�� - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - � --- - _ . - � - --- - - -- - - � - - - � -- i ; _�u� � � - � �� __ - _ - -- --- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- , � - .�,� - -- , - -- -- -- . _ ��fi� .�i..✓2G��'i � � ?r� ��:..;:%.�`�''s'�l.c.. L ��.�` i ` - �L,. •2�_ . r � � � � r 4 I }, / J y., �tL .� Sr/v✓��'J"'J.`..ti L�. i. U� �-�lCf.' �� .7.K-�I k>_._f�. tic� � ''� G�.LCLtt r �L� ��j�`ic= , _f�� _r`•.��t'f 47i �,r� LYt'�L-�l ��1 i1X�1�?4 LL `feT.i• L�{�t-�'lt`y ' �` J `lt � _•� �2�Ci�� u� �e�.�� _,_ . _��L}e �i�{tP£�`�l �t.0 �LYri£l'ti / ^�.#?-.��t� ��.��l11`�'� == ,�,c� , d , i ��§,-It�-�c_ �.� d . , , a j l _. t�"��.�_ .�1�,=�1�=rr�.t�.zc��_• �c�Yh:�t_��n, E:�-z.Y�= --t�•�,�f'__,�.r.i =—=-�1 --��' ��? --- ; �'�xrz,�;�,k'�t��` e'_r��u-�r.��.n_�e-rL�;s>�_ .. /' � � . , - _ _, t �� / ,- ,��( �l� , _ .&(��"u'�� [!� CLE'� ��4'�'Y�d _1__f_� /��Y/i `r. ��I�-ftt�.4ti ° - ...��— ._ .. ,(�'1 -'� - � �fi�- Li-- ��t --t�tf'�d"C. 5i. - _ . __. _ �G2�L_L-I � ` � ,t � � `Z�y�� t�C`1't'.�2t�.-� ---� $ `,,� � { '��`�, --- ----._ � _ _'�_� �3--. 1�_�'i;Q'��-"_a.__ T?"�--=��1� �..t ��'-1. __1��'i_��—.___ __ ; � - ; -f N �� ° - '��-� i G� c�„ °��r n_. � , � �,.tj • - - -- - — -- -� -��--- -== ` ��=�-�a=' �°�=- --- - ------- -- -- - a_.<._: , • - , � _ `�t�_y2i�:1�s�� •�L.��tcs;�.��ra t� Ytic.� zc�.L- ico� ��r�t��r`-kuL� - -�.��:I'_. I..;�'�'�'_� ��_� _��-�n �f"_:-�� . ; ; � `� r j J . -- -sK _��15��ia.�L.. :_%? uu_a#.,`�a .L -s�t'Ct`f= .f�.�.. !ibi.+s � c.�,'�&�+:.LC�€ la'z'Jf-�'/'.✓S ,. �. • • --:�� --- �� zr� � ----- _ - - - - - -� ------ ------------__ , �,J� .� � __ _ . . . ..........__-__icc..ld.l�_�`'7�F �!'�' - r� t , y s - , / , }, . // f �. / +'� Y / r i � � fy p / j/ y 4� .. _.._____. _ .____ __ _y_/� 'LX___�f_ 1'1'� _. . _3. .Ft�' �.�.�'LhJ _ ....._ I . , �_ : p — _ ` ,,� jt ,�� / { - - - � - � -- -�-,_��t:l _ �YlaG.:Lk�.r . _C''.�_ �!�'�=L:- t.s�J'j _ fl��- _:�t.:_�� L�ib_ � _ _ - -� - - -- �� / -- � p .1-r�-�t! _cJ _ �'r� . ..�'� �`��v�. : - � � � �l�J_ " ` t.'"c ,' . t L _ tC�'c�� ( _ _ _ _ - y , J ? � �� 1.i-4`-� T��' w�HY±�'Ni�L�:$ 3 .��L 4 �c . ��i�`?..h' ' y� 1/ �_'! _ ' , t • � �{ �..^ / �� _ �� ( _��4s'ie�:,''D'1 %'Pj.-�.7t?�- � ��f�?a�.. i `��l./ LLCi..r.._t!�.C�LL!Pi Y�,C1Jl.,�!.$�-;I) ;F'Ljc.�_ .. . . ;" a f �' / � ,o . ._(lr-�`��t�C�11�1 " �jl..!}�L.�<.'�: �!i.CLt. _ i_:.f�. `�-`I � i�4-'i�� y 2:.`'3"j ��L ,�'ti,��!� � I ,,j ,� � �� - - �� bt_ , 1�-'�GC1�-�, _�i-�E.`=ef` r_ L�.� z$ .��'(�1.Llt 3a,C1� _'�`�,t"�C4.. ___ _ j( J � �"' ✓ � -- - - '�(.T�L�a�9.__�'1A.%� v� €`Cts1�G '�iL�',C_.t'��''� .I�.K�"�'�'`��.�te"Cs`,I�L'�C -- -- f ,�,�� ,; '' .- . �} �� y � „ •,,f -. - - ----"'�' ;7 �"tit.1e &'�s �_�C� �'�+=�LLi:��f'i�t:,c�-��l�tzct'-¢a�.:—�� --- - - , � , ` `��.`a � . , . � �s��,�`r1-�-�'r.�.� . ��.�; u"rc �41 '�.Yc.."i� f,�.'�c'� �� L' r'r , .�.'yi �_ _i.L�r.�� .t��i�. Z£riL%� ----- . . -.� �., :. , __--_.. �,._tr- £ �%�::L._—. 6 �;✓�Y6LuC:op_�1�� l.i. .-i-.L�..%l �1Z"i.=� i.: � ____..._—__.-___- '—" _' '__ - _ .�}� ;t ��`��f � � __ _ _ .. . _ . �Y'� il.."L w3 4�-� i� �?i �� y - _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . ___.. �( �, t t s' ` I � �1 ->„ ', v; . .� 'f z j3(, L_ F�.'Cd`� �� - ::.Y _[-,f ksf�" - _ ,i.;'� ,.t ��? .� t�, . � .�� t� I3� " ti. �, - s v._ - �•�'=z } r ; s,. -- ��`' „�Gi-C. -�i�Zl. L{r. �'.�: L_=:.j <,;im�. I��::t��<�`�'4J i�:}'�-< -. _._ . <<� +i / .� � j, ( �� , �� , �� ,. _ �- , r s D� a �P� , � 7U . � �-��-y?'}--- - � - , � f �."� :" , � - . ' � �_ .... .. ( � ' � � a � � � � � s- � `k � � � f � � � �-� � -; �r �� - �; ff ,� � n� 0 ��i � ��` x �"z � Iw � I pp � � � � � � � � � a � � �m O 8 � � � �1 � � �� _ _ � �N�� A �RIO i � � � � I �3� ozm� o d , I � �� c> [ ��a�:w'<i n c � N � � � " N �' J C � O � � O n � � � -� C � c�� I �� y� N�� =' :N=� �C1 uny�a aTZ �N �Uln'l 'i� W u CCC O Z�- v � N � � 3 " Z � � 05-��b � b5 a�� ' ,' � i , �� i� / � � i � r i � �w, / rwn /� �� j�� I i , , � - n m � i� t� � C 5 ;� � ;��',,-;� � 0 ' ! ��' 0 �� ,,�,�., � ii , � y§ �� -�- az� n � € � �, o _, , ! Kkr,�H€M � � "(�� 3 z 3 �� oR'eH- � i � � �j�ndev.- i � ' � — � �,�. � � �, � – , � �' J '_\ � �';� �i � i tl � � � I,� � � ��_ ii � '-� � �� I p.PNiti,S !°1 V �� (:� I 12mm l�J j i Rwo�moRj, � � '�''�'''•�f,° ' �L�v1n75 amm iz s�u hia.s.amy c�.� �. ,.M. ,<«. f Y �,: �� O - �_j Rno�rrre�, . ' � . `s � i. . 1' J �k � �' ` + L i � A • � � j � ) � V _ .. � ._ ..H.....�,... "�' .-.__C.,�::....c+a.« ..,-�-. _ ....._ ._�_ ,.... .r. - .,- � _ . ..... , � � > �_ernS�^��+`(✓ -.. ...0 ' "F i^ I .-F�- t-. ��F� ��1� � �L .,J � �'z �u.. � � � � .. . �. . � � r �` � .. - y n � _ � , ..: z. ' '::�.�� . �. � �`' �,� . �� i� �� _ �5-a�� l/Lj \�. 1 t t � lx � ,�_ �� .a s, ( h� � � �" -; .., �. _ ;�,as d� �� — w r : � c• �� v � ��4+ ?=� , :zC Y � C _ �[.' '� _ � . �;e � �. �, � 6'� Y� t^ i' `a >. • /�' � os a� . ��1 � •� � /`. � � �� 1� • �.s,.: �.>. {�E£: f��r.—T�' �`-'..� � US�� ,�. �_ � � r �. � � <-� � �. :�1 � � ,� ��`�� l � � ,.� �„ _:: �,� • � � . �� ' ��. �.. �5:1:4:. � �� - � �; x . + �� '= �� = >� � ��.�� ' .. _„ `��.;;: w „ R :. - �� :'�' , �� " �: �� .'' � - s `..`:'" �". g � y '�� ) £r x�Se �� s � �� ., .: �.a"'t . ` .: � � 4` � . g`�- fl5 �r , �" {- � '� ; �: � � � � r�, � .> � ;; ,.. � r ,� s -„ ' - �� , � t� � �«,�_ _�. �'�"' ��_. : `�, ;�. � �{ �-� �` .; � — - u �� : ., � � : �. ; �. �. ';.� e .� � :� �- .� �, , `�� >° ; � �'� �,� -� �. � �?��- �� < � �. , � __ _ �'�°�� °� �� : xi h e � � Y � � � � @ � '�" .ii± k b� � ... } �, a .� , �,-� �t "' �` > #�i°' '+..a ��y� Fa.' e� � � � �.` > � � �__ � ° s%r � �' .v.. a > . � � � �,.: z '" � � �� . � � _ , . . _ : ,>� . �� < `� ° � 1► . � Page 1 of 1 John Hardwick -12esci�edule appearance at meeting -- — �� Prom: Ta: Date: joe rossi <rossiGteq.nev John Harciwick <john.hardwick@cistpauLm�.ns> 7l13(2004 934 AM Subjecf: ReschechtIe appearance at meetin� Good moming, 3ohn, I am requesting that my hnshand, 7oe and I would bz ahle to reschedule our July 14th appearance at thc City Council meeting. We have not yet been able to complete The survey and neeotiations with our neighbors to our east which we feei aze necessary to be prepared for the meetin�. We would like to aCend the meeting on Monday, Sept. 13th 2004 due to The following: July 29 - Aug. 8 we wili be in Bemidji caring for Joe's Dad {who has Altziemers & lives at home) whiie Joe's Mom goes on a vacation. Au�.4 - 31 Ioe wifl be in Athens photographing tLe 0lympics for the S:. Paul paper. We wi11 give our neigh6ors copies of this email to notify them of the schedule changes. I understand ihat you wi12 also be mailing ihera cards of notification. T1�ank You, Judy Rossi 1899 Sargeni Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 651-698-1333 jrossi cr tcq net �4 i . `_J file:ilC:\Documents%20ard°io20Settings�hardwicj'.Loaat%20Set�ngslTe�n�G��%} OJDO�.HZ,. 71I3�`200? PROPERTY W iTHl�i � GO FEET OF PARTIAL: 1899 SARGENT AVENUE - - - - -- - --- - --- - - PR(NCETON �— � �° f��=� � , I� � '� m r r �- �.� s: � � , � r � � w � � � � : � . . . Ds -au� � � • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I i. 12. 13. i4. 15. ?6. ?7. SUNR ,Y-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD H.4ZEL PARK FIADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST WEST �IDE DAYT JN'S BLUFF PAYNE-PHALEN NORT�� EN➢ TfIOMAS-DALE SUMNiZT-UIVIVERSITY WEST SEVE.NTfI COMC HAlv�LINE-MIDWAY S'F. Ai�"THONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE•SNELLING HAi�2LINE MACAI.ESTER GROVEZ.A_Nfl HIGIII..AND SUMh�ZT HILL �� • DOWI��'i'��i � �� `�'��?�J`�� CdTIZEN PAI.TICIPAiTOiv PI.ATTNING DISTRICI'S r�5 a�� CITY OF S�L�T PAUL Deadiine for Action: 09-03-04 BOARD OF ZONIlVG APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE �IUN][B�R: #Q4-112170 DATE September 13, 2004 WHEREAS, 3oseph S. Rossi has applied for a variance from the strict applicarion of the provisions of Secrion 66.231 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code pertainzng to the zequired east side yard setback of a house addition in the R-3 zoning district at 1899 Sargent Avenue; and �h�I the Saint Paul Boazd of Zon3ng Appeals conducted a public hearing on September 13, 2004 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Secrion 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be pzst to a reasonable use uncter the stricf provisions of the code. � The applicants have lived in this house for about twenty years and would like to continue living here into their senior years. The house has no bedrooms or bathroom on the first floor. This makes it difficult when the elderly or disabled visiY and eventually will make it impossible for the applicants to continue living here. The proposed addition will provide a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor as well as expand the livina oom. This is a reasonable request that would make the house more livable and accessible. However, the location af the house on the site and the room arrangement within the house prevent accomplishing this goal under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, ttnd these circu�nstances were �zot created by the Zand owner. The room arrangement makes it impractical to buiid the addition on the back of The house and the location of the house on the lot makes it impossible to construct a fiznctional addition without a variance. These are cireumstances that were not created by the applicants. 3. The propased variance is in keepzng with Zhe spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of 3t. Pau1. • PaLe 1 oi 3 �` ��-a�� tre �oa-i la��a Resolutian � This house was built in 1923 and was not designed to be compatible with persons of limitad mobility. The proposed modifications will update the house. Renovation and improvement of e�sting housing stock are consistent with the gaals of the Comprehensive Plan and in keeping with the spirit and intettt of the code. The requested variance will not affect the health or safety of area residents. 4. The proposed vanance will not impair an acleqzsate sz�pply of tight and air to adJacent property, nor will it alier the essential characler of the szzrraunding czrea oi- unreasonably diminish establishecl property vatues within the surrounding area. The proposed single story addition with a three-foot side yard setback wi11 not signi$canfly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Although the current code requtres a six-foot side yard setback in this district, when the homes in this area were built a£our-foot setback was required. Many of the homes have nonconforming side yard setbacks and many of the homes have similar additions on the side of the house. Provided that the addition is finished to match the finish on the rest of the house, the requested variance will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an . zdverse impaci an surrounding property values. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any zese that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change ths zoning district classifzcation of the property. The proposed variance, if iT is granTed, would not change or alTer the zoning classification of the property. 5. The reyuesl for variance is not based prim¢rily on a desire to increase the value or- income potentia7 of the parcel of land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 66.23 i aze hereby waived to allow a setback of 3 feet for a house addition, in order fo build on properly located at 1899 Sargent Avenue; The variance is suhject to the condition that th2 additdon is, finished to match tlze ftnish on the rest of the house. The property is legally described as Berryhill Place E 3o Ft Of Lot 23 Aud W 2o Ft Of Lot 24 Blk 1; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. Psge 2 0; 3 • �� as-a�� File #04-ll2170 • Resolution MOVED BY : Bogen SECONDED BY: w�son IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: i MAiLED: September 15, 20004 TdME LIMITc No decision of the aoning or planning administrator, planning commission, board of zoning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) years, unless a building permit is obtained within such period and the erection or alteration of a building is proceeding under the terms of the decision, or the use is established within such period by actual operation pursuant to the applicable condiflons and requirements of tLe approval, unless the zoning or planning administrator grants an extension not to exceed • one (1) year. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on September 13, 2004 and on record in the Office of License Inspeefion and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS • Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board � �� Page 3 of 3 CouncIl File # QS" �� Green Sheet # U� � RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY REFERRED TO OF SAINT PAUL, MIlVNESOTA 23 CO�iIITTEE: DATE i WHEREAS, adverse acrion was initiated against all licenses held by M. Reaney, Inc. z d/b/a Reaney's Bar (License ID#0016230) for the premises located at 870 Payne Avenue in a Saint Paul by Notice of Violation dated October 15, 2004 alleging a sale of alcohol to an 4 intoxicated person on May 21, 2004 and a sale of alcohol to an underage person on August 4, s 2004; and s o WHEREAS, while those matters were scheduled to be heazd by an Administrative Law Judge s a Notice of Violarion dated December 17, 2004 was sent alleging a violation of failure to take s reasonable steps to prevent alcohol from leaving the premises; and io u iz 13 14 is is i� is is zo WHEREAS, the Licensee elected to have the matters combined and heazd together, and the matters were heard before Administrative Law Judge Allan Klein on January 7 and January2l, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Report ofthe ALJ issued on Februai•y 16, 2005 found that the violarions had occurred and that adverse action against the licenses was appropriate; and WHEREAS, each of the violations before the City Council in this matter are ones that aze contained on the presuxnptive penalty matrix contained in Saint Paul Legisiative Code §409.26; and z i WHEREAS, Licensee has had two prior appearances in front ofthe City Council for adverse zz actions in the last fifteen months, the first being a$500 fine on December 17, 2003 far failure to zs maintain order and sobriety and the second being a December 15, 2004 resolution imposing a$1,500 z4 fine and a thiriy day suspension, with fifteen of the days stayed for a period of eighteen months on zs the condition that there be no further violations for a December 20, 2003 sale of alcohol to an zs obviously intoxicated person and a July 21, 2004 sale of alcohol to underage persons, both matrix za penalties; and zs zs WHEREAS, Licensee spoke at the hearing to continue his denial that the incidents had so happened and to blame his problems on the police hazassing him, and failed to accept responsibility ai for the actions of his employees; and 32 aa WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are substanrial and compelling reasons to s4 impose a significantpenalty onthe Licensee due to the number and seriousness ofviolations, the fact as that trris is the third adverse action before the Council in a relatively short period of time, that the as violations in this matter are the same type ofviolations as in the prior adverse action, that one of the a� violations occurred between the rime of the last ALJ hearing and the time Licensee appeared in front as of the City Council on the previous Report, and the unlikelihood that the management of the as establishment will change theirpractices due to the Licensee's failure to accept responsibility for any 40 of the violations and instead to biame his problems on the police; now, therefore be it i RESOLVED, that all licenses held by M. Reaney, Inc. d/b/a Reaney's Bar (License ID °�� z #0016230) for the premises located at 870 Payne Avenue in Saint Paul aze hereby suspended for a a period of 180 days, and a fine of $2,000 is imposed. Ninety ofthe days of suspension shail be stayed 4 for a period of 18 months on the conditions that 1) there be no furthez violations in that period of s time; and 2) that the $2,000 fine be paid within thirry days of the passage and approval of ttris s resolution. The 90-day suspension ofthe licenses shall begin at 12:01 a.m. on the third Wednesday v following adoption of this Resolution, and shall continue through unri111:59 p.m. on the 90� day s following. s io F'CJRTHER RESOLVED, that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and i i Recommendarion of the ALJ in this matter aze hereby adopted as the Findings and Conclusions of i2 the City Council in this matter. 13 i4 A copy of this resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to the Administrative is Law Judge and to the license holder. is Date ��Oj� � �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Depar6nenUoffiee/eountil: Date Infiated: � • �� LP — License/InspectiodEnvironProt o9-�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025652 CoMaci Person & Phone: Vrginia Palmer 26G8710 Must Be on Council qgen 0 ic n n b nvi n Pr 1 icense/Ins eMion/EnvironPro De artme tDirector 2 i Att rn 3 acor•s Once Ma or)Assistant 4 L'��nc 1 - -- 5� i lerk CiN lerk � Auign Number For Routing Order ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature) . Action Requested: Approval of the attached resolurion memoralizing adverse action taken against all licenses held by M. Reaney, Inc. d/b/a Reane}�s Baz (License ID#0016230) for the premises located at 870 Payne Avenue in Saint Paul. idations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following �. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this Qerson/firtn ever 6ee� a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): A Public Hearing was held to discuss the Admuiistrative I.aw 7udge's Findings of Fact, Conclusion of I.aw and Recommendations from the Administrative Aearings held on 7anuary 7, 2005 and January 21, 20Q5. AdvanWpes If Approved: Memorialize Council acrion taken as a result of the Administrative Law Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendarions. DisadvanWges If Approved: None � V�`�.m� . � j �E � MAR 1 0 2005 Disadvantages If Not ApProved: 'otal Amount of 7rensaction: Pondinst Source; Fi nancial Information: (Explain) �'t��'�, ��; CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activiry Number: °(�g�� ?CCEI v�f@t2( . I,i.,` � ��,�4� February 16, 2005 7ELEPtiONE: (612} 341-7600 TTY: (612) 341-7346 i f ' ��.• ''W ,!—, _ , i e� �� — - Ch-ay�. Don Luna, City Cierk , � - - . - __ _, ; ,, 170 Ciry Hali �E� �� _ , ; � ,.�,_. , �s west Kenogg Bi�a. ��y �TTC)Fi�� St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: In the Matter of Ail Licenses Held by M. Reaney, Inc. d/b/a Reaney's Bar for the Premises Located at 870 Payne Avenue in St. Paui; License ID No. 0016230; � OAH Docket No. 6-6020-16286-3 Dear Mr. Luna: Enciosed herewith and served upon you by mail is the Administrative Law Judge's Findings of Fact, Conciusions and Recommendation in the above-entitfed mafter. Also enclosed is the official record, with the exception of the tape recording of fhe hearing. If you would like a copy of those tapes, please confact our office in wrifing� or telephone 341-7448. Our file in this matter is now being closed. STATE OF MINNiESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2138 Sincerely, _ .�_.. _ _�_ ___� � �e�.Rr . .»� ��. . �� _, _ _ �_ _ _ _.�,._ ALLAN W. KLEIN Administrative taw Judge Telep hone: 612/341-7609 AWK:cr Encl. cc: �rginia D. Palmer Melvin Reaney Providing Impartial Hearings for Govemment and Citizens An Equai Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Division & Administrative Services Workers' Compensation Hearings Division Workers' Compensation Settlement Division Facsimile: (672) 349-2665 Facsimile: (672) 349-2691 FacsimDe: (612) 3494634 �j'�� 6-6020-16286-3 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINfSTRATIVE HEAR{NGS FOR THE GOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL ln the Matter of all Licenses Held by M. Reaney, inc. d/b/a Reaney's Bar for the Premises Located at 870 Payne Avenue in St. Paul; License ID No. 0016230 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIdN A hearing in this matter was held on January 7, 2005, at the St. Paul Cify Hall before Allan W Klein, Administrative Law Judge. After some tesfimony was taken, the hearing was reset untiV .tanuary 21, in order to obtain tesfimony of an additional witness. Appearing on behalf of the Office ofi License, Inspections and Environmental Protection for the Ciry of St. Paul (hereinafter "LIEP") was Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Sf. Paul, MN 55102. Appearing on behaif of M. Reaney, Inc. d/b/a Reaney's Bar (hereinafter "Reaney's") was Melvin Reaney, 1752 Bush Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55106. The record in fhis matter ciosed on .lanuary 21, at the conclusion of tfie hearing. NOTiCE _This_report is a recommendation, nof.a.final decision._.The St.-Paul City,-��:�,�-,--�.��_ Council will make the final decision after a review of the record. The Cify Councii _ . , .. _:_, may adopt, reject or modify the Findings " of Fact, ' Conclusions, and "" �`"�' ' Recommendation herein. Under Section 310.05(c-1) of the City's Legisiative Code, the City Council will provide Reaney's an opportunity to present oral or written argument to it before it takes final action. Reaney's should contact the St. Pau1 City Cferk to learn the procedure for presenting argument to the council. "STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. On May 21, 2004, did Reaney's sell alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person in violation of Minn. Stat. § 340A.502? 2. On August 4, 2004, did Reaney's permit an underage person to drink a(coholic beverages in violation of Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 1(a)(1�? Did Reaney's sell alcoholic beverages fo an underage person in violation of Minn. Staf. § 340A.503, subd. 2(1)? � o5-a� 7 3. On December 5, 2004, did Reaney's violate Ch. 409.08 (15) of the City's Legisfative Code when a customer walked ouf of the bar carrying a can of beer, took a sip of the beer, and then went back inside the bar? Based upon all of fhe proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Reaney's Bar is located at 870 Payne Avenue, at the corner of Payne and Wells Street, on the east side of St. Paul. 2. The corporation M. Reaney, Inc. holds a number of licenses from the city, including an on-sale liquor license, an on-sale Sunday liquor license, an off- sale mait liquor license and a Class C restaurant license. 3. On May 21, 2004, St. Paul Police Officers Michael Dunaski and Joe Reginek were dispatched to Reaney's Bar because an individual had telephoned the police department indicating that her boyfriend had taken her truck without permission and had gone to Reaney's, where he was drinking. She was afraid that he would become intoxicated and attempt to drive the truck and she did not want that to happen.' 4. Officers Dunasky and Reginek ran a license check on the boy(riend (James Roscoe Crittenden) and discovered that his driver's license had been revoked. They also viewed his photograph. They entered the bar, and saw oniy one person who resembled the photograph. The individual was sitting at the bar, conversing with the bartender. The o�cers approached them, and asked the individual his name. He replied: "Eugene.n Offcer Reginek then asked the bartender (Eleanor Johnson) whether she knew a James Crittenden. She looked toward "Eugene'.and repiied "no:;..0ificer Dunasky.#hen tumed to Crittenden and____v��„ z -.�,_�. asked to see his ID. Crittenden responded belligerently, and Officer Dunasky "assisted him off the barstool° and wafked him toward the door. Crrttenden pufled °` " away from him, and Officer Dunasky and Reginek both walked him toward the door. Officer Dunasky removed his waflet and keys, and found a Minnesota identification for Eugene Crittenden. Officer Dunasky then asked the individual whether or not he was James Crittenden, and the individua! reptied that he was, and that the ID belonged to his brother. Crittenden appeared infoxicated, and admitted that he had drunk "several beers" since entering the bar. O�cer Dunasky locked the truck keys in the truck, and notified the complainant. He and Officer Reginek then took Crittenden to Detox, where he blew a.174 on the PBT. They gave him a ticket for driving after revocation and giving false informafion, and released him to the Detox staff. They prepared an offense/incident report, which was reviewed by LIEP staff and the County Attorney's office, resulting in ' Ex. 2. 2 05-a�1 � the issuance of a tag to Reaney's for providing alcoholic beverages to an obviously infoxicafed person. 5. On the night of August 4, 2004, Officer Jason Brubaker was among a group of eight officers who pertormed a"premise check° at Reaney's Bar. Thaf night the group inspected three bars, as well as the Dorothy Day area, looking for illegal activity. As he entered Reaney's, Brubaker observed a man and woman sitting side by side on the westem end ofi the bar. The man looked at fhe officers coming through the door, and pushed away a glass of beer which was sitting in front of him. Brubaker also noticed that the man had been talking with fhe woman, buf when he saw the officers, he turned away from the woman and looked aE the wall and the floor. Brubaker thought he looked young, and so he approached the man and asked him how old he was. The man repiied that he was 20 years old. Brubaker then asked the man if he had been drinking, and he said "yes" Brubaker asked to see his ID, and it confirmed that he was Jason Ratney and that he was 20 years old. Brubaker asked him if he knew that if was illegal to drink at his age, and the man replied that he did know that. Brubaker issued him a citation for underage consumption. Brubaker than spoke to the bartender, Jerry Jolly. Brubaker asked Jolly if he had checked the man's ID, and Joily replied that he had not, but that he had seen him in the bar before. Brubacker asked Joliy why he had served him alcohol, and Jolly replied that he thought he had lD'd him before, and that he was 21 years of age. 6. At the hearing, Jerry Jolly testified that the female was a regular customer, and he served her gin with beer in a glass, buf that he never served the man anything. Based upon all of the circumstances and the fesfimony of Officer Brubaker, the Administrative Law Judge does not find Jolly's testimony to be credible. 7. After review by LIEP and the City Attorney's Office, Reaney's was cited for permitting a person under the age of'21'years'to�drink`aicotiol on fhe"�'`""�'"�°" ""'°""'' premises and for selling alcohoiic beverages to a person under 21 years of age. _.. ._ 8. On December 5, 2004, Joe Larsin, a bartender at Reaney's, called for police assistance because two persons refused to leave the bar after he told - them to leave. As soon as they saw that he was serious about calling the police, they stepped outside the bar. Larsin then called the police and fold them that they didn't have to come. By that time, however, Officers Reginek and Dunasky were responding to the initial call. Even though they got a second ca{I from their dispatcher, indicating that they were no longer needed, they did confinue on to Reaney's, and as they pulled up outside the bar, they noticed two people sfanding outside the bar. While they were talking with those two, a third customer who was still in the bar (and not associated with the other two) saw the pofice car and stepped outside to see what was happening. Ne looked at the situation for a few seconds, took a sip of beer out of his can, and then went back inside. He was outside for less than 15 seconds. But O�cer Dunasky saw him with the can of beer and saw him take a sip from it. Officer Dunasky recognized 3 0 5-a �d7 him as a regular in the area (his name was Femando Anderson) and remembered that he had issued a ticket fo Anderson previous{y. He followed Anderson into the bar; and asked him why he had gone outside. Anderson replied that he just wanted to see what was going on. Dunasky sme{led a strong odor of beer on his breath and took Anderson to the squad car, issuing him a cifation for consuming iilegal beverages in public. In his report of fhe incidenf Dunasky noted that the bartender working at Reaney's af the time was "Joe" (later identified as Joe Larsin) and that it did not appear that any other staff were working, nor were there any bouncers present. Neither Dunasky nor Reginek spoke with Larsin about the incident. Larsin acknowledged thaf fhere were 15 to 20 people present, and that he was working alone thaf night. There were no bouncers at the door. After LIEP and the City Attorney's Office reviewed the police report of Anderson's citation, they decided to issue a citation to Reaney's for permitting a person to leave the bar with an alcoholic beverage. 9. On October 15, 2004, the City Attorney's Office sent Reaney's a Notice of Violation relating to the two incidents on May 21 and August 4. The notice indicated that LIEP would be recommending a 30-day suspension of Reaney's licenses, with 15 04 the days stayed for a period of 18 months, on the condition that Reaney's pay a$2,000 fine and have no further violations. 10. On Ocfober 25, 2004, Melvin Reaney requested a hearing on both incidents. 11. On November 97, 2004, the Cify Attorney's Office issued a Notice of Administrative Hearing on fhe first two violations, setting a hearing for November 30, 2004. The hearing was not held on that date but was confinued. 12. On December 17, 2004, the City Attorney's Office issued a Notice of �ofation with regard to the December 5 incident. The notice indicated that ifi - Reaney's desired a hearing on this alleged violation,- it could be combined with -- -- --� W°�° the eariier ones 5 13. On December 23, 2004, Melvin Reaney requested a hearing on the violation, and requested that it be combined with the two earlier violations. 14. On December 14, 2004, the City Attorney's Office had issued a Notice of Administrative Hearing, setting it for January 7. The hearing did go forward on that date, but it was recessed until January 21 in order to allow Reaney's to subpoena a witness. The hearing concluded on January 21. 2 Ex. 6. ' Ex. 4. ° Ex. 5. 5 Ex. 7. 6 EX. 8. � os a�� Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the foilowing: CONCLUSIONS 1, The City Council of the City of St. Paul and fhe Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.55 and § 310.05 of the City's Legislative Code. 2. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has fulfilled all relevant subsfantive and procedura{ requirements of law or rule. 3. Minn. Stat. § 340A.502 provides that no person may sell alcoholic beverages for the use of an obviously intoxicated person. On May 21, 2004, Reaney's did sell an alcoholic beverage to James Crittenden when he was obviously intoxicafed. See, Memorandum. 4. Minn. Stat.. § 340A.503, subd. 1(a) makes it unlawful for a licensee to permit any person under the age of 21 years to drink aicoholic beverages on the ficensed premises. Section 340A.503, subd. 2 makes it uniawfui for any person to sell or give alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age. On August 4, 2004, Reaney's did provide an alcoholic beverage to Jason Ratney, who was then 20 years of age. Although he was carrying his brother's identification which indicated that he was at least 21 years of age, the bartender on dufy at the time did not ask to see that identification, and Ratney did not show it to him. � 5. Chapter 409.08 (15) of the City's Legislative Code requires a , license to take "reasonable and adequate steps" to prevent persons from leaving the premises with an alcoholic beverage. Reaney's did violate this request on December 5, 2004, when Fernando Anderson stepped out of the bar carrying a.., M -,�� .___r.. can of beer obsenred the police activity for several seconds, and then returned to the bar. Based upon the foregoing Gonclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION iT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: That the City Council take adverse action against the licenses held by M. Reaney, Inc. d/b/a Reaney's Bar. Dated this 16 day of February 20 . 1 ( `..�C-Y.t�.... ALLAN W. KLEIN Administrative Law Judge 5 �s-a�� MEMORANDUM Wifh respect to the first incident involving serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, the evidence demonstrafes that Crittenden had been at fhe bar for approximately four hours, and he admitted fo drinking "severa! beers" during that period. Officers Dunasky and Reginek decided that he was too intoxicated to care for himseif, and certainly too intoxicated to drive a motos vehicle, and so they fook him to Detox. Although he only blew a.174 when fested at Detox, it is more likely than not that he was intoxicated when served his last beer at Reaney's. Therefore, fhe citation is upheld. The second violation, relating to sale to a minor, is a matter of credibility. The po4ice report provides a detailed description of Jason Ratney's conduct and his admissions that he had been drinking and that he knew it was illegal for him to have been drinking. Although the bartender on duty at the time claims that he did not serve Ratney, the Administrative Law Judge finds the evidence supporting the violation to be more credible. 'The December 5 violation involving Fernando Anderson stepping outside with a can of beer in his hand, taking a sip, and then going back inside, is a situation where so little time elapsed that a citation seems unduly harsh. Anderson stepped outside in order to see what the police were doing, and after spending less than 15 seconds, he went back inside. But the Code requires a license to take "reasonable and adequate steps" to prevent anyone from carrying an alcoholic beverage from the premises. There were 15 to 20 people in the bar, but only one bartender and no bouncers. Under those circumstances, Reaney's did not take reasonable and adequate steps to prevent the occurrence. A.W.K. as a� � OFFICE OF THE CIIY ATTORNEY Manue[J. Cervnntes, Cip'A¢orney CITY OF SAINT PAUL anrD�vrs,o� Raraty C. Kelly, May-or 400 Ciry Hal1 IS West Xettogg Btcd. Saint Pa�d, Nlinnesotn Si702 i February 17, 20Q5 NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING Mr. Melvin Reaney Reaney's Bar 870 Payne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: 651 2 66-871 0 Facsimite: 651 298-5619 RE: In the Matter of All Licenses held by M. Reaney, Inc., d/b/a Reaney's Bar (License ID#0016230) for the premises located at 870 Payne Avenue in SainY Paul OAH Docket No. 6-6020-16286-3 Dear Mr. Reaney: Please take norice that a hearing on the report of the Adminish Law Judge conceming the above-mentioned licenses has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint Paul City Hall and Ramsey County Courthouse. You have the opportunity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time dunng normal business hours. You may also present oral or written argument to the council at the Hearing. No new evidence will be received or testimony taken at this hearing. The Council will base its decision on the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and on the arguments made and exceptions filed, but may depart from the recommendations of such Judge as permitted by law in the exercise of its judgement and discretion. Sincerely, � ��Gv�.GC..� �J Cc��-v.s_� � Virginia D. Palmer Assistant City Attorney n �c��av �e;i�¢�P FE� � � �� cc: Diane Nordstrom, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Squarz, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Mary Erickson, Assistant Council Secretary, 310 City Hall Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP Mr. Melvin Reaney, 1752 Bush Avenue, St. Paul, NIN 55106 Ms. Leslie McMurray, Executive Director, Payne Phalen District > Planning Council 1014 Payne Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55101-3933 AA-ADA-EEO Employer Council File # o�- a� p Green Sheet # � �c%S / �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA E'RESENTED BY REE'EKRED TO CObL�'IITTEE: DATE i WHEREAS, adverse action was uutiated against the Saint Paul Provisional Taa�icab z Driver's License application subxnitted by Anastacio A. Martinez (License ID#20040000721) s for the City of Saint Paul by Notice of Intent to Deny Provisional Taxicab Driver License 4 Application dated March 3, 2005, for a felony conviction of Possession of a Firearm by an s Eligible Person; and s � s s io ii 12 13 14 is WHEREAS, the licensee did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny Provisional Ta�cicab Driver License Application to contest the conviction; and Z� WHEREAS, the Norice of Intent to Deny Provisional TaYicab Driver License Application stated that if the licensee failed to contest the denial by March 14, 2005 , that the matter would be placed on the consent agenda to impose the recommended penalty; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Provisional Tasicab Driver's License application submitted by Anastacio A. Martinez be denied. Requested by Department of: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: l Approved I�y�yor: Date BY � ��L••ry� ("r ' "lY`� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Mayor fo r By: Adopted by Council: Date �//�Jj��v%3,a?jJ�s � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sfieet Green Sheet Green Sfieet Green Sheet � DepartmenVoffice/wuncil: Datelnitiated: �—�� LP — Licrnse/Inspection/EnvironProt ,�.�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025744 CoMact Person ffi Phone: Rachel Gunderson 266-87'10 Must Be on Council qgenda by (Date): Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approvai of the attached resolution to take adverse acrion against the Saint Paul Provisional Taxicab Driver's License application submitted by Anastacio A. Martinez (License ID #20040000721) in Saint Paul. idations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, Wtten, Where, Wh�: Licensee was convicted for Felony Possession of a Firearm by an Ineligible Peson on November 13, 2001 in violation of St. Paul I egislative Code Section 376.16 (e)(4). AdvantapeslfApproved: Application denaed as recommended by the Office of I,IEP. Disadvanta9eslffWproved: None � ueoarcment sent�orerson mmauuate 0 c ns ns ectio nvi n ro A55ign 1 icenuRrts ecCwn/EnvironPru De artmentDireUnr Number ? � Att rn For Routing 3 a or's OSice Jia��orlAssist nt Ordef 4 uncil 5 iCitv Clerk Cirv Clerk 1. Has ffiis persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Disadvantages If Not Approved: 'oWl Amount of 7ransaetion: FundinA Source: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: # ESS°9.,L'3AP'°i- F°..,..q.,. ( Financial In#ormation: (Explain) if ��: OFFICE O IE CITY ATTOIL�iEY bf�nuel Z Cervnntes, Ciry A¢orney� OS - a�t� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rnndy C. Kellyt bfn}ror Civi7 Dicision 400 Ciry� Halt I S West Kelfogg Blvd. Sain� Pnu(, Minnesota 5510? Telephane: 65l 266-87I0 fncsimile: 651 2985 b7 9 March 3, 2005 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY PROVISIONAL TAXICAB DRIVER LICENSE APPLICATION Anastacio A. Martinez 893 Bun Street St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Application for a Saint Paul Provisional Taxicab Driver's License License ID # 20040000721 Deaz Mr. Martinez: The O�ffice of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection has recommended denial of the Provisional Tasicab Driver's license application you submitted. The basis for the recommendation is as follows: On November 13, 2001, you were convicted of Possession of a Firearm by an Ineligible Person, a felony, under an alias name of Justin Andrew Bye. Sentencing took place on April 1, 2002 and July 29, 2003, after an appeal was taken. Pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §3�6.16(e)(4) a person is ineligible for a taxicab driver's license if they have a felony conviction within the past five years. On September 26, 2003, Minneapolis police stopped a vehicle being driven by you and during a subsequent search of the vehicle found a large baggie of marijuana and a shotgun in the trunk. Pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §310.06(b)(10), adverse action, including denial of a license, can be taken against a person who shows by past conduct tbat such licensee is not a person of good moral character or fitness required to engage in the licensed activity or profession. The Office of LIEP believes that the possession of an illegal substance while driving is directly related to the occupation as a taxicab driver and that the presence of the shotgun in the trunk are evidence of lack of fitness to engage in the activity of a taxicab driver. AA-ADA-EEO Empioyer Anastacio A. Martinez March 3, 2005 �5-a4� Page 2 At this time you have two options on how to proceed: 1. If you do not dispute the above facts please send me a letter with a statement to that effect. The matter will then be scheduled for a hearing before the St. Paul City Councit to determine what penalty, if any, to impose. You will have an opportunity to appear and speak on your own behalf, or to have someone appear there for you. 2. If you do dispute the above facts, or �vish to present evidence that the conviction is not related to your license as a cabdriver, or that you have been rehabilitated pursuant to Minn. Stat. §364.01 et seq, a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At that hearing both you and the City will be able to appear and present witnesses, evidence and cross-examine the other's witnesses. The St. Paul City Council will ultimately decide the case. If this is your choice, please advise me by letter and my legal assistant, Julie Kraus, will take the necessary steps to schedule the administrative hearing. We wi11 then notify you of the time, date and place of the hearing. If you do not wish to challenge the denial, you can withdraw your application. If this is your choice, you should send the letter directly to the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, Room 300 Lowry Professional Building, 350 Saint Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102. The letter should be directed to Reid Soley If we have not heard from you by Monday, March 14, 2005 we wiil assume that you do not contest the facts and will schedule this matter for the St. Paul City Council and have it placed on the Consent Agenda during which no public discussion is allowed and your license application will be denied. Sincerely, �1 �� Virginia D. Palmer Assistant City Attorney cc: Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP Reid Soley, LIEP AA-ADA-EEO Employer � . .� STATE OF MII�NF_SOTA ) ) ss. AF'FIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) MEGHAN McGIVERN, being first duly swom, deposes and says that on March 3, 2405; she served the attached NOTICE OF INTEN'I' TO DENY PROVISIONAL TAXICAB DRIVER LICENSE APPLICATION by placing a true and correct copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Anastacio A. Martinez 893 Burr Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (which is the last known address of said person) depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the United 5tates mail at St. Paul, Minnesota. 1'1 �! 1,�, U. :� �.._ �� - - . Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of March, 2005. JULIE ANNE KRqUS N�Z�YPU6UC-MNJNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JpN.31, 2 010 CouncIl File # � � Green Sheet # 3� 57 � S RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA PRESENTED BY REFERAED TO i z 3 4 5 6 v s 9 io ii iz 13 14 is CO1VLrIITTEE- DA'FE 25 WHEREAS, adverse action was initiated against the Saint Paul Provisional Taxicab Driver's License application submitted by Vern L. Mudgett (License ID#20040004986) for the City of Saint Paul by Notice of Intent to Deny Provisional Tasicab Driver License Applicarion dated March 2, 2005, for a felony convictions of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Violation of the Controlled Substance Law, Fifth Degree; and WHEREAS, the licensee did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Deny Provisional Taacicab Driver License Application to contest the convic6ons; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Deny Provisional Taacicab Driver License Application stated that if the licensee failed to contest the denial by Mazch 14, 2005 , that the matter would be placed on the consent agenda to impose the recommended penalty; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Provisional T�icab Driver's License application submitted by Vern L. Mudgett be denied. Requested by Department of: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: _� Approved b��ior: Date l By : \ �?--A/��AM�R� � � �-- Form Approved by City Attorney Ey' Mayor for e By: Adopted by Council: Date ��/'/A/ (�i�-i,�%/Jj� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � AS _�c1A DepartrneM/oifice/council: � Date Initiated: �� a � � LP — License/Inspection/EnvironProt ,��-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025745 Contact Person & Phone• Deaartrnent Sent To Person Initial/Date Rachel Gunderson � 0 ic n n viron P 266-8710 /�jq 1 icense![ ecGon/Enviroa Pro D artmmt Director Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z � p rne For Routing 3 avor's Offce a or/ASSis nt I - O��je� 4 uncil 5 i Cierk �h� Clerk Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Adion Requested: Approval of the attached resolurion to take adverse action against the Saim Pau] Provisionai Taxicab Driver's License application submitted by Vem L. Mudgett (License ID#20040004986) in Saint Paul. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Foliowing Questions: Planning Commission � � 7. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contrad for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Licensee was convicted of a Felony Violation of the Controlled Substance Law, Fifth Degree on December 4, 2002 and a Felony Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle on January 28, 2003 in violation of Saint Paul Legislarive Code Secrion 376.16 (e)(4). . AdvantapesifApproved: Applicarion denial as recommended by the,Office of LIEP. Disadvantages IfApproved: None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: - � Total Amount of � � Transaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: , � FundinA Source: Activiry Number: }e ks`v'��. ri� .`��c�vQ?Yr. �'PC???f Financial Infortnation: (Explatn) MAR 7 � 2�05 OFFICE G. ,'HE CITY ATTORtiEY Mnn�re(J. Cen•nntes. CiryAttorney� 05-ay� CITY OF SAINT PAUL RanA}' G Ke[!y, bIn}'or Civi! Divisron 400 Ciq� Hnf[ I S Wes[ Kello�g Bh'd. Snint Pnv{ A(innesatn 5510? Telephone: 65/ 266-3710 Fncsimile: 65/ 39856l9 Mazch 2, 2005 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY PROVISIONAL TAXICAB DRIVER LICENSE APPLICATION Mr. Vem L. Mud�ett 661 Orange Avenue East St. Paul, MN 55106 RE: Application for a Saint Paul Provisional Tasicab Driver's License License ID # 20040004986 Dear Mr. Mudgett: The Office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection has recommended denial of the Provisional'3'axicab Driver's license application you submitted. The basis for the recommendation is as follows: On Jauuary 28, 2003 you were sentenced as a felony for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. On December 4, 2002, you were sentenced as a felony ou a Violation of the Controlled Substance Law, Fifth Degree. Pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §376.16(e)(4) a person is ineligible for a taxicab driver's license if they have a felony conviction within the past five years. At this time you have three options on how to proceed: If you do not wish to challen�e the denial, you can withdraw your application. If this is your choice, you should send the letter directly to the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, Room 300 Lowry Professional Building, 350 Saint Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102. The letter should be directed to Reid Soley. AA-ADA-EEO Employer Vem L. Mudgett Mazch 2, 2005 �'S � a�q Page 2 2. If you do not dispute the above facts please send me a letter with a statement to that effect. The matter will then be scheduled for a hearin� before the St. Paul City Council to deteanine what penalty, if any, to impose. You will have an opportunity to appear and speak on your own behalf, or to have someone appear there for you. If you do dispute the above facts, or wish to present evidence that the conviction is not related to your license as a cabdriver, or that you have been rehabilitated pursuant to Minn. Stat. §364.01 et seq, a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative La�v Jud�e. At that hearing both you and the City will be able to appear and present witnesses, evidence and cross-examine the other's witnesses. The St. Paul City Council will ultimately decide the case. If this is your choice, please advise me by letter and my legal assistant, Julie Kraus, will take the necessary steps to schedule the administrative hearing. We will then notify you of the time, date and place of the hearing. If we have not heard from you by Monday, March 14, 2005 we will assume that you do not contest the facts and will schedule this matter for the St. Paul City Council aad have it placed on the Consent Agenda during �vhich no public discussion is ailowed and your license application will be denied. Sincerely, �/ �� ✓L�;vxcc� l,cL(',Y.�, J Virginia D. Palmer Assistant City Attomey cc: Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP Reid Soley, LIEP AA-ADA-EEO Employer c�-a�� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL MEGHAN McGIVERN, being first duly swom, deposes and says that on March 3, 2005, she served the attached NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY PROVISIONAL TAXICAB DRIVER LICENSE APPLICATION by placing a true and conect copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Mr. Vern L. Mudgett 661 Orange Avenue East St. Paui, NAV 55106 (which is the last known address of said person) depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the United States mail at St. Paul, Minnesota. i � _� �•., r11� � .,.. ,. _ � - . Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of Mazch, 2005. � r ' ti1/V1� � �(�,'l,{i� otary Public �.�. JULIE ANNE KRAUS NOiARY PUBIfC -M4t�1ES0TA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAPt. 31, 2 01 6 Council File # (�,�'�(,�.! Green Sheet # �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA PIZESENTED BY REFExREn TO COMMITTEE: DATE i WHEREAS, adverse action was uuriated against the applicarion for a Saint Paul Taacicab z Driver's license submitted by Darrel W. Henton (License ID No #0058492) for the City of Saint s Paul by Notice of Denial of License Application dated October 12, 2004, alleging a felony 4 conviction for fifth degree possession of a controlled substance; and 5 s � s 9 io u 12 13 and WIIEREAS, the Notice was returned as "Attempted - Not Known Unable to Forward"; WHEREAS, the Office of License, Inspection and Environxnental Protection and the City Attorneys Office do not have any current address for the applicant; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the applicarion for a Saint Paul Tasicab Driver's license submitted by Darrel W. Henton be denied as recommended by the Office of LIEP. Requested by Department of: By: \�_i'}-�1i.wN-v�i � ��A/ Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adoption By: —� Approved By: _ � by Council Secretary D3te Mayor for Submi Adopted by Council: Date �/i//1,�3 �%O� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � 05-�5� DeparhnerNoffice/council: Date Inftiated: �p -I.;�„s�tio,,,En�� 03NOV-04 Green Sheet NO: 3024103 Contact Person 8 Phone: Virginia Patmer 26G8710 Must Be on Cour.cil Agenda Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) � DeparhneM SeM To Person 0 i a ' n/Em'i Assign 1 icenselln ection/Enviro Pro De artmentDirector Number 2 � ptto�ne F � r 3 a or' flice 1�iarodAssistant Routing Order 4 � 5 i Cierk Ciro lerk Action Requested: Approval of the attached resolution to take adverse actionagainst the applica6on for Saint Paul Taacicab Driver's License submitted by Darrel W. Henton (License ID#0058492) in Saint Paul. �dations: Approve (A) or Planning Commission Service Following Questions: C18 Committee Civil Service Commission Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Whn, What, When, Where, Why): A criminal history check shows a felony conviction for fifth degree possession of cocaine on November 6, 2003. St. Paul L,egislarive Code Section 37616(e)(4) prolubits the issuance of a license to an individual who has a felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance within five years of application. Advantasles lf Approved: License applicarion denied per recommendation of the Office of LIEP. Disadvantaaes If Approved: None 1. Has this person/firm ever vrorked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? - Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed tiy any current city employee? � � Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to 9reen sheei Disadvanta9es If Not Approved: License application approved against the recommendation of the Office of LIEP. Total Amount of Trensadion: FundinSt Source: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: 4s�ias.� Y'ir�`i��?n"y� f�n�$+.i� Fi nancial Infortnation: (Explain) ActiviN Number. '�' �; � f fi., OFFICE �. THE CITY ATTORNEY Mnnuel J. Cenvn�es. Ciry Anorney CITY OF SAINT PALTL Civi1 Division ', RnnAy G Ke!!y, bla}'o� 400 Ciry Nnl! '��, f 5 iVest Kellagg B[rA. �I Saint Pmd, hlianesom 55l02 October 12, 2004 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF LICENSE APPLICATION Mr. Darrel W. Henton 11010 Mississippi Boulevard #211 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 RE: Application for a Saint Paul Taxicab Driver's License License ID #0058492 Dear Mr. Henton: 05-� 7elephorse: 6.i! Z66-S710 Fnuimile: 65! 293-56l9 The Office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection has recommended denial of the taxicab driver's license application you submitted. The basis for the recommendation is as foliows: Your criminal history check shows a felony conviction for tifth degree possession of cocaine on November 6, 2003. Saittt Paul Legislative Code §376.16(e)(4) prohibits the issuance of a license to an individual who has a felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance within five years of application. At this time you have two options on how to proceed: If you do not dispute the above facts and do not wish to challenge the denial, you can withdraw your application for renewal of your license. If this is your choice, you should send the letter directly to the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, Room 300 Lowry Professional Building, 350 Saint Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102. The letter should be directed to Reid Soley no later than Friday, October 22, 2004. AA-ADA-EEO Employer Darrel W. Henton October 12, 2004 Page 2 05 -as� 2. If you do dispute the above facts, or wish to present evidence that the conviction is not related to your license as a cabdriver, or that you have been rehabilitated pursuant to Minn. Stat. §364.01 et seq, a hearing �vill be scheduled before an Administrative Law 7udge. At that hearing both you and the City will be able to appear and present witnesses, evidence and cross-examine the other's wimesses. The St. Paul City Council will ultimately decide the case. If this is your choice, please advise me by letter and my le�al assistant, Julie Kraus, will take the necessary steps to schedule the administrative hearin�. We will then notify you of the time, date and place of the hearin�. If we have not heard from you by Friday, October 22, 2004, we will assume that you do not contest the facts and will schedule this matter for the St. Paul City Council and have it placed on the Consent A�enda during which no public discussion is allowed and the recommended penalty of denial of your license application will be imposed. Sincerely, \ / } I I y �� (�. �/lCCC'v"' �_ Gc--�,-„�{� V Virginia D. Palmer Assistant City Attomey cc: Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP Reid Soley, LIEP AA-ADA-EEO Employer 05 -�`�C� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL COiJNTY OF RAMSEY ) MEGHAN McGIVERN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on October 13, 2004, she served the attached NOTICE OF DENIAL OF LICENSE APPLICATION by piacing a true and correct copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Mr. Darrel W. Aenton 11010 Mississippi Boulevard �#211 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (which is the last lrnown address of said person) depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the United States mail at St. Paul, Minnesota. 1��_�, .., �r_ ��i► �� - _• - Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of October, 2004. ----..� •}�� JCr�IiVNi G CLEMEM'S � NOTAR•I �(,•(il IC- MINNESOTA MYCOMMISSICN •«�: GX�lRcS SRH. 35.2CG5 (��J' o� ,,,,, � �1�J��x� -� , ..� , i:a:°. � • �¢ °Ed r�+�r (T� a� �;^� }y�;,� �;�i ,�zi o�� I � I i i � y �� 1 � �'' � � E � �� ¢;�.; i },�� ; � i �� , ii� i.��. 4p j < � _ '- a = _, o � j� ` _ N \ �� . � Z ro � 0 `s _'w_ o U o .,'^� s3' m 2 � x °�� a �� y 0 3 � Q � h � W Z P+ O � j � V W w F 0 '� U � � U o I N � 'n R y M y � M O � � � h �i , � � � � •^�" � y � a) � �. � � � Q O O � ° o � .-. U 7 � 3 n . � � a = � .. _ � � _ 7 .t = � �- �P 3 � _ ° �� '� = u,¢ �, - - O 3 � _ �L� _ LiCO N = 4iZii. �X - .+ O!6 ' � � _ � � ZI1iL1 N — . fYFJ 4'1 - c� ]eo n = U! FLCi S• _ R�t Lii:iX .'". {YF7 � _ �l. � � 4'� H � Y. :S Z Q � � � �� 0 o � � N 5� r� k�.� ,�� t�. � r � �° t: � O ,•`� � � f� � e � � , Council File # _�� GreenSheet# �J RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � PRESENTED BY REFERI2ED TO CONIbIITTEE: DATE 1 z WHEREAS, adverse acrion was initiated against the Taacicab Vehicle License held by s Mohamud M. Abdi, d/b/a Five Star Tasi (License ID#20040000109) in Saint Paul by Notice of 4 Revocation of Tasicab License dated March 1, 2005, alleging licensee allowed Commercial Auto s Liability insurance policy to lapse; and s 7 WHEREAS, the licensee did not respond to the Notice of Revocation of Taacicab Vehicle s License to contest the allegation or provide a valid copy of his Commercial Auto Liability s insurance policy; and io i i WHEREAS, the Notice of Revocation of Taacicab Vehicie License stated that if the iz licensee failed to submit the required documents by Mazch 1 l, 2005, that the matter would be is placed on the consent agenda to impose the recommended penalty; now, therefore, be it 14 is RESOLVED, that the Tasicab Vehicle License held by Mohamud M. Abdi, d/b/a Five is Staz Taxi is hereby revoked. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � 11�. � 1�Sf Departmentlofficelcouncil: Datelnitiatetl: VJ a�i LP — LicenseJlncpection/EnvironProt ,�-�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025743 ConWCt Person & Phone- DeoartmeM Sent To Person Initial/Date Rachel Guntlerson � 0 i n n.i n 266-8710 p�jgn 1 icense/Ins ection/EmironPro � De artmentDirector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Num6er 2 � p rne Por RoUting 3 a or's Office �ta odAssistant Ordef 4 un iI 5 � Cterk Ci Clerk Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Approval of the attached resolution to take adverse acrion against the Ta�cicab Vehicle License held by Mohamud M. Abdi, d/b/a Five Star Taxi (License ID #20040000109) in Saint Paul. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Foilowing Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civii Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a dry employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? � Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Wh»: Licensee allowed his Commercial Auto Liabiliry insurance policy to lapse in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code Chapter 376.06(g). AdvantageslfApproved: Revocarion of license as recommended by the Office of LIEP. DisadvantapeslfApproved: None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: ' Fundinp Source: Activity Number. �i�'�P,�3'�°�4 ��'�tQ� Financial Informati on: (Explain) �� 6 ��0� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORDIEY bfrtxuelJ.Ce s,CityAtmrney O� -a51 CITY OF SAINT PAUL RanAy' C Ketly, Ma}'or Civil Division 400 Ciry Hrs1E /5 Wue Ke(logg BlvA. Snint Paul, hfinnesola SSIO? Telephone: 651 266-87f 0 Fntsiniife: 651 293-56/9 Mazch 1, 2005 NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF TAXICAB VEHICLE LICENSE Mohamud M. Abdi Five Staz Taxi 6971 Washington Avenue South, Suite B Edina, MN 55439 RE: Taxicab Vehicle License held by Mohamud M. Abdi, d/b/a Five Star Taxi (License ID No. #20040000109) for the City of Saint Paul Dear Mr. Abdi: The Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) has recommended adverse action against the taxicab vehicle license held by Mohamud M. Abdi, d/b!a Five Star Taxi for the City of Saint. The basis for the recommendation is as follows: On February 14, 2005, Five Star Taxi received a letter from the Office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection stating that taxicab #301 would need to be taken out of service by 12:01 a.m. on February 22, 2005 if the Commercial Auto Liability insurance policy was allowed to lapse. According to the Office of LIEP records, the policy was allowed to lapse in violation of St. Paul Legislative Code Chapter 376.06 (g) which states "Any license issued under this chapter shall terminate whenever duriug the term of said license the owuer, lessee, licensee or operator of said taxicab shal( fail to keep in full force and effect such insurance or bond in the full amount hereinafter required." The recommendation is for immediate revocation of your license. At this time you have three options on ho�v to proceed: You can submit a valid copy of your Commercial Auto Liability insurance from the date of cancellation of the previous policy. Mohamud M Abdi March 1, 2005 05' a5' Page 2 2. If you do not dispute the above facts please send me a letter with a statement to that effect. The matter will then be scheduled for a hearin� before the St. Paui City Council to determine �vhat penalty, if any, to impose. You will have an opportunity to appear and speak on your own behalf, or to have someone appeaz there for you. The recommendation from the licensing office is for the immediate revocation of your license. 3. If you wish to dispute the above facts, I will schedule an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). If you wish to have such a hearing, please send me a letter no later than Priday, March 11, 2005, stating that you aze contesting the facts. You will then be sent a"Notice of Hearing," so you will know when and where to appear, and what the basis for the hearing will be. Please let me know in writing no later than Friday, March 11, 2005 on how you woald iike to proceed. If I have not heard from you by that date, I will assume that you are not contestiag the facts of the violation. The matter will then be scheduled for the St. Paul City Council and placed on the Consent Agenda during which no discussion is allowed and your license will be revoked. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 266-8710. Sincerely, �� Rachel Gunderson Assistant City Attorney cc: Mary Erickson, Assistant Council Secretary Christine Rozek, Deputy Director of LIEP Reid Soley, LIEP Rich Jents, LIEP Mr. Mohamud M. Abdi, 1318 Maynard Drive West, Suite 465, St. Paul, MN 55116 OS- �51 STAT`E OF NIINNESOTA ) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U.S. tVIAIL COLTNTY OF RAMSEY ) MEGIIAN McGIVERN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on Mazch 1, 2005, she served the attached NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF TAXICAB VEHICLE L.ICENSE by placing true and correct copies thereof in envelopes addressed as follows: Mohamud M. Abdi Five Star Taxi 6971 Washington Avenue South, Suite B Edina, MN 55439 Mr. Mohamud M. Abdi 1318 Maynard Drive West, Suite 465 St. Paul, MN 55116 (which are the last known addresses of said person) depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the United States mail at St. Paul, Minnesota. il - •� r,, i�.� �.�. , r� . Subscribed and swom to before me this lst day of March, 2005. ��.�i-� Public JULIE ANNE KRAUS �� NOTARY PUBt1C • MBJNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 39, 2 01 0 � ' Councii File # 5- a 52 Green Sheet # 3025446 RESOLUTION Presented By: O�SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �Q� LA Referred To: Committee: Date i WHEREAS, the Department of Fire and Safety Services is seeking a grant to replace the aging City of Saint z Paul Police and Fire mobile and portabie radios with 800 Mhz radios that are compatible with the Metropolitan a Radio System to help provide Saint Paui responders with the interoperabie radio capabilities directly supporting a supporting the homeland securiiy strategy, goals, and objectives of the Urban Area Security Initiative, and s WHEREAS, public safety officials from the City of Saint Paul have diligently worked with public safety � officials from Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota Counties, the City of Minneapolis, and the State of Minnesota s Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to identify and implement a metropolitan s area strategy for homeland security, and �o ii WHEREAS, the Federal Department of Homeland Security, acting through the State of Minnesota, is providing �2 funding necessary to build interoperable communications systems for public safety responders across the ia metropolitan area, especialiy equipment designed to operate on the 800 Mhz Metropolitan Radio System, and 14 is W HEREAS, upon receipt of this grant, the City is obiigated to appropriate the grant amount of $700,000.00, and is n NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to �a execute an application for the CiYy of Saint Paul's Department of Fire and Safety Services to apply for the is 2005 State Homeland Security Grant Program; a copy of said application is to be kept on file and of record in zo the Office of Financial Services. zi � 23 24 25 Adopted by Council: Date ��j,�,�,.�, ��,�� .. � � � Requested by Department of: 're & Safet S rvices Approval Recommended by Director of Financial Services: � j � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � FR �� CoMact Person & Phone: Tim Butler 228-6217 Must Be on Council Aaen �h�a52 Date Inifiated: . 2�-��5 Green Sheet NO: 3025446 � Assign Number For Routing Order ,. ... ., .._.., .. .. .�.-...„, 0 q�'ire I �� / 1 re De artmentDirector 2 � —_J� 3 � a or's Ofiice Mawd istant 4 un il 5 i lerk Ci lerk Totai # of Signature Pag _{Ciip NI Loptionsfor Sig Action Requested: To approve the attached Council Resolution authorizing the Depaztrnent of Fire and Safety Services to apply for the 2005 State Homeland Security Graut Piogram. �.. . ;; Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): ��; ` Planning Commission � � . CIB Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? Yes Ido 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes ' No 3. Dces this persnn/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent city empbyee? Yes No 6cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): . The Deparhnent of Fire and Safety Services is applying for a grant of $700,000 to fund a significant portion of the mobfle and porhable radio costs needed for .the P.olice and Fire Depaztments to use the Ramsey County 800 Mhz radio system Such interoperable comimmications equipment is a specific goal of the Uxban Area Homeland Security.Strategy. . AdvantapeslfAppraved: The City of Saint Paul will be able to fund a significant portion of'the mobile and portabie radio needs of the Police and Fire Depaztments and help irnegrate our communications with other emergency departments azound the meho azea. The safety of our responders and the citizens will be significanfly enhanced by operating on the regional 800 Mhz system DisadvantageslfApproved: None. .' t : I �" Disadva�tageslfNotApproved: �se e 0 /� B � �¢y"�g��_t� '� I.ost oppommity to secure adequate funding for critical public safety systems impacting all aspects of emergency responses for the Police and Fire and Safety Services. Toql Amount of Transaction: ,. Funding Source: ,�, Financiallnformation: (Explain) 700000 CosURevenue Budgeted: Ce3��€7 RB��a!�h ��n#�P Grant ActivitY Number: v . . � �� 05 -a5Z 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Section 111. Program Guidance A Overview of the Programs Based upon the results of the Funding Task Force Report, the grant application process has been consolidated into #he six grant programs within FY05 HSGP. This integration encourages regional preparedness efforts. 'Regional' refers to mulfi-state or sut�siate geographic areas Yhat function as regions. DIiS ioteods to guide state and local security aad prepazedness efforCs toward a project- oriented process to address common measarable objectives. Security and preparedness officials at all levels should seek opportuni8es to ieverage funds from mul6ple sources and not restrict their activities to federal funding alone. B. Program Guidance Period of Performance Performance period for all programs is 30 months, from October 1, 2004 — March 3'I, 2007. Pass — Throuqh Requirements SHSP, UASI, LETPP, and MMRS: Each state shall obligate at least 80% of the toYal grant program amount to tocal units of government for each program within 60 days of award date. ❑ UASI: Funds refained by the state must be used to support the UA. ❑ MMRS: No pass through requirement past the 80%, however if the state retains up to 20% of the MMRS program fiunding allocatio� to "facilitate strategy assessment and capability integration beiween the state and MMRS jurisdictions, it must be documented in a written agreement between the state and Chair of MMRS Steering Committee." ❑ CCP: No pass through requirement ❑ EMPG: No pass through requirement Drawdown of Funds Grantees are permitted to drawdown funds up to 120 days prior to expenditure, and place it into an interest or non-interest bearing account. � ltis not known at this time if the state accounfing system will support fhis requi�ement. State and UA Homeland Securitv Strateqies !t is s#ronqly encouraged thaf State Preparedness Officers solicft funding from altemative federal and private programs to suppo�t the State and UA Homeland Security Strategies and not rely sotefy on this funding stream. Wifhin 60 days of the gra»t award, the Senior Advisory Committee will be formed and scheduled to meet on a quarterly basis. States wifl be requirsd through BSIR the existence of this committee {ISIP State Project). Program representatives from the following entities must be 3nc{uded= ❑ SAA � State Homeland Securify Advisor (if not SAA) . OS �52. � Stafe Emergency Management Director ❑ State Pu61ic Health Officer ❑ HRSA Program DirectodPrimary Investigator ❑ HRSA Bioterronsm Hospitat Coordinator ❑ CDC Program Director/Primary Inves6gator ❑ State Cltizen Corps pointofcontact Optional participants include: ❑ Law Enforcement ❑ Fire ❑ Public Health ❑ Behavioral Health ❑ Public Works ❑ Agricutture ❑ lnformation Technology States are required to croordinate the planning and implementation of State Sfrategy Goals and Objectives with al1 pertinent local, state and tribal emergency responder disciplines including public health, transit, and port authorities. ln FY06 as part of the ongoing HSPD-8 impiementation, DHS and hIHS will look to states to further strengthen coordination among state agencies responsible for administering federal preparedness grants. Citizen Coordinatiort In support of the exisfing goals and objectives oP the current SHSS and as sfrategies are revised, states must include an inYegrated approach to engaging citizens in preparedness, training, exercises, and volunteer support for emergency responder through the CCC. States are encouraged to fully ieverage HSGP resources to accomplish this goal. Private Sector Coordination Gra�#ees are encouraged to collaborate with the private seetor to leverage private sector initiaHves, resources, and capabilities. Federa! Fiscal Suoport and Oversiqht The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Office of fhe Comptroller (OC) will continue to provide fiscal support and oversight o# the grant programs. OHS will be establishing its own O�ce of Gran# Operations {OGO) within ODP during FY05. Freedom of lnformatioa Act (FOIA) Information submitted in the course of applying for fiunding under this program nt provided in the course of grant management activities is subjec{ to requests made pursuant #o the Freedom of lnformation Act, 5. U.S.C. 552. All determinations conceming the release of information of this nature are made on a case-by-case basis by the DHS FOIA Office, and may likely fa11 within one or more of the available exemptions under the Act Services to Limited fnqlish Proficient Il.EP1 Persons RecipienYs of ODP funding are required to comply with several #ederal civil rights laws, including Title Vi. To ensore compliance, recipients are required to take os-a5� reasonable sfeQs to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to fheir programs. C, Ailowable Costs Guidance Ailowable costs are divided into Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, Exercise, and M&A. M8J1 Costs Guidance ❑ SHSP, UASI, LETPP, CCP, MMRS: Maximum of 3% of the total amount allocated to the state for each program may be retained at the state level, included in the total funds retained by the state. Locai jurisdiction sub-grantees may retain a maximum of 2.5% of their subaward from the state. ❑ EMPG: EMA may use up to 3°/a of the state's allocation, local sub-gra�tees may use 2.5°/o of their allocation for M&A. Operational Costs Guidance ❑ LETPP: State & local jurisdictions may use up to 25% of funds to suppoR operationa! overtime costs at Code Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites. ❑ UASI: State & tocal jurisdictions may use up to 25°/a of funds to support operational overtime costs at Code Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites within UASI jurisdictions. • Of the 25%, up to 10°/a may be used to support operational overtime costs incurred at Code Yellow OR Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites within UASI jurisdictions. • The remaining 15°/o may be used fo support operationai overtime costs incurred ONLY at Code Orange associafed with increased security measures at criticai infrastructure sites within UASI jurisdictions. This guidance a(so applies to operationai overtime costs incurred at National Special Security Events (NSSE's) in UASI jurisdictions, as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. MN can use up to 25% of UASI state share funds to reimburse eligible operational overtime expenses incurred ih direct support of increased security measures enacted in the iJAS1 jurisdictions. Costs eligible for reimbursement under this policy are identicai to those deemed allowable under previous Code Orange alerts. Funding may not be used to supplant ongoing, routine public safety activities of state and iocal law enforcement, and may NOT be used to hire staff for operationai activities or backfill. os �a 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Section IV. National Initiafives A. Nationai incident Management System FY 05 — Begin incorporating NIMS FY 06 — Fuli implementation of N1MS FY 07 — Funding wi0 be conditioned upon full compliance with NIMS Note: ICS must be institufionalized across entire response system to be in compliance with NIMS. B. HSPD — 8 National Preparedness Requirements of a Nafional Preparedness Goal FY 05 — States take steps to review and incorporate National Planning Scenarios, UTL, and Target Capabilities List. FY 06 — Fuil impiementation National Planning Scenarios — summaries availabie now at ODP's secure portai. Will be released when finafized. UTL —Avaiiable at secure portal Target Capabiiities List— Wili be available January 05 in secure portal ODP wiil deveiop detailed National Pianning Guidance due March 31, 2005. C. HSPD — 8lmplementation/Preventing and Preparing for Terrorist Attacks Involving Improvised Explosive Devices FY 05 — Funded UA's (Hennepin and Mpls) develop multi jurisdictionai prevention and response plan based on IEP scenario and perform 2 discussion based {tab4etop?) and 1 ful{ sca{e evaluated exercise addressing the associated #asks in the scenario. Exercise guidance to be reieased March 2005 concurrently with the National Planning Guidance. 6 months from reiease: grantees will develop regionai planning documenf for IED scenario to submit to ODP including the use of NIMS and ICS. 1 year from release: grantees wiil compiete the cycle of multi jurisdictional exercise activities. D. Achieviog Tactical interoperabie Communications FY 05 — Funded UA's (Hennepin and Mpls) must develop a plan to achieve tactical interoperable communications across UA jurisdictions and test the pian through above refesenced exercise cyde. Must incfude Communication Unit Leaders as defined in NIMS. ODP will release guidance concurrently with National Planning Guidance and SAFECOM by March 2005. 6 months from release: grantees wiil develop (and submit?) a tactical interoperable plan based on the template. 1 year from submission to ODP: pian wili be exercised using above exercise cycle. 05 -�5 a E. Nafio�ai Response Plan State and Local NRP Implementation ❑ U61ize est. incident reporting protocols (Duty Officer) to notify locai and regional JTTF's and HSOC as appropriate ❑ Coordinate wifh the HSOC for estabfishing connectivity for domestic incident management purposes. Local procedures shouid coordinate with state. ❑ Modify existing EOP's within 120 days or next plan maintenance cycle Yo ensure proper alignment with NRP coordinating structures, processes and protocols. F. Institutionalizing Awareness Training Background: Program relies on a TTT approach. State designated Trainers will participate in a 12-hour Nationai CBRNE SAAT TTT course. Graduates certified to teach 6 hour standardized curriculum. OT and backfiil costs associated w/ training deliveries eligible for reimbursement under the SHSP and UASI Programs. ODP supports Authorized Trainers w/ course materials and program updates as necessary. FY 05 — ODP will compiete delivery of AWR-100-1 TTT to authorized trainers in all UASI jurisdictions G. CatastrophiclncidentPlanning In support of CIRA, catastrophic incident response planning is now included as an ailowabie expense under FY05 SHSP and UASL State and {ocal catastrophic incident pianning activities should be coordinated wth both ODP and FEMA to � ensure synchronization. FEMA Regional Recovery Division has more guidance on pianning requirements. H. Public Awareness and Citizen Participation SHSP and UASI award recipients must work with the CCC's to ensure the following: Expand pfans & task force memberships to address citizen participation. This includes developing or revising state and local EOP's to integrate volunteer resources. Awareness and outreach to inform and engage the public. This includes public education about personal preparedness measures, alert and warning systems, and state and loeal emergency plans through a range of venues. Incfude citizens in training and exercises. Provide emergency preparedness and response training for citizens, improve training for emergency responders to better address special needs populations, and involve citizens in all aspects of emergency preparedness exercises, pianning, implementation, and after action. Develop or expand programs that integrate citizen/volunteer support for the emergency responder disciplines. o5-a S�, 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Must be submitted by close of business MARCH 11, 2005 ;,,�-..,,_:.. ;._�. � _ _::_ � � ctName Til7I Bu�Ef --- Phone 651_228 Fire Err�ergee�cy_Management and �o�rtmanications Chief ss TQQ East �leventh Sfieet Saint Paul _ counry Ftamsey state: nnN zip Address ti►n.�utler@ci.s#paul,rrin.us Fax Number 651-228 Amount by County Please enter the amount awarded to your jurisdiction for this granf. Contacf HSEM staff if this amount is not known. Dispersed to Cities/Townships � �- 5 5610'I •---.- �� w - nease explain how the resources requested in this application will enhance your •isdiction's ability to prevent a terrorist act and be prepared to demonstrate how homeland security wiil be proved. Also, piease indicate how the specific items requested support and are consistent with the overal{ ite Homefand Security Strategy. e resources reques��d in thi� applica3€an wilf �nhance the Gity of Saint !'aui's ability to m�tigate, prepare , respcind tp, & recover fram a CBRf�E incfdenf, ir�cluding terrdrist r:venfs, 6y ensuring Gify respotiders re access to interoperabte cnrnmunicafians used by crth��' EacaJ, state, & fie�eral response agencies. >curement of 8U0 fVthz partaqle & mobile ra�ic� eq�ipment, campatable wi� tha Nletrap4ti€an Ra�ia >i�m, wi{I ensure that Sa1nt f'auYs eespanders aan safety, s�am[ess[y, & e��iently ccsmrnunicat� with atP panders. Su�t� �quipmsnf �riil directfy support regiona! a�sd statewfd� respons� #eams operateti I�y fhe 7, & tlir�c#!Y suppo�t the gnals & objectives of tMe Sfate HS Strategy. \TE STRATEGY LINK • Explain how resources reguested support the overett State Homeland Security itegy. In addition, please reference fhe specific goals and objectives identified in the State Strategy that se requested equipment needs address: ne resaurces req�ested in this app4icaticrn direstly s[tppp�t efFor#s ta regip�lize GgRNE reporrse eapahilikiesantl buitd nteropQCable aQmmunciatiQ�sys�ms t#�rnughnut �he State. The resanrces requesteddirecfFysypporEths �vats 8 �bjectives of fhe NfN State Homeland Seeurity SYrafegy, �pP�j�� ,� �e p�jestiue C, tmptementation Steps � 8�2; Goai : 06jectivP A, [mplemenfation Step 1; antl Goai 7, Qtrjective E, linpletttehfaYi�n Step K. Fire �h'ref, Cify `uf 5a9nt Paul Date: �1-Mar-U5 OS-25� ��:,. : o5-a.s�. 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM EQUIPMENT WORKSHEET Piease use the highlighted lines below each category to indicate intended equipment purchases. If more lines are required, use those provided on the "Add'I Eqpt Lines" tab. ` UNIT PRICE SHOULD INCLUDE TAX AND SHIPPING/HqNDLING EXPENSES *' DISCIPLINE ALLOCATION: Piease use the drop-down list to indicate the allocated discipiine forthe units (QTY) to be purchased. For exampfe, if seven units are to be purchased for Hazardous Materials, select the HZ value. If more than one discipline is receiving purchased units, specify the allocation using subsequent lines as shown in the example. �iscipLne LE-LawEnforcement FS-FreService Abbreviations: EMS-EmergencyMedicalServices PS-PublicHealth HZ-HazardousMaterials Gq-GpvemmeMalAdministrative EtvfA-Emer9encyManagemerrt PW-PublicWOrks � HC-HealthCare PSC • Public Safety CommuniqEOns & Remediation Equipment (Bomb Squads-QNC�')-,',>� ��-: �; � �BES� �� l�� 3. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE} __ Search and Rescue En�,inn,An+ �s�� i� �!� �� i� �E� 4. Infiormation T .�—��s �� i� �� !� �� E�� DPS/HSEM 2005 Homeland Security Grant Paae B-3 '**ODP PROJECT: Please use the dro -down list to select the ODP re-de£ned oroiect titla fo� ra�h a��:.,.,,e..r .e..��e�.,.., � Power �i� - � ,x _ - i i a - DPS/HSEM 2005 Home�and Secunty Grent Page 64 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM 05 a.�a, 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM 1 a $ g _ � . g �- - _ $ _ S � . Sustainment Costs � $ - � - = � �. Subtotal' � � � � - � - .z_. ' $ r '2z. � ��t� ��E� ��E� �� S�� R�� DPS/HSEM 2005 Homeland Secunty G2nt Paae BS 16. Agricultural Terrorism Prevention, Response and Mitiaation Enuinmant os-as� 1 � - � $ � - �- _. � � _ 21 �s�� _� �—� �� DPS/HSEM 2005 Homelantl Security Grant ��0 s Page 8-6 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PRdGRAM d5-asa �� L Q. � •� a a � � 7 N w N (6 C 'i � Q � � Q O f6 � � � � L � � � 3 � � � U � N � 3 Y '- � � o � � � C p y L � � � � 3?� R J N �U U � N N � � U O � a � a�� O � a; �- � �, w �p o i � y U Q- �7 � N N � w . L w � L . . Q L , � � � � � � -�,3��i ;:' .xQl� L . Gf � � W',.,-. ,��,-� p ._ LLJ � � � � = u� c�a R Y •� c c ti � a � � O a� Q _ � � � 6 Y � � - LL} � Z C � .0 tn W '_ 'c �, w � � � o , � p. m N , V � a � w I � �� W o � � I � � N � � � � � � � � . S a U + y � L � U„� � . � � � .Q Q L � � � � t � � �� . � N U � � � N p� �0 w � � � O � N �� d E U � .� � _� � � � �N N � � O N � Q. U � O m N �p � s m c Ii w � U Q N N t R L �1 m � 2 � j V m > 7 a� � a' c7 � n y � o m m¢ j L a C� � I � � i N � .. > .� .� � U � � r � � �' a ° c E � Ll N � y p� �p N � w � '� � C � N � � , �.. O ... �: �:.0 ;.�t.D � w �- od�" �R� - m'�'.N_.__ .a .p.,16 ., ,LL 2 , � � � tn N� �-LL=a � _ U j � C j �- � = N a N � y � c a � O_ N 0 a � N '- � � � U U1 � N N � y � E m U � f/1 O � R 6 C a m a��i�g Z = � a�i a�i � ° oi ai O o W E E � �ww U vi .� � m �mQ � L J U J � W Q � ILt � Z � -i o a U � � � � `m �Q � ❑ N Q : o m 0 m U E 0 U T d � U 0 £ a =a' ci u�i =a � � 0 � Q m m a os-,�sa � Q' � 0 � a � z Q � � F � {.� W � � Z J W � O x w � Q � � 0 0 N Z O t= � J � W � Z Q W � U fY W X W } F � I—' U W u W o ZQ � Y / � Lf� O Z O � � Q J L � S ¢. r ` ~ W �` � a �1� w v/• U � ❑" z a � o u.i � � � W ° t/) z U� � w � W m X W W Q � � � lL � W a � Z Q F w � � � m � � � � 0 Y V ' N �L � 7 W Q d �I R Z w� o� do = a = o � a _ m t�o E a � ♦+ � 0 �(6 O � � _ V� N _ � V � 0 �� h U y a . ml � o _ � C N m � hl N- a r (7 F Q � F- � W F- f y H 0 � W Z Z � W .Z � y Y Z J 1 I i : � < f ._ i f C � w z a � a S L C L N N N � � � n � y � � 0 L � � � > m � � � .� X � � � � 0 L N Q O N a 0 `m � E z' � ti rn a m � T .3 N � C N � 0 _ O N � W � _ � a 0 05�5� � Q � C9 0 � a � z � C9 F � � U W y G Z g � O x � H � � 0 0 N W 2 � � 0 � m Z Z a � � F � � � � Z z ¢ � F 0 W � O � Z � a � a 0 ow z �n 00 Z� Lt � O� F- W 2 a � � 00 � �', Z o� � � O� � 2� � ' Q Q U �C Z O "' � � z °' wa 0 ¢ d F- � �o o� a `� a Q �, � Oa � ¢ � � LL W H U K � C'3 W � � O F- 2 � � O 2 � � w � z � cs n �a� C O ::. t> "a N .� � C W J F- t= U w � O K a a 0 � 3 0 a 0 a m � E o. - w U - 0 'Q Q m m m %'- N - m m a --- m � E 0 ro > U 0 -O 0 a c m m w m m y m m m a � � W � f- W W F- Q F�- N H � y W Z z � O H Y z J u c c w f w a E ' £ c c � a a � ' � � � 0 t m � l T m a >. 3 0 r a� m > m � � � .� .@ m � 0 z � a 0 w a `o m � � � Z + rn � m a os a5a G I ¢ ^ V O � a � z � } F- � � U w � � Z J W � Q _ w Q � � � a 0 N w ; 0 m � � � � o � a m � a � � Y V � � � O � Q q�. W 0 V � � w N U a� h N N � r W 2 Y 0 � W � W V Z Z J a Q W V '"" � � N F • 3 W � � o � e� a {Q ❑ Z O = m w 0 � a e m m 0 Q N � (J � N H m a � W � N 11.� Q y � � y W Z Z � O F Y 2 J � � � .' .� � d � r- _ k V y vl Q y � � o �, w � ' � � , , ,' � , � � , � ay �> � o a��i ~ V � a� W � EH 4R ff� EPr u3 Ef3 t�� ER fPr E� vd I' ° w >. il.! . � o � � t9 N o � ❑ � : , 6 . o .� � N `� -a. Q � � C � L. N w .fl- �� ' ' N y � y � C � y � � O � U Q � 7 w Q � Q � � Q � � :? � �, a V- o �c � a � � •� O °- o � °��' ai Q � o > N � p � w u, o �� ° a� ° w :y V � � O p � > (6 tn � � o N ca o. ��' 6 o W L C UJ _ L � .� � � � � � U O � ,� U � � � m a 0 N> c6 � m °� �' � c � � ..L.. V L '�" � t N � `� ,�,0 '+� �'�'' � i" Z � Z O � C � U � _C = t6 t�i> > N O ��= O U� 0 y -. C - U1 N � C � V +-' �• 3 Z � (6 i. �'' "_' f6 'Q N �' Q `p Q � � U U � � � � O " � (6 � � � � � '�+ w -F+ � � J a."L C U f6�> ( � � Z �a a �� o � Q � V-- � c� '� W •- N U L i� O� � O Z � � � � m � 2 � - c a � i �; a �' i � a c�i � Q � a Q 0 �u m� ,« �° � c �n m �o a � � O � O O �- � � � � � � W J � O � • O � � S � � O �� L � .0 L Q � � � � � � � � � � � � Q � r * Q � O Q❑ IlI 2 O� U� I� d Q O 0 W � a c m <`� 3 U N � 9 C m E x N 0 0 N � w � _ � a 0 05 �s� W W _ � � Y � � � t? � O a ~ W h- � Z Q (� m h LLI � � � F N � Q y J Z � G � Q =a ua � Q � Z � W O C � G N W a C Q C C O t� N .� � o' dJ RI Z � Y Q N � C C � ., c .� � w 0 F- y O U > � H � Z � � Q � Z a I-- Z c w G w Q Z � w J m � � J J Q � � O � � - o � 3 m c m � � vi N y O Q �o Q o �S7 Q � �' � � � y > � _ � � � .N m c � E ? � N � � N � �� f6 �E c -a a� Q � � �'� � �� W � a � N � � 3 � N � 4 � � � �X N � � w � N � U O � O � o �o o� �� O N � O \° � N C N w � 0 � O z 0 0 � � � N �-. c � O � R � � N � R .' R C d� � � m t O N o " 0 � � O n G9 .,� � 3 N � w N N i 3 � � � Q d C L 3 t� o � U a m � O � � � � E U �X � a o o ° . � a y N � y m a � ti � o �- N N m � m d. m '' � T � � � - o� ��.� � m � � L d � � � N '6 Q c � m � v � �� U � 3 N � �O O � L � a� Q a' ° a' Qo om w � U 9 � � � � � Z � � C .' .� V a� � � 0 :�. � � L 3 7 � V N � U � I I � � .w O ` Q - W 0 0 0 0 0 _ o O L!� � � -. l(> e Q o � � � �i} fA ff3 �} - EA * :c � �: � .� R � -- �3 � �. .;_c � � � �:. N m > Q p 0 °° a � L � N � � 3 p c O :., � = U � � � 0 0 L � C1 - O � � � N C � � C � U +' fO � � C i Z � � � Q a Q � 0 0 �s � � �o ��, � Q = U (,� 3 � � N � � � � O Q � L O w R ! U � d � y O C � d � Q '� W S � W � � W F" Z � d � Q � F- � Z �� N i � � � � � � � � � �6 p�j N �-+ � Z 'i {2.� O O- � � 1 � L � tn � W Y � (6 LI1 O � N -O � .�- � Q y .., fn @ � 7 � � � � (6 O W (6 a Z � � � o o� a�i � � o � � � 'N �L � 2 1 � N N "' 7 7 U tn Q � � � C H � Q M fA� i� � � m a N � ? 0 <n � m E _ � N � w � 2 � a a Council File # RESOLUTION CITY,QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Green Sheet # 2 e Referred To: Committee: Date , W HEREAS, the Department of Fire and Safety Services is seeking a grant to purchase equipment and provide z training and exercises for the Fire DepartmenYs Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team, and 3 a W HEREAS, public safety o�cials from the City of Saint Paul have diligently worked with public safety officials s throughout the state to build a statewide hazardous materiais response capability in order to preserve the life s and safety of citizens and to satisfy elements of the State Homeland Security Strategy, and � a s 10 ii iz 13 14 15 is n �s 19 20 21 � 23 24 25 26 Requested by Department of: by Director of Financial Services: Adopted by Councii: Date �i��f d.3,�OG� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary: � W HEREAS, the maintenance of the Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team operated by the Department of Fire and Safety Services ensures a continued technical capability available to the citizens of Saint Paui, a response capability available statewide via a contract-for-services, and achieves specific goais and objectives of the State Homeland Security Strategy, and W HEREAS, upon receipt of this grant, the City is obligated to appropriate the grant amount of $50,000.00, and NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the proper City officiais are hereby authorized and directed to execute an application for the City of Saint Paul's Department of Fire and Safety Services to apply for the 2005 State Homeland Security Program Grant; a copy of said application is to be kept on file and of record in the Office of Financial Services. Approved k�ji pVta�j�or: Date � by City � �a53 3025447 � �� " �: W:�:, �u:. � Green Sheet'Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � �53 ��_- Departrnentlofficelcourtcil: Date Initiated: � `� � � FR —Fire 2�-FE�S Green Sheet NO: 3025447 . Cofrtad Person & Phone: DenaAn+ent Sent Fo Person i' ate . Tim Butter � 0 ' e � �� /�SSlgn 1 re De artmentDirector °" Must Be on Council �qenda by (Dafe}: Number Z ,. _ For . RoU[iOg 3 r's Office Ma o/Assistant �,� Ortler 4 � ou cil - � 5 " Clerk Ci C er �.r.. , , . _ _ . . ., . %., � �� ToWI # of Signature Rages_ (Clip All Lowtions for Signature) � .�. Acfion Requested: � � a To approve the attached Councfl Resolurion authorizing the Department of Pire and Safety Services to apply for the 2005 State ' Homeland Security Program ('ttaut. �.... � <. _ ;'; Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):' Personal Service Cootracts Must Answer the Following Questions: rt, �^ .. Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a conhact fa this department? t, ., �,; � � CIB Committee � Yes No � Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city employee? �..-� , Yes No - r�,.. - � , - 3. Does this persoNfirm passess a skili not normalty possessed by any c�rrent city employee? � . �,.,'..:, Yes No � ' , 6cplai� aIl yes answers on separafe sheef and attach to green sheet � I�itiating Problem, issues, Opportunity (4Vho, What, When, Where, Why): - - The Department of Fire and Safety Services is applying for a grant of $50,000 to provide ongoing progra�n support of the Regional Aazardous Materials Response Team. The team provides response, technical assessment and support for bazazdous material incidents azound the state, and as such, provides a specific response capability sought by the State Homeland Securiry Strategy. ; � ` AdvanqSteslfApproved: � � . , ;' '. The City of Saint Paul wili be able to replace equipment, purchase new equipment based on new threats and wlnerabffiries; conduct training, hold exercises and perform other acrivities that will ensure the safety and viablity oF t}us respo�� /�� V - DisadvanWges If Approved: -. . , p � Z ry �US None. R f L 0./'� !'l��6"1�� .'`; - Disadvantages If Not Approved: � - Lost oppordxnity to secure adequate funding for critical public safety progazn, which wouid, in tuin, impact a contract-for-service with ��, - the State; aad would increase the risk to cztizens and public safery iesponders. Total Amount of 50000 CosURevenue Budgeted: - Transaction: � � �- Funtling Source: Gfant Activity Number: �iQ4�� f�Q�Qa�'C{1 � . �� Financial Information: � q , , � (Explain) . S"3H� � ,i ' .� , ' L�- p5-a53 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Section 111. Program Guidance A Overview of the Programs Based upon the results of the Funding Task Force Report, the grant application process has been consolidated into the six grant programs within FY05 HSGP. Thfs integration encourages regionaf preparedness efforts. `Regional' refers Yo multi-state or sub-state geographic areas that func6o� as regions. DiiS intends to guide state and local security and preparedness efforts toward a project- oriented process to address common measurable objectives. Securfij and preparedness officials at ali levels should seek opportunities to ieverage funds from multiple sources and noi restrict their activities to federal funding alone. B. Program Guidance Period of Pertormance Performance period for atl programs is 30 months, from October 1, 2004 — March 3'I, 2007. Fass —"fhrouah Reauirements SHSP, UASI, LETPP, and MMRS: Each state shall obligate at Ieast 80% of the total grant program amount to iocai uaits of govemment for each program within 60 days of award date. ❑ UASI: Funds refained by the state must be used to support fhe UA. ❑ MMRS: (Vo pass through requirement past the 80%, however if the state retains up to 20% of ihe MMRS program funding aliocafion to "facilitate strategy assessment and capability integration between the state and MMRS jurisdictions, it must be documented in a written agreement betwee� the state and Chair of MMRS Steering Committee." ❑ CCP: No pass through requiremenY ❑ EMPG: No pass through requirement Drawdown of Funds Grantees are permi#ed to drawdown funds up to 120 days prior to expe�diYure, and place it into an interest or non-interest bearing account � Itis not known at this fime if the state accounting system will support this �equiremeat. State and UA Homeland Securitv Strateqies !t is strongiy encouraged that State Preparedr�ess Officers solicit funding from afternative fiederai and private programs to support the State and UA Homeland Security Strategies and no# reiy solely on this funding stream. Seaior Advisorv Committee and Proqram Coordination Reqairemenfs Withirr 60 days of the grant award, the Senior Advisory Committee wll be formed and scheduled to meet on a quarterly basis. States will be required through BSIR the existence of this committee (ISIP State Project). Program representatives from the following entities must 6e included: ❑ SAA 0 State Homeland Security Advisor (if not SAA) , �5- as� q State Emergency Management DirecYor ❑ State Public Heaith Officer ❑ HRSA Program DirectodPrimary lnvestigaYor ❑ FIRSA Bioterrorism Hospital Coordinafor ❑ CDC Program DirectodPrimary Investigator ❑ State Citizen Corps point af contact Optional participants include: ❑ Law Enforcement ❑ Fife ❑ Public Health ❑ 8efiavioral Hea(ffi ❑ Public Works ❑ Agricalture ❑ information Technology States are required to coordinate the planning and implementation of State Strategy Goals and Objectives with alt pertinent local, state and tribal emergency responder disciplines including public heatth, transit, and port authorities. !n FY06 as part of the ongoing HSPD-8 implementation, DHS and NHS will look #o states to further strengthen coordination among state agencies responsible for administering federai preparedness grants. Citizen CooMination In support of the exisfing goals and objectives of the current SHSS and as strategies are revised, states must include an integrated approacfi to engaging citizens in preparedness, training, exercises, and volunteer support for emergency responder through the CCC. States are encouraged to fully leverage HSGP resources to accomplish this goal. Private Sector Coo�di�ation Grantees are encouraged to collaborate with the private sector #o leverage private sector initiatives, resou�ces, and capabilities. Federal F7scai Su000rt and Oversiqht The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) O�ce of the Comptroller (OC) witi continue to provide fiscal support and oversight of The grant programs. DFIS wili be estabiishing ifs own Office of Grant Operations (OGO) witfiin ODP during FY05. Freedom of lnformation Act fFOiA) Information submitted in the course of applying for funding under this program or provided in the course of grant managemen# activities is subject to requests made pursuant to the Freedom of information Act, 5. U.S.C. 552. All determinations conceming the release of infomtation of this nattare are made on a case-by-case 6asis by the DHS FOIA Office, and may likely fall within one or more of the available exemptions under the Act Services to Limited Enqiish Profcient (LEP) Persons Recipients of IIDP funding are required fo comply with several federai civit rights laws, including Ti#le VI_ To ensure compliance, recipients are required to take os-as3 reasonable steps to ensure that LEP perso�s have meaningful access to fheir programs. C. A(towable Costs Guidance Allowabie costs are divided into Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, Exercise, and M&A. M8�A Costs Guidance ❑ SHSP, UASI, LETPP, CCP, MMRS: Maximum of 3% of the total amount altocated to the sta#e for each program may be retained at the state level, included in fhe total funds retained by the state. Locai jurisdiction sub�rantees may retain a maximum of 2.5% of their subaward from the state. ❑ EMPG: EMA may use up to 3% of the state's allocation, Iocai sub-grantees may use 2.5% of their allocation for M&A. Operational Costs Guidance ❑ LETPP: State & locai jurisdictions may use up #0 25°/a of funds to support operational overtime casts ak Gode Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites. ❑ UASf: State & tocal jurisdictions may use up fo 25% of funds to support operational overtime costs at Code Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites within t1A51 jurisdictions. • Of the 25%, up to 10% may be used to support operational overtime costs incurred at Code Yellow OR Orange associated with increased security measures at critical infrastructure sites within UASI jurisdictions. • The remaining 15% may be used to support operational over#ime costs incurred ONLY at Code Orange associated with increased security measures at criticai infrastructure sites within UASI jurisdictions. This guidance also applies to operational overtime costs incurred at National Speciai Security Ever�ts (NSSE's) in UASI jurisdic6ons, as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. MN can use up to 25% of UASI state share funds to reimburse eligibie operational overtime expe�ses incurred in direct support of increased security measures enacted i� the UAS! jurisdictions. Costs eligible for reimbursement under this policy are identical to those deemed allowable t�nder previous Code Orange alerts. Funding may not be used to supplant ongoing, routine public safety activities of state and local law enforcement, and may NOT be used to hire staff for operational activities or backfill. os-a 5 3 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Sectioa 1V, Nationa! lnitiafives A. National incident Management System FY 05 — Begin incorporati�g NIMS FY D6 — FuN impiementation of NIMS FY 07 — Fanding will be conditioned upon fuli compfiance with NIMS Nofe: (CS musf be institutionalized across entire response system to be in compiiance with NIMS. B. HSPD-8 Nationa! Preparedness Requiremenfs of a National Preparedness Goai FY 05 — States take steps to revievJ and incorporaYs NaYionai Planning Scenarios, UTL, and Target Capabil+ties List. FY 06 — Fuil impiementation National Planning Scenarios — summaries available now at ODP's secure portal. Wil! be released when finalized. UTL —Available at secure portal Target Capabilities List— Wiii be avaiia6ie January OS in secure porEal ODP wili develop detaifed Nationai Planning Guidance due March 37, 2005. C. HSPD — 8 Implementatio�/Preventing and Preparing for Terrorist Attacks Involving Improvised Ezpiosive Devices FY 05 — Funded UA's (Hennepin and Mpts) devetop muitiyurisdictional prevention and response plan based on IEP scenario and perform 2 discussion based (tabletop?) and 7 full scale evaluated exercise addressi�g the associated tasks in the scenario. Exercise guidance to be released March 2005 concurrently with the National Pianning Guidance. 6 months trom release; grantees will develop regional planning document for IED scenario to submit to ODP inciuding the use of NIMS and ICS. 1 year from release: grantees witi complete the cycte of multi jurisdictional exercise activities. D. Achieving Tactical interoperabie Communications FY 05 — Funded UA's (Hennepin and Mpis) must develop a plan to achieve tactical interoperable Communications across UA jurisdictions and test fhe pian through above referenced exercise cycle. Must i�clude Communication Unit Leaders as defined in NtMS. ODP will release guidance concurrently with National Planning Guidance and SAFECOM by March 2005. 6 months from release: grantees wili devefop (and submit?) a tactical interoperabie ptan based on the temp�ate. 1 year from submission to ODP: plan wiil be exercised using above exercise cycle. 05 53 E. National Response Pian State artd Loca! NRP tmptementation ❑ USlize est. incident reporting protocols (Duty Officer) to notify local and regional JTTF's and HSOC as appropriate L7 Coordinate with the HSOC for establishing connectivity for domestic incident management purposes. Locai procedures should coordinate with state. ❑ Modify exis8ng EOP's within '!20 days or neut plan maintenance cycle to ensure proper alignmentwith NRP coordinating strvcfures, processes and profocofs. F. lnstituYionalizing AwareRess Training Background: Program relies on a fiTT approach. State designated Trainers wiil participate in a 12-hour Natio�ai CBRNE SAAT TTT course. Graduates certified to teach 6 hour standardized curriculum. OT and backfiil costs associated w/ training deliveries eligibie for reimbursement under the SHSP and UASI Programs. ODP supports Authorized Trainers w/ course materials and program updates as necessary. FY 05 — ODP will complete delivery of AWR-100-1 TTT to authorized trainers in ali UASf jurisdicfions G. Catastrophic incident Pianning In support of CIRA, catastrophic incident response pianning is now inc(uded as an aliowable expense under FY05 SHSP and UASI. State and local catestrophic inciden# planning activities should be coordinated wth both ODP and FEMA to - ensure synchronization. FEMA Regional Recovery Division has more guidance on pia�ning requirements. H. Public Awareness and Citizen Participation SHSP and UASI award recipients must work with the CCC's to ensure the following: Expand plans 8� task force memberships to address citizen participation. This includes developing or revising state and local EOP's to integrate volunteer resources. Awareness and outreach to inform and engage the public. This includes public education abouY personal preparedness measures, alert and warning systems, and state and local emergency pians through a range of venues. Include citizens in training and exercises. Provide emergency preparedness and response training for citizens, improve training for emergency responders to better address special needs populations, and invo(ve cifizens in a(f aspects of emergency preparedness exercises, planning, impiementation, and after action. Develop or expand programs that integrate citizen/volunteer support for the emergency responder discipiines. o5-a 53 Name 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Must be submitted by close of business MARCH 11, 2005 Gitiy ca�Salr�t F�ul, Minnest�fa - - -_ •_ Ti�n Bufler_ __._ _ - -- -- - Phone ,fi° Fire E�neraer�cv Manaaement and=Gomm�,nication� C[�tPf - East - :::;s...,:; �.:;.,.;; �,-y_ � '� F a Salitt P�UI County RalTlSey State: MN Zip 5�'�0 ,aadress tim.Y�utier�cistpaul.mn.�€S Fax Number 65'f 228-6255 Please enfer fhe amount awarded to your jurisdiction for Amount this grant. Confact HSEM staff if this amount is not known. by County $_ Dispersed to Cities/Townships �dvrc ves�tc� tvts - Ptease explain how the resources requesfed in this application wil[ enhance your isdiction's ability to prevent a terrorist act and be prepared to demonstrate how homeland security will Be proved. Also, please indicate how the specific items requested support and are consistent with the overall ate Homeland Security Strategy. e resmurces_requested �n#his a�rpliGafian witl enhance #F�� City af Sair�# Paul's abil�ty ta rniYigate, prepare , respond #o, & ree+�ver frorr� a GBRRIE incid�nf, inclucfin� t�:reorist evenis, by �nsusing Gity responclers ve appropriate �quipmen# tv defect CgR�JE ag�:nts. Sueh equipment will directly suppart regiona# ar�d itewide respart5s tea�tts aperated by the Gity, & tl[rectly suRpatt th� goals & objectives of the State HS _ STRATEGY LINK - Explain how resources requested support the overall State Homeland Security gy. In addition, please reference the specific goals and objectives identified in the State Strategy that requested equipment needs address: e resuurees requested ie# fhisapplicatian directlysupport efFar#s �o regianalize CBRNE repanse capatrli�ies and Eruild the ility to ctstect C6RNE age�s fhrovghout the StaEe. The-resoufces req¢esteB directly suppnrt #he gaals & ab�ecEiues af : MN :State Homeland Securi{y Stra#egy. Spea�catly: Goal 4, flbjective F, tmpEementatiofl Sfeps 7; a�d Goa15, 4bjecYive Impleme�ation Step 2. nature; C3o�as H�an, Fir� ��tief, �i4jr c�f Saint Paui Date: 11-Mar-05 o5-a5 3 05-�5 � 2005 STA7E HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM EQUIPMENT WORKSHEET Please use tfie highlighfed lines below each category to indicate intended equipment purchases. If more lines are required, use those provided on the "Add'1 Eqpf Lines" tab. * UNIT PRICE SHOULD INCLUDE TAX AND SHIPPING/HANDLING EXPENSES '* DISCIPLINE FlILOCATION: Please use the drop-down lisf to indicate the allocafed discipline for the units (QTY) to be purchased. For example, if seven units are to be purchased for Hazardous Materia(s, select the HZ va(ue. If more than one discipline is receiving purchased units, specify the allocation using subsequent lines as shown in the example. Disapline LE-LawEnforcement FS-FireService Abbreviations: EMS-EmergenryMedicalServices HZ-HazardousMafenals EMA-EmergencyManagement PW-PUblicWorks r��c�i �_� �iEil iili �� ![� rmation T �_c� �� it�� c� ��[�� PS - Pu61ic Health GA - GovemmenYal Adminishative HC - HeaNh Care PSC - Public Safery Communidtions DPS/HSEM 2005 Homeland Securiry Grent Page 63 **`ODP PROJECT: Piease use the dron-down list to select the ODP ore-defined broiect title for each eauipment requestetl. 3. Chemical, Biologicaf, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE} Search and Rescue Eauioment 05-�5�3 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GR.4NT PROGRAM ...�c+�.�wca� ��—� _�� —� ��—� �� 10. Power ��sc� �_� �� _� ��E� ��[[�� DPSlHSEM 2005 Nomelartd Security Grant Page B-2 9. Medical Supplies and Limited Tvpes of Pharmaceuticals O�—�53 15. fnspection and 16. Aqricultura! T DPS/HSEM 2005 Homeiand Secunty G2nt Unit Price* 0 0 ' � and 0 0 a e e � a e � E 0 0 0 0 e Disc* I ODP Jurisdiction Page 65 2005 S7A7E HOMELAND SECUI2ITY GRANT Pl20GRAM os a�3 2005 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM OPSMSEM 2005 Homeland Security Grant Page B-6 Fotal Equipment Amount Requested $ 50,000 �5-�5� E R C1 O a` C R C7 .� .� U d � � C R d 0 _ Y w � � 0 O N � � c J lQ c r+ � Q '"� 11.1 W � .v i Y � F'- Z w g a � W � �� L Q � � � s C v � � � � � C 'C = Q � � Q � � +.+ � � w � � � s � U � za L C C "' o ` � � � � L � � 3 � � cn o � � U U U O � � � �Q N � Q m U Q a�� U + � i e,, ' L � � +-. Q a, i r+ � C�S. � � � � �. W" Q �-� N � � � -p O � � � � � cL.�c .t+ +"' ��° U � � � � � S � O � O C � C � cp C � � �" U N � L � � V..� � . � Q� � � � � � � w p> O � L � , �� ..0 N U N (6 � L � � � O � � L � U O � � � a E U � .� 3 C � > � N N N � "- o � � Q U � O X � � � 0 � LL �T - o N N � s w i � Q � � � N o � L � Q � �� c � � U m � w�� _ Q O � � � fl- X C . � d N � . � Y a � S C• 'a � C p: � � � o U y .0 O N � O l6 � � a�'i w w� r � U j � a j 3 s � = h a N � � = � N � o a��i Q N O y � � � '_ w � N � � �� 4 N � z O o F � Q a O � J V J Q Q �.�.� � Z � - O � U °� � � � N C m � i � � U C C � � � Q U T N t C m � N °�' EVN � ` L U _ �--a �ama ac7= � ac N N .� m � � s U y O '3 N 9 V y � _ m N j R LL �=a � 0 � c a� m y � m m U R C N N m � � � T T N U (J i C C �m� 3ww J N Q ' W � � � W W N ': c A Q � '� Q 0 � � O _ � N �L � 7 LA ° C � d U � V u d •g � a a 0 0 . I d 1 � 'Q � N G i � � � � � � ia ' O I f' � I E9 EA E{J ffl Ef3 ff3 EA H) fH V3 EPr ER f{3 Uj E73 f!3 :!� ffl 4h7 EA 49 fR I � ' � I • y r �'�. �: � i i i t � � i i i� ��. �, i � a .� � i# tH� fK S# ti3� ifl 4f3 KT U3 Hi ffY u3� tf3 tfl iF} ({J tA� t#!. H3 EF1 tli N N �.+ � d Q � i:� �- 'a �� a w Q � O R � � 3 N L O O! � W U E' L L1 C L 0. LL a z � C C Q � N O a a Q m Q c 05 � � c� � � a � Z Q' } C9 F � � U W '^ V/ � Z a J W C G � S w a � � O O N W W _ � � � � V � m � U W X W i Z O F � J � W � 2 Q W � U � W X lJ.� 0 z 3 W � O _ � oa . O � H � � Q w� U Qa � W � W o= U '-' U Q Z d w � m W U Z � � O � � W d Q Z < F 2 f�- � � � � W � U � CLI W f i i 'i i _� f a f e 'u ^ 1' � 1� � 0 i+ t> � N - '� � ' - _ � � � N � � d � V � N � � > "� U � O � - --- - _ -_ � O C 0 �N N � N � � � � � � -� � � � � . , � � � � =.. N 'N O � U � - t�A E» s9 tA t�3 c-F? tR H3 � e� t» ffr cfl t� :v3 u3� tR � � � .- ,� � � . r, i � i i �: �. � � � m � _ o � L c � � c j c y Q O �� V R W N w � L � � o � U = y � L N 3 O � � � Q � - c w W . y � - �' � n . 3 W � Z :.. O ll7 U � a> > Q Uj � '�' Q � ' - a � � � U � N Z i y N O j O � � N = �L � � i � N Ql (6 _ Q �+ C�S � X U L2 +-� {JJ O a> m u! �� v tA � � � CA c U � U ° c�.> ° -a o � c~ � � �-� � � W Cy Q L C (6 O� Q1 � fn N� C� W '� �- U E E-- c' o� a� tv °' n- J � O � :� '� � c,= '� � � ' � � W . a Q.= c N N c U� N N�� Q� L F- ll3 LL U � � �] 0� d�� H�_ � � m U rn a G d � � � a H Z � � F � � Cs W � � Z J w � O x � H W N 0 O N W _ � � 0 L � 1"� �? � W � Z Z Q � �"' F- � � � � 2 z Q � � W � O � Z O a � a � � W Q � LL � o� �� w= H 0. � w � > � wo p Z O " � z Q � � `' o a F w� Z � ° z °' wa �o a� F ` o � � LL a -� � j � O Oa Qa Z W � � � W zw � � � W � � O ti 2 � � O � W W F- z � � � . � O � 0 � R Z _ 3 a O a-- m � E o_ U m O Q m � 'm h m _ m m 'a W J F F F U W O � a m � H 0 r a w w U 0 h y N a Y � F- � F � F F y F � W Z Z � � h- � J y 0 U m O m � O a a m 0 � � � m � a 3 0 N L N 1"' � ' W ^ ; V � � T � O m L N m > � � � � � .@ m 3 t ai a 0 a w 0 `m n E z �-a53 m O m a G Q � W � W a = � � � � (9 0 H � � � � � y , C9 � � � z m Q O Z S Z W Z Q a J � a � 0 0 N w � � o � a � o � a` a> w R E a ° .. � c �, 'R o fn a w � O � T °' w � � 'v � � � - a O J V ti � N {- .3 W Q � � b R G z o � - � ti a c m U � h y � � 'a � W � H � w Q � F � y W Z Z C CI 0 Z J � O Y U � N .� � � a� C .� .� c> d LL" # V N tn Q N N � 4 � W , , � � � � � d� �� O � � C) � � w �a�on� o � �� ~ � .� " c Li2 �, fl - E m C') �N ° � � � @ � o � -� . � c � 3 � � � � �? .~ a N � �� y ... � f � O V a O � + � c � � Q � � � o � � _' N. � � C = °' m c N °- i � o � � �, o L �, � 0 c '� p U -.� rn � U � � p � f Q � � N tn O N � = Q v_7 � N c �cU ° a> N a (6 � C fU ,� p t ',y.�`+ Q a� m � � .�.�. U E ca u' �� "-° � i � � t � � � > � o � � �" y � � � � � � +�+ 3 Z � � � L Q Z � � U U � � � � °' Q � O � � N 'L i- �U Q a � Q' � � .v (yj _ N U t �� O O � C= G C� � j_ U � � � � � � � � � � � � � a 0 N'p N N� �� .� -� > > > � .� .t i C . Q � o�� W S o�U M � � Q � W � � O W i � � � W � �-` o � L Z t � � � � Q � � � Z � Z � Z U Q � � Q � N � O � o5-as3 0 � w a � c � c� a U � a c E _ � 0 N � W � _ N a 0 � w _ � � Y � (9 � Q a ~ W � � Z � C9 /� W � � � � � � V N � Q .. � Q = Q � o� H � � z '� W O � 0 � � Q Q � � w 0 N d _ C � C c �R � � C O V � N �L 3 � O d R Z F�- O V � � y Z � � ¢ � z ¢ H z w � W Q Z � w J m � O J J Q � 3 � C � � R 3 m c m t � N N m O Q � O a � � N � � `. �n j � 7 � � � � c � E ? � � @ U �1 � �C N � c -6 a� Q m -° �� C � N � o � w � � � N � � 7 � a� � n � m � � X m � � � � R � U � � � � O � � C � � L � N m 0 � � 0 O � N C @ r � 0 � O Z 0 u� N � N �+ C 7 � � m � � N n R .> � C N 7 � d s 0 � 0 0 0 u�'� � w � N � Y N N L � � d X d c L 7 U � � U � N � O o a N � .- > N ' � U 'X m O � � O 0 0 � 6 N N � N � � � � � � �a o . N N N " a N N � a � � � a � p�� T / �- i = V � a � L � N '�6 � � � m m c ry N a Q C � � � � � a w �' � I U axi 3 , i � O �� C � � N Q � � L � U � m 3 � Z � � � .' .� V d � c O « v "a H • L � "7i + � N G � � � O C� � � � d � � � Q � i 7 O 2 i d � � � .��,�� i � � o� 3 C N g � N N v � o" Q � a? m N � � � 0 Q d O � ± U � � � N O � � Gf � � L W 2 0 � � W � �. W C'� {JJ � � Z � O Q v '� -- C � � " a o � � � � � Q � /�� n` v ) I � � � � = ( C � � (6 �' � m vy � U 3 Q °' 2 � in c � � 0 � � � p � � N �O I- N � � � lU C � 2' a a � s � 'y � Q � � � � O � � � � � � � r , y � � � � Q � O �� O W W� Z n , m c c� Q Q c6 N O�.O � �� O � � � y 'i � 2 J > U � � a U N O H � � � c H � Q � tn � � D5-a53 LL A 2 c c� 3 0 d m 9 � _ 0 N � w � x � a a Presented By: Council File # Green Sheet# RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 0 5- �5� 3025646 � Referred To: Committee: Date i z 3 a 5 6 � a 9 ,o i� iz 13 14 IS 16 77 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WHEREAS, the Capital City Partnership has awarded a donation of $1,000.00 to the Department of Fire and Safety Services, and W HEREAS, the Department of Fire and Safety Services would like to accept this donation from the Capitai City Partnership, and WHEREAS, the public purpose of this donation is to continue to support Risk Watch, an injury prevention program, and NOW THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council, on behalf of the citizens of Saint Paul, accept this donation of $1,000.00 from the Capital City Partnership and extend their sincere appreciation to this organization. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary: /� � i f� � By: Requested by Department of: By: � Approval By: Form Aai by Director of Financial Services: by Cifij Attorney: Adopted by Council: Date �h1��3,�dDS .,;� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � t1�-1�ic,t DepartrnenVoffice%ouncil: Date Initiated: v✓ --� t FR — F�� 0�-�-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025646 CoMact Person & Phone• ' Deoartrnent SeM To Person In" " n I/Date Steve Zaccard � U �re >'l��¢ �� Hssign 1 ire De artmentDirector Mast Be on Council /�enda by (Date): Number 2 � �� .� For Routing 3 avor•s O�ce Ma odAssisfa�t Order 4 onncil 5 i Clerk CiN Clerk Total # of Signature Pages (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: To approve the attached Councfl Resolution authorizing the Department of Fire and Safety Services to accept a donation of $1,000.00 from the Capital City Partnerslup. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following 4uestions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this departrnent? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No ' 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normalty possessed by any current city employee? - Yes No Explain all yes answew on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Capital City Partnerslup has awazded a donarion to the Department of Fire and Safety Services for the implementarion of Risk Watch, an injury prevenrion program. The Department of Fire and Safety Services would like to accept the donarion from the Capital City Parinership. AdvantageslfApproved: The Departrnent of Fue and SafeTy Services will be able to accept the donation of $1,000.00 wluch will be used to prevent unintentional injuries to Saint Paul children. � i Disadvantanes if Approved: � None. � � 20ps� �iAR — �I��' ��'t��(��.`� Disadvantages N Not Approved: Lost opportunity to obtain funds to use for a program that would be likely to reduce injuries to children_ Total Amount of Transaction: �000 CostlRevenue eudgeted: y Fs. ___,,,,.,,.��.. ,,,,„ Funding Source: DOl18t10� Adiviry Number: 35115 ' Financial Information: cecR,�� 'Si ��1 �sL� (Explain) , MAR '� S ?@!�5 i PRESEA'TED BY REFERI2ED TO CouncIl FIle # 05_ �5 Green Sheet #�� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 31 CObLrIITTEE: DATE i BE IT RESOLVED, that the proper City officials aze authorized to enter into a rivo yeaz z extension of the Agreement beriveen the City and the State of Minnesota previousiy approved in s Council File No. 03-318 conceming the intra-govemmental transfer of Timothy Leslie to perform 4 the duries of Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Pubiic Safety. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � PD - �oHceDepaz�ent Coniact Person & Phone: Chief John Harrington 266-SW3 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Date Inniated: - �� -�A-0S Green Sheet NO: 3025527 � Departrnent SentToPerson Initial/Date 0 lice arlment Assign 1 oliceDe nt tDirector Number 2 • tt me McCormick �� For Routing 3 r's Otlice Ma odAecicr�,.t Order 4 o cil Ci Coun ' 5 i Clerk Ci Clerk Total # of Signature Pages �_ (Clip All Locations for Signature) To approve an extension of a conhact with the Department of Public Safety for an intergovernmental hansfer of a City employee. idations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity(Who, What, When, Where, Why): The State of Minnesota has asked the City to extend for an additional two yeazs an intra-governmental agreement allowing Senior Coznmander Timothy I,eslie to perform the duties of Asst. Commissioner of the Dept. of Public Safety. The State of Minnesota agees to reimburse the City for all salary, benefits and any related costs associated with the agreement. This will provide a long-time City employee with an extended opportunity to gain experience outside the City with no cost to the City. AdvantageslfApproved: � The City will confinue its contract with the State of Minnesota's Depaztment of Public Safety. The CiTy will be fully reimbursed for a11 salary, benefits and related costs associated with the ageement. , .,I DisativantageslfApprovetl: None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activiry Number: p5-�55 AGREEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND CITY OF ST. PAUL, POLICE DEPARTMENT This agreement is hereby entered into the _ day of April, 2005 by and between the State of Minuesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Deparkment of Public Safety (hereinafter "DepartmenP'), and the City of St. Paul, Police Bepartment (hereinafter «City WHEREAS, the employee Timothy Leslie, is a regulaz employee of the City, in the position of Senior Police Connnander, with certaiu rights as a City employee; and WIIEREAS, the parties agree that Mr. Leslie be granted an intergovernmental mobility assignment from the City to the Department to assume the duties described; and WHEREAS, this agreement is authorized and subject to the Laws of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes 15.51-15.59 (inclusive), WIIEREAS, the original Agreement allowed for an extension of 24 months upon agreement of the City and Department and execution of a written amendment to the original Agreement, NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto and their respective agencies hereby agree as follows: 1. Mr. Leslie's intergovernmental mobility assignment from the City to the Department is hereby extended for 24 months effective the _ day of Aprii, 2005. 2. All other terms and conditions of the origival intergovernmental mobility assignment remain the same. �-as5 � . �..' ' 1 � • : i u/f4�� ,/ r �� :� Date: �` °�' 2 �� Humau Resources Director Depaztment of Public Safety Date: As per encumbz'ance: A ' 'strativ Services Deparhnent of Public Safet7 � Date: '3� � �'� Commissioner of Administrafion Date: Approved as to Form and Execution: CITY OF ST. PAUL Mayor, City of St. Paul Date: Police Date: � (� Approved as to Form: Assistant City Attorney City of St. Paul Date: Finance Director Date: Attorney General t. Lti�wc �� ' AGREEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFET'Y, AND CITY OF ST. PAUi., POLICE DEPARTMENT r�b`3-3�8 as-as� This agreement is hereby entered into the 7th day of April, 2003 by and between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (hereinafter "Department"), and the City of St. Paul, Police Department (hereinafter n�.l�„� WHEREAS, the employee Timothy Leslie, is a regular employee of the City, in the position of Senior Police Commander, with certain rights as a City employee; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that Mr. Leslie be granted an intergovernmental mobility assignment from the City to the Department to assume the duties described; and WHEREAS, this agreement is authorized and subject to the Laws of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes 15.51-15.59 (inclusive), NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto and their respective agencies hereby agree as follows: 1. 2. 3. :� 5. EffectivQ Apri17, 2003, Mr. Leslie will be placed on an intergovernmental mobility assignment from tfie City to the Department for an initial period of 24 months, upon the approval of the City Council. This assignment may be extended for an additiona124 months upon a�reement by the City and the Department, and execution of a written amendment to this agreement. Under the direction of 12ich Stanek, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Mr. Leslie will perform the duties of Assistant Commissioner for the Department of Public Safety. - As Mr. Leslie serves at the pleasure of the Commissioner, this intergovemmental mobility agreement may be terminated at any time by the Commissioner. The agreement may also be terminated at any time by Mr. Leslie or the City with 30 days' written notice. The Department sha11 reimburse Mr. Leslie for all expenses incurred, which relate to his duties as Assistant Commissioner pursuant to applicable Department expense reimbursement policies covered by the Managerial Plan provisions. During the life of this intergovernmental mobility agreement, Mr. Leslie remains a regular employee of the City and continues to accrue and retain benefits, seniority, compensation and allowances from the City in accordance with any current and subsequently approved City administrative procedures andlor policies and labor agreements, including _ c�—a55 any increases in compensafion or allowances that may occur during the effective dates of this mobility agteement for which Mr. Leslie would be = eligible. Ivfr.:beslie will. comply with any City procedures related-to receipt of allowances or use of sicklvacation time. Total compensation under this agreement for Mr. Leslie's services is contained in the attached letter, whieh is incorporated by reference into this agreement. 6. All of Mr. I,eslie's compensation will be subj ect to Police and Fire Plan of the Public Employee Retirement Association of Minnesota with contributions from the City and Mr. Leslie. 7. Mr. Leslie will remain an active licensed peace officer on the City roster subject to continuing education Peace Offcers Standazds and Trainiug Boazd requirements. Mr. Leslie may elect to attend in-service traiuing provided by the CiTy or the Depatimant at his option. 8. During the life of this intergovemmental mobility agreement, the Department shall reimburse the City for 100 percent of Mr. Leslie's compensation and related fringe benefit costs which Mr. Leslie receives from the City as described in Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, except for training or uniform allowances, on a quarterly basis, or by some other arrangement as mutually agreed by the Department and the City, for the length of the mobility agreement or until such time as the City informs the State of any salary increases as stated in pazagraph 5. Actual figures aze contained in the attached letter, which is incorporated by reference. 9. Each pariy is responsibie for its own acts and behavior and the results thereof. The State's liability is governed by�he Minnesota Tort Clauns Act, Minnesota Statutes 3.736. The City's responsibility is govemed by the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes 466.02. Although the supervision of Mr. Leslie's duties will rest exclusively with the Department, he is not a Department employee and isn't etttitled to any Department benefits including but not limited to, unemployxnent benefits, pension, sick and vacation leave, death and medical benefits except as provided in MN Stat. 15.54, Subd 3. 10. Nothing in this intergovernmental mobility agreement, expiicit or impiicit, shall be construed to be an offer or promise of permanent employment for Mr. Leslie with the Deparhnent. 11. Mr. Leslie retains the right to rehun to his previous employxnent with the City upon expiration of the mobility assignment or due to termination of the assignment at any time during the effective dates of this mobility agreement. 12. The City will submit invoices to the Department as agreed between the two parties on a quarterly basis. Final invoices at the end of each state fiscal yeaz (the month of June) will be submitted no later than August 15 of each calendaz yeaz. . � - . .��..o�� • . • . ••� � • � .,,,, .,- Date: �-} 1 � b Z, �� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAI'�TY Human Resources Director Date: I �/ As per encumbrance: � �'' � D ivI�NT OF PUBLIC S'ETY Fiscal and Administrative Sernces Date: � 3 � Approved as to Form and Execution: - i Attome� General �-`� � �, a ON b5� a55 Date: � v �� CTTY O� SAIt Clrief of Police Approved as to Form: C OF SAINT PAUi, Assistant Ciry Attomey Date: "�'�, � � � � �� . � " ��\\�t�� •�r• �. , Date: �'I v Date: .t�t(�{��j�_ Council File #� Green Sheet N 3025187 Presented By: RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 3Z Referred To: � � Committee:Date: 1 WHEREAS, the City of St. Paul, Police Department, has received a Cops More 2002 grant to update 2 equipment and technology that wilt allow officers to query crime data, map crime data, and create reports for 3 mapped crime data; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the City Council accepted this grant on October 23, 2002 (council Sle # 02-982), and this grant 6 has been extended through July 31, 2005; and 7 8 WHEREAS, a 2005 financing and spending plan needs to be established for Cops More 2002 grant funds 9 remaining from 2004; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the Mayor pursuant to Section 10.07.1 oSthe Charter oSthe City otSaint Paul, does certify that t2 there are available for appropriation funds of $169,100 in excess of those estimated in the 2005 budget; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the Mayor recommends that the following addition be made to the 2005 budget: 15 16 CURRENT AMENDED 17 BUDGET CHANGES BUDGET 18 436 - Police Special Projects 19 FINANCING PLAN: 20 34063 - Cops More 2002 21 3099 - Other Federal Direct Grants 0 126,825 126,825 22 9830 - Use of Fund Balance 0 42,275 42,275 23 Total Changesto Financing 169,100 24 25 SPENDING PLAN: 26 . 34063 - Cops More 2002 27 0219 - Fees-0ther Professional Services 0 97,745 97,745 28 0370 - Computer Equipment & Supplies 0 71,355 71,355 29 Total Changes to Spending 169,100 30 31 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council approves these changes to the 2005 budget. 32 Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council:Date: ��j�r�a�3�/Jps Adoption Certified by Council Secretary: B � B Approved by or:Date: Ap� By: .��2.' 34063budget.cr200.5 Mayor for SuF�n;s.sign to Form �rg�ved by City Attorney: ,�°' _ " _ , � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � . . ds-a5to PD — Police DeParnnent Contact Person ffi Phone: Chief John Harrington 266-5588 Must Be on Council Aqen 09-FEB-0S � Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3025187 DeoartmeM Sent To Person InitiaVDate 0 olice De artment P Iice De artmeot 1 oliceDe artment De artmeotDirec[or � 2 io ncial ervi es Financial Service ✓ 3 � Attorne Ci Attorne � 4 a r' ffic Ma or 5 ouncit Ci Council 6 i Clerk i Clerk 7 oliceDe ar[ment PoliceDe artment Total # of Signature Pages 1(Clip All Locatlons for Signature) Action Requested: Signature requested on the attached council resolution authorizing the Ciry of Saint Paul, Police Deparhnent, to establish a 2005 financing and spending plan for the Cops More 2002 grant. dations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission the 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes , No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The'City of Saint Paul, Police Department, has received a Cops More 2002 grant to update crime mapping equipment and technology. (Attached is a copy of the granY). Advantages If Approved: Officers will be able to query crime data, map crime data and create reports for mapped crime data. Disadvantaqes If Approved: None. MAR 1 C 2005 Disadvantages If Not Approved: Inability to use grant funds available that will allow officers to use and map crune data. Total Amount of Transaction: Fundinq Source: Financial l nformation: (Explain) 169100 U.S. Department of Justice CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: 436-34093 „� ��- ,�- -ri=. � - t r ; ��, U. S. Department of Justice Offzce of Cammunity Oriented Policing Services COPS MORE02 AWARD Applicant Organization's Legal Name: Crant #: OR/ #: Vendor #: Law Enforcement Executive Name: Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Faz: Goverrement Executive Name: Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: F¢z: Award Start Date: 8/1/2002 Award Amount: $ 126,825.00 � ,� � ' .l►�� ` � 'j1\1 � ' � �EP t15 20Q2 Date � �” �� Award End Date: 7/31/2003 By signing this award, the signatory officials are agreeing [o abide by the Conditions of Grant Award found on the reverse side of this dowment: Signature of Law Enforcement Executive with the authority To accepi this grant awasd. Signature of Govemment Executive with the authority to accept this grant award. Y7illiam K. Finney, Chief of Police Typed Name and Title of Law Enforcement Executive. Randy C. Kelly, Nayor Typed Name and Ti[le of Govemment Executive. St. Paul, City of 2002CLWX0027 MN06209 416005521 Chief WilliamK. Finney 100 East 1 Ith Sh�eet St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292-3588 (651)292-3542 Mayor Randy Kelly 390 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55101 (651)266-8510 (651)292-3542 Date Date Aw�rd ID: 70081 � ��A' �1�, � f�: =��_ �� —;; a �� ( ^r��y/i �iJ v.�� U. S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grents Administrafion Division Memorandum To: WilliamFinney,Chief St. Paul, City of From: Robert A. Phillips, Assistant D'uector, Grams Administrarion Raymond Reid,, COPS Point of Contact, Grants Administration W endy Muse, Staff Accountant, Finance Division Re: COPS MORE02 Financial Cleazance Memo A financial analysis of budgeted costs has been completed. Costs under this award appear reasonable, allowable, and consistent with existing guidelines. Vendor #: 416005521 ORI #: MN06209 Grant #: 2002CLWX0027 Cate2orv Equipment Supplies Consultanu/Contractors Grand Total: Requested Disallowed Anaroved Disallowed Reasons/ Comments $90,000.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 $29,100.00 $0.00 $29,100.00 $50,000:00 $0.00 $50,000.00 Totat $169�100.00 Federal5hare: Applicant Share: $0.00 $169,100.00 $ 126,825.00 $ 42,275.00 Budge[ cleared by Wendy Muse on 8/8/2002. Overall Comments: " � ��- ' °��,�,�; a r `. �, 1100 VermontAvenue, NW Washington, DC20530 U. S• Depar[ment of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants Administra[ion Division � � August 30, 2002 Memorandum of COPS MORE 2002 Items Funded Jurisdiction: St. Paul, City of p� MN06209 The following figures have been compiled by the COPS Office based on a review of your COPS MORE 20C2 application. Award amounts are based on financial review by the COPS Finance Division. I Technology/Equipment: Tota] federal dollars awarded: Items Funded: $ 126,825.00 Crime Analysis Software Mobile Computing Other Description: 17 laptops, crime analysis hardware/softwaze, projectors. * The official award date of your COPS MORE 2002 grant is 8/1/2002. You will be reimbursed for any approved expenses incurred on or afrer 8/1/2002 under your COPS MORE 2002 grant. If your depariment requested a waiver of the local matching funds, information concerning this decision will be sent to you shortly under separate cover. ,r'Y��G; �ea. r: � ��: �re of fhe Di�ecfor ll00VermorttAvertue. NW Washington, DC20530 Chief William K Finney St. Paul, City of 100 East I 1 th Stteet St. Paul, MN 55101 � RE: COPS ORI # MN06209 COPSGrant# 2002CLWX0027 Dear Chief Finney: U. S. Department of Justice O�ce of Cammunity Oriented Policing Services (COPS) au�c so, zoo2 � i ��.�, ,. � `'— _,-,r� . - C-:� ` `,� � �f��L �, 6 �. •� Congratulations. I am pleased to inform you that the COPS Office has approved your agencys request for funding under the COPS MORE02 program. The official start date of your grant is 8/1/2002. (�j"�`.�P Enclosed in this packet �s your Grant Award, which you must sign and return to the COPS Office w�thin 90 days [o officially accept your grant. Failure to retum the signed award document within the 90-day period could result in withdrawai of the funding without further notice from the COPS Office. The MORE02 Award document provides the total award amount and a list of Conditions tha[ apply to your grant appear on the ceverse side of The Award document. You should read and famiharize yourseif with these Conditions. Also enclosed in this packet are any special conditions [hat apply to your grant These must aiso be signed and retumed ro the COPS Office in order to officially accept the grant. You must comply with the requirements of any special condition(s) before you will be able [o draw down gran[ funds. Also enclosed is your MORE02 Grant Owner s Manual wh�ch summarizes and explains your COPS MORE02 Grant. You will also find materials relating to payment methods and procedures for receiving your grant funds. Yoi should reu�ew the grant materials in your Grant Owner's Manual regarding the method of payment available to you. Please aiso rcview the Federal procuremen[ regulations ("Umform Admmistrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements [o State and Local Govemments") which cover important requvements relating to purchasing technology and equipment and contracting for services. Once again, congratulations on your award. Should you have any questions regarding your COPS MORE02 Award, please do not hesitate to contac[ the COPS Office or your Grant Program Specialist at 1-800-42t-6770. Sincerely, (.��-�.�� Carl R. Peed Director AppGcant Organization Legal Name: S PPD ORI �: MN06209 Section VII Budget Detail Workshe�t O�j"�5(P A. Equipment L'ut noneYpendabie items that are to be purchased. Noaexpendable equipment is tangible property having a use- ful life of more than two years and an acquisifion cost o[ $5,000 or more per unit. Facpendable items shouid be included either in the `Supplies° category or in the "Other" category. Applicants should analyce the cost benefits of purchasing versus leasing equipment, especially for high-cost items and those subject to rapid technical advances. Rented or leased equipment costs should be listed in the °Contractual" category. Explain how the equipment is necessary for the success of the project Attach a narralive describing the procurement method to be used. Item ComputaGan Cosf Laptops (12) 12x $5000 $60,000 Projectors (6) 6x $5000 $30,000-"' Competitive bid will be used to pucchase these items. See attached T'Otdl: $ 90 , 000 SecGon t'll - You must retarn this page as part atyour appliration 57 1'UI�I1dS�I1�iSt1llC�lli lSN LLlp.,i��i�w� �� rc�a}�t-�u�ii � _ cc�-a 5� � � - � -�-�-� -� - � >. �� -- i i � ? i � ;, � � i Purchasing Bulle�in 1sp: City of Saint Paul Purchasing Guidelines Under Chapter 5.02 of the Saint Paul Administrarive Code, the Division of Contract and Analysis Services (CAS) is charged with handling nearly all of the purchases made by City departments and Saint Paul Regional Water Services. The Division is also charged with approving all speci£cations and making sure that language referencing all applicable laws and requirements has been included. The Purchasing Process The purchasing process begins when a department identifies a need for equipment, supplies, services or other commodities. An authorized department staff person must then place a request for purchasing assistance by filling out a data entry form to create a requisition in the City's Finance system. The Activity Manager or department accountant must sign the data entry form to certify that funds are available in an adopted budget to pay for the requisitioned item (s). The departmenYs designated data entry person must then enter the requisition in the Finance System. New requisitions aze printed out daily in the CAS office and distributed to the buyer who has been assigned the particular commodity. The buyer will review the • requisition and may consult with the department contact person to verify timelines and requizements. To initiate a purchase, a buyer must have a clear description of the desired product or service, as well as the performance requirements. This description is commonly referred to as a specificafion. A specification may be very detailed or very brief, and may be communicated in writing or verbally. If the department has developed a specification, the buyer will review it for clarity and completeness. if a specification does not exist, at this point one will be developed and the buyer will select a purchasing method. Specificataons may be written by department staff, buy a buyer, or developed jointly. CAS buying staff regularly obtain specifications from other jurisdictions and can modify them to meet City needs. (See Purchasing Bulletin 2sp: Specifications) Purchasing Methods Buyers can use several different solicitation methods. When choosing a method, the buyer will take into consideration the estimated dollar amount of the item (s) or project, the number of vendors available to bid, past experience purchasing the commodity, and the date when the commodity is needed, among other factors. . Advertised Bids - Cha te�r 471345 of the I of 5 4/19/Z001 8:30 AM 1 ulCpd51i1� bLLI1Ctt17 1 a� �u�}�.i�iacU�U.��.ni�nu�.�iu..uw....0 ........ .........�N �. � o5-as6 Minnesota Statutes requires that contiacts for goods, services supplies, and construction having a value of $50,000 or more be established using a sealed, competitive bidding process. The law also requires that notice of such bids be published once a week for rivo successive weeks in the official paper of the jurisdiction. The City's official paper is The Saint Pau1 Legal Ledger. A written notice of a bid and sometimes the bid document are mailed to a list of vendors who aze likely to be qualified to submit bids. Advertised bids aze also distributed via the intemet to individuals who subscribe to the Bid Information System (BIS) offered by Contract and Analysis Services. An advertised bid is required for purchase over $50,000 but may be used at any dollar level Quotes - Buyers solicit quotes from vendors for goods and services of less than $50,000. These requests for quotes aze transmitted to vendors via U.S. mail, via fax, or electronically via the Intemet through the Bid Information Service. Vendors may retum a response by fax or e-mail if the estimated cost of the desired products or services is less than $ lO,OQQ. A minimum of two quotes must be obtained to meet legal requirements. Small Purchases - Chapter 86 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code permits some flexibility in the execution of small contracts. Small contracts are defined as those agreements having a value of $1,500 or less. Department staffmay make small purchases directly, without submitting a requisition to Contract and Analysis Services. Staff may contact a single vendor or request pricing from more than. There is no minimum number of quotes required. Two options are available for making small purchases of goods, services and supplies. Departments may obtain special forms known as Pickup Orders from CAS and give these to vendors in lieu ofpurchase orders. Departrnent staffmay also make small purchases with a Procurement Cazd issued by the Accounting Section of the Financial Services Office. Neither Pickup Orders nor Procurement Cards may be used to purchase professional services. A professional service agreement is always required. (See Purchasing Builetin 6sp.) Requests for Proposals - A Request For Proposal (RFP) is a detailed specification issued most often to purchase a professional service, such a s azchitectural or engineering services. Sometimes an RFP will be used to purchase equipment or systems where a complex set of performance variables or altemative configurations is possible, such as a telephone system. For detailed information on RFPs and purchasing professional services, see Purchasing Bulletins 5_sp_and 6s� 2 of 5 4/19/2001 830 AM 1'u��llaa��1315ui��u�i iaN u�iy.uuie�.u.w.o�}�uui.tuu.ua.wu..u�u,.�+ e ,.,w�..�., . o5-as� Emergeucy Purchasing - The City's definition of an emergency is "a serious situation or occurrence that develops suddenly and unexpectedly and that deniands immediate action, where failu�•e to act wouZd be detrimental to the best interests of the City or its operation. " Depariment staff who believe they have a legitimate eme:gency should contact z buyer m the Contract and Analysis Services Office for assistance. The buyer will evaluate the situation and execute the emergency transaction, making sure there is appropriate justification and dacumentation. Completing the Process Once the buyer receives all of the pricing and performance information for a given solicitation, the information will be carefully evaluated. Staff prepare tabulations of advertised bids, and transmit them to department contacts to facilitate the department review. These contact persons aze asked to send a letter of recommendation to the buyer (see Purchasing Bulletin 4� The contract will then be awazded to the lowest bidder who meets all of the requirements of the specification. When there are bond and insurance requirements, the low bidder will have a ten-day period within which to file the appropriate documents. Only after all requirements are met will the contract, generally in the form of a purchase order, be written. The PO is then routed for signature in accordance with City policies (see next section). Special Requirements Special requirements apply to certain kinds of contracts. For example, Chapter 574.26 of the Minnesota Statutes requires that performance and payment bonds be fumished on contracts for public works (e.g. construction). Cha t�.07 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code requires that, on contracts of $10,000 or more for public works or public improvements, the vendor be required to pay the prevailing wage (Same wage as a comparable City Civil Service position.) Contracts that require individuals to work on or with City property generally include a requirement for vendors to cany various kinds of insurance. And, ali vendors who receive contracts from the City having a value of $50,000 or more are required to file an acceptable Affirmative Action Plan with the City's Department of Human Rights before a contract is executed. 3 of 5 4/19/2001 830 AM t�u��ueau�gtsutic;u�i 1aN Oiiyl. i u�..u: u.��.a��uui.nu�.u� ww� a..u. n� un � n �wy � v.0 w� o5-a 5 � ' Confract , Signature Special Amount ; Requirements . Requirements . �Genera ly no bon or - ; iActivity Manager for linsurance sUndei $1,5000 �Pickup Orders or �requirements; no ' €Piocucement Card -prevaIling wage : � 'requirements �- Performance and paymentbonds ;Duector, Financial aequired; a bid bond � �Services may be required at the �- �$1,501 t0 �Assistant Ciry Attomey :discretion of the buyer ; �$24,999 '�'�chasing Manager or 'and the deparhnent; , ':Buyec ;prevailing wages �with laboi :,Plus General Manager ;required for public ',foz Water Uriliry �works and public !Purchase Orders improvements; City I � � :insumnce � � ' ;requirements i i �i • erformance an � ; �payment bonds not '_ ' �typical; bid bond may ; 'i$1,501 t0 iPurchasing Manager or :be required at the ' �$24 goods Buyer (Same for �discretion of the buyer ; �Ionlv �Water Utility) ,and deparhnent; City ' may I lDuectoc, Financial `Payment bonds aze ; ;Services requued when labor is �Assistant City Attomey I bond of 5% o�f pr ject� I $25,00� to j�+rchasing Manager or , cost is required on �$50,000 IBuyer :contracts of $50,000 . ;Plus President and jor more; City �Secretary of the Water �urance ; Utility Board for Water 'requuements; � , ;Purchase Orders �prevailing w�age i �� :requuements. - �----��-- Performanceand � !D'uector of Human �Payment bonds are ; ;Rights :requued when labor is � i D'uector, Financial t �cluded; a 60-day bid ' � ;bond of 5% of project ; ' �Ass s[ant City Attomey icost is required on , ��$50,000 3IId purchasing Manager or conhacTS of $50,000 � �Above jguyer or more; City �plus Presidentand ;�surance I Secretary of the Water requirements; � :Utility Board on Water �Prevailing �vage Utility Purchase Orders requiremenis; Affumative Action �� iPlan to be filed. • Master Contracts Sometimes more than one depariment will want to purchase the same item or a single department will need to purchase items repeatedly over time. To accommodate such situations, buyers set up a special kind of contract known as a Master Contract. These are structured so that unit prices and terms will be fixed for the period of the contract for a given set of supplies, goods, or services. Department staff are then able to place orders 9 of 5 4/19/2001 8:30 AM rua�tiavugt�mi�ui� ��y� u N., directly with the vendor without submitting a requisition to CAS. Master contracts aze set up regularly for such things as office supplies, fax machines, and automobile replacement parts. (Click here to access the current list of master contracts.) Joint Purchasing The City has executed joint purchasing agreements with more than 50 other Minnesota govemments pursuant to the joint powers authority contained in Minnesota Statute 471.59. These agreements make it possible for the City , to make purchases from any contracts established by the other govemments, provided the buying method used is compatible with City contracting requirements. Buyers regularly review contracts from other junsdicrions, particulazly Master Conttacts established by the State ofMinnesota. Acceptable agreements are then available for City departments to use just as they would City established contracts. .,,..,.,,,. �, .. „ a5-a 5� 5 of 5 4/19/2001 830 AM i . Appficant Organization Legal Name: SePD ORI#: MN06209 B. Supplies List items by type (items costing tess than $5,000) and sLow the basis for computation. Generally, supplies include any materials that are expendabie or consumed during the course of the project.,_ Supply Items Computation Cost Color Printer (7) 7x $300. GIS Hardware (30) .,30x $900 � 2,l00 $27,000 Tofal.• $ Z9 , ioo ✓' , 58 Secfion YII - Yau must re[urn [his page as par( ofyaur appGcafion • � I Applicant Organization Legal Name: sPPD ORI #: MN06209 C. ConsultanWContracts Consultant Fees: For each consultant enter the name (if known) sen�ice to be provided, hourly or daily fee (8-hour day), and estimated time on the project. Consultant fees in excess of $450 p�r day require additional written justification. NameofConsultant ServiceProvided Comp¢tation Cost Subtotal.• $ ..................................................................................................................... ConsultantExpense: List all expenses to be paid from the grant to the individual consultants in addition to their tees (e.g., travei, meals, (odging). Item Location Comprrtafion Cosf Subtotal.• $ .................................................................. Contractr. Provide a descrip6on of the product or service to be procured by contract aud an estimate of the cost. AQplicants are encouraged to promote free and open competilion in awarding contcacts. A separate justifi- cation must be provided for so(e-soure contracts in excess of $100,000. Ite� Cosf See attached Subtotal.•$ so,000 Total: $ so,000 Sectlon VII - You must mlvrn this page as part afynur app/icafinn �9 . .. OS-�5b Contractor's role The contractor(s) wili design, develop, and implement a user-friendly softwaze package for the Saint Paui Police Department. The contractor(s) will develop a program that abstracts accurate and appropriate information from the police department's database, ensure geocoding accuracy, and incorporate user-friendiy features in a mapping software that enabies all officers to utilize its capabilities in a minimal time period. ._ The contractor(s) must begin the process hy determining the desired features of the program. The design must conform to Saint Paul Police Department needs. The design will incorporate all desired components while integrating features and directions that are easy to foliow for the amateur user. Upon approval of an appropriate design, development wiil follow. Development will consist of programming, conforming software capabilities with the Police DeparhnenYs database, and creating a layout or test product. The product will be tested by the Police Department. The Police Department will make recommendations and 'unprovements as necessary. The product will then go back into development for modifications. I3pon approvai of the discussed modifications, the contractor(s) wiil implement the program, allowing all police officers to utilize its functions. 05-�5( AppGcant Or anization I.egal Name: S PPD 0 Mn�62�9 D. Other Costs List items which do not fali within the previous budget categories and pou wish to have e�?1ua[ed under the grant. Items Computation Cast Total• $ � 6a Sectian V!I — You must re(um �is page as par[ of yoar application .. 05 a�� Applicant Organization Le;al Name: SPPD pgi# Mno62o9 Budget Summary When you have completed the budget worksheet, transfer the totals for each category to the spaces below. Compute the total project costs_ Indicate the amount of Federal funds requested. Budgef Category Cosf A. Equipment B. Supplies C. Consultants/Contracts D. Other Total Project Costs Federa! Request Non-Federal Amount ..• 29,000 .�. $ 169,100 $ 126,825 75 %) $ a2,2�s � zs %� Secdon VII - You must mtarn fhis page as part ofyo�r application � 61 � U.S. Deparhnen[ of Jus[icc O�ce of Cocmnunity Oriented Poticing Services Assurances Several provisions oC Federal la�v and polic}� appl}� [o all grant programs. VJe (the Odice of CommuniTy Oriented Potfcing Servfces) nted [o secure your assurance that you (the applican[) vrill comph� w�ith these procisions. IC}•ou ��'ould like further infonnauon aUou[ any o[ the matters on ��hich we seek your assurance, pleasn contact us. By your authorized representative's signature, you assure us and certify to us tha[ you �vill comply x�ith ali le�al and admmis[rahve requirements that govem the apyi..;ant for acceptavice and use of zederal grant funds. In particular, vou assure us that i. You have been legally and officially authorized by the appro- priate goveming body (for example, mayor or ciN council) to apply for this gran, and that the persons signino the applieation and these assuranccs on your behalf are authorized to do so and to act on youc behalt with respect to any issues that ma� arise dwing processing of this application. 2. You will comply with the provisions of Federal law ��hich limi[ cer[ain political activities ofyour employees whose prin- cipal employment is in connection with an activity financed in w�hole or in part ti�th this grant. These restrictions are set forth in 5 U.S C. § 1501, et seq. i. You will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federa! Fair La6or Standards Act, if thev apply to you. d. You w�ll establish safeguards, if you have not done so already, to prohiUit emplo}'ees from using the�r positions for a purposc that is, or gives the appearance of being, motivated by a desire for pm�att gain for themselves or others, particulady those with �vhom they have family, busSness or other ties. �. You will give the Department of Justice or the Comptrolier Generai access to and the right to esamine records and docu- men[s re(ated to the grant. 6. You will comply with all requirements imposed by the Department of Justice as a condition or administrative require- ment of the grant; with the program guidelines; with the requirements of OMB Ciroulars A-87 (goveming cost calcula- tions) and A-128 or A-133 (governing audits); �«itU the appli- eable provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended; with 2S CFR Part 66 (Uniform Administrative Requirements); wiih the provisions oC the current edi[ion of the appropriate COPS grant owner's manital; and with nll other applieable laws, orders_ regulations or arculars. 7. You wdl, to ihe ex[ent practicable and consistent wi[h app(i- cable law, seek, recruit and hire qualified members of raciai and ethnic minority groups and quali£ed women in order to further e£i'ective law enforcement by increasing [heir ranks �vithin the sworn positions in your ageney. 8. You ��rili not, on the ground of mce co o, eligioq nationat origin, gender, disability or age, unla� ully e�clude any person I hereby Sig��ature: from paRicipation in, deny tfie benefits of or employment to any person. or subject any person to discrimination in conneo- tion wiih any programs or activities funded in «•hole or in part ��ith Federal funds. These civil rights requirements are found in tlie non-discriminatio� provisions of [he Ommbus Crime Conhol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. y 3789(d)); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 79G1, as aniended (42 U.S.C. § 2000d); the Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.0 y y 1301-1303); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act o£ 19T, as amended (29 U S.C. § 794); I'itle II, Subtit(e A of the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.); ihe Age D�scriminaUOn Ac[ of 1975 (42 U.S.C. § 61U1, et seq.); and Department of Justice Non-Discriminat�on Regulations contained in T�tle 28, Parts 35 and 42 (subparts C, D, E and G) of [he Code of Federa� Regutations A. In the event that any court or administrative agency makes a Cmding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, religioq national origin, gender, disability or age against you aRer a due process hearing. you agree to forward a copy of the finding to the OfHce of Cicil Rights, OfT�ce of Ji�stice Pro�rams, 810 7th Street, NW, Washingtoq DC 20531. B. If you are xpplying for a grant of SSOO,OOU or more and Dep�rtmwt rcgulai�ons (28 CFR 42301 et seq ) require you to submit an Equal OppoRUnity Employment Plan, you will do so at [he time af thfs apphcation, if you have not done so in the past If you are applying for a grant of less than $500,000 and the renulations require you to maintain a Plan on file in your office, you will do so within ]20 days of your gran[ award 9. You will insure that the facilifies under your ownership, lease or superv�sion which shall be utilized in the accomplis6- ment o[ the pro�ect arz not listed on the Enviromnental Protection Agency's (EPA) Lst of V�iolating Facitities and [hat you will notify �s if you are advised b� the EPA indicating that a facility to be used in this grant is under consideration for list- ing by EPA 10 If your s[ate has established a teeiew and comment proce- dure under Executive Order 12372 and has setected this pro- gram for review�. you have made this applicatw�� available for review by the state Single Point of Contact. IL You will de}'ise a plan to retain the increased hiring level with state and local funds aRer the conclusion of your grant. assurances tha[ govem the application and use of Federal funds. Date: � (T Z Sec6an �7/I — You mast retum tLis page as patY atyoar app7ica6on 65 U.S. Dep:��'hnen[ of Jusfice ��•;�� Office of Coicuuu�uty Oriented Policing Services �S'a� Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibiiity Matters; Drug-free Workplace Requirements Coordination with Affected Agencies; Non-Supplanting; and Retention. Although the Departmen[ of Jusiice has made every efFor[ to simplify the application process, other provisions of Federal la�v require us to seek vour certificalion regarding cedain matters. Applicants should read the regulations cited below and the instructions for certitica- tion induded in the regulations to understand the requirements and �ehether they apply to a particula� applicant. Sisnacure of ilvs form provides for compliance W�th certiYication requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," and 28 CFR Part 67, "Govemment-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Dru� Free 4�%orkplace (Gran[s)," and Ihc coordination and non-supptanting requirements of [he Riblic Safety Partnership and Commu��ity Polfefn�Act of 199�'. The cerhfications shatl be treated as a material represe��tation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when ihc Department of Justice determines to award the covered grant. 1.Lobbying As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of Uie U.S. Code, and impfe- inented at 28 CFR Part 69, for persons entering into a grant or coop- erative agreeineni over $]00,000, as defined at 28 CFR Part 69, the appl�cant certities that� A_ No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting [o mfluence an officeror employee of any agency, a Membec of Congcess, ao officer or employee of Congress, or an empioyee of a Member of Congress in conneo- [ion with the maAmg of any Federal grant; the entering into of any cooperatrve agreeme��[; and the estens�on, continuation, renewal, amendment or modiftcatio�� of a�p� Federai grant or cooperalive agreemen[; B. If any funds other [han Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for in➢uencing or attemphng to intluence �n officer or employec of any agency, a Member of Congress, an oRicer or employee of Congress, or an employee oF a Member of Congress in connection with this Fedesa! grant or cooperatire agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Fonn — LLL "Disclosure of Lobbying Activ�ties," m aecordance with its insiructions; s?ate or Federat court,�or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency, (ii) Have not within a ihree-year penod preceding t6is applica- tion been conv�eted of or had a civil judgment rendered agamst ihem for commission of fraud or a criminal otTense in connec- tion with obtaining, attempting to ob[ain, or perfonning public (Fedecal, state or local) transaction or contract under a pubtic transaction; violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezztement, theCt, forgery, bnbery, falsitica- 60�� or destruction of records, maA�ng false statemen[s, or receiv- m� siolen property, (iii) Are not presently ind�cied for or othcrw�se cmmnally or eiv�lly charged by a governmental ent�ty (Federal, state or loeal) with commission of any ot the ofYenses eimmerated m paraeraph (A)(ii) of this certitication; and (iv) Have not H�i[hin a[hree-year penod precedmg [h�s apphca- tion had one or more public tmnsxctions (Federal, state or locap tecminated for cause or default�, and B Where the applican[is unable [o certify [o any of the state- ments in this certi6ca[ion, he or she shali attach an explanatfon to this application. C. The undersigned shall require that [he language of this certi- fication be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, eontracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that a{I sub- recipients shail eertify and diselose accordingty. 2. Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibihty Matters (Direct Recipient) As required by Executive Order I2549, Debannent and Suspensien, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, for prospecfive partieipants in primary covered transactions, as defined at 28 CFR Part 6"7, Section 67510 — A. The applicant cerhiies that d and its piincipals: (i) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligi6te, sentenccd to a denia( of Federal benefits bV a i. Drug-Free Workplace (Grantees Other Than Indiv�duais) As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and imptemented at 28 CFK Part 67. Subpart F, for grantees, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67, Sections 67.615 and 67.620 — A. The applicant certif3es that it will, or wilt continue to, provide a drug-free workplace by: (i) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufac[nre, distribution, dispensing, posses- sion or use of a wntrolled subs[ance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and speciEying ri�e actions that will 6e taken against employees for violation of sach prohiGition; (ii) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness pra gram io infomi employees abont — (a) The dangers of drug abuse in [he workplace; 6) Seclion V!/1- Yau must return [6 page as part ofy app lication U.S. Department of Justice Office of Conunumry Oriented Policing Services Disclosure of Labbying Activities Instructions for Completion of SF-LLt, Disclosure of Lobhying Activides This disclosure form shall be completed by the repoRing entity, whether subawardee or prime Federal recipient at the initiation or receipt of a covered Federal action, or a material change to a previous f line, pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. The til- ing of a form �s required for each paymeni or agreement to make payment to anti lobbyin� entity for influencing or attempting to influence an o�Ger or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an o�cer or employee ot Gongress, or an employee of a Member of Congmss in connecrion with a covered Federal aclion. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filin� and material change report. Re£er to the implementing guidance published by the Oftice of Management and Bud�e[ for addi[ionat information. I. Identify the type of covered Federal action for which lobbying activity is andlor has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered Federal action. 2. Identify the status of the covered Federal action. 3. Idendfy the appropriate classification of Ihis report. If this is a follow-up report caused by a raaterial change to the informauon previously reported, enter tl�e yeaz and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the da[e of flie last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for Ihis covered Federal action. 8. Enter the most appropriate Federal idenUfying number available for the Federal action identified in item 1(e.g., Request for Proposal (RFP) number, Invita[ion for Bid (IFB) number, grant announcement number; ihe con- tract, grant, or loan award number, the application/pro- posal control number assi�ed by the Federal agency). Include prefixes, e.g., "RFP-DE-90-001" 9. For a covered Federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the Federal agency, enter the Federal amount of the awardlloan commitment for the prime entiry ident�ed in item 4 or 5. 4. Enter the fiill name, address, city, sta[e and zip code of the reporting entily. Include Congressional District mmiber, if known. Check ffie appropriate classification of the reponing enlity Ihat desig�ates if it is, or espects to be, a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier ot the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of tl�e prime is the ]s[ tier. Subawards inctude but are not limited to subcontracts, subgrants and contract awards under grants. 5. If ti�e orguuzation filing the report in item 4 checks "Subawardee," then enter the full name, address, city, state and zip code of the prime Fedeial recipient. Include Congressional District, if known. 6. Enter the name of the Federal agency making the awazd or loan commitment. Include at least one organi- zatioru�l level below agency name, if known. For eaam- ple, Deparhnent of Traiuportatioq United States Coast Guard. 7. Enter the Fedecal pro�m name or descdption for tl�e covered Federal action (item I). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) num- ber for grants, cooperative agreements, loans and loan wmnriunents. 10. (a) Enter flie full name, address, city, state and zip code of Qie tobbying entity engaged by the repotting reg- isVant identified in item 4 to influence the covered Federal action. (b) Enter the full i�ame(s) of the individual(s) performing services, and include full address if different from 10 (a). En[er Last Nune, First Name, and Middle Initial (MI). 11. The certifying official shall sign and date die fomt print lus(her nanze, title and tetephone number. Public reporting bxrden for this collechon of injorma- tron is estrmated to average 30 minutes per respaase, ine(ucling time jor revierving instruetrons, searching e.ristrng data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing nnd reviewing the collec- tio�a of rnfornention. Send comments regarding the b¢tr- den estintate or �ny other aspect oJ thrs collection oJ inforniafion, including suggestions for reducing this bur- den, to the OJfice oj Mnnagement and Budget, PapenvorkReduction Project (034&0046), YYashingtoia, D.C. 20530. 69 Section VIII - You mus! re[urn tLis page as part ot ynur applica6on A,r -+� -- Disc�osure of Lobbying Activities inswctions far Compietion of SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities {cont`d} Approved by OMB 034&0046 Comp]ete this fom� to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 (See reverse for insuuctions and public burden disclosure) none (a5 amended) 1. Type of Federal Action: _ 2. Status of Federal Action: _ 3. Report Type: _ a. contract a, bid/offer/appliction a. inirial filing b. grant b. initial award b. material change c. cooperative agreement c, post-awazd d. loan For Nlaterial Grange Orelyr e. loan guarantee Year: f. loan insurance Quarter: Date of last report 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter O Prime O Subawardee Name and Address of Prime: Tier_, iJkrrown: Congressional District (number), if known: ^ Congressional District (number), if known: _ 6. Federal DepartmenUAgency: 7. Federal Program Nazne/Description: CFDA Number, if applicable: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known: $ 10, a Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant ]0. b. Individuals Performing Scrvices ('f individual, last name, frrs[ name, MI): (including address if different from No. l0a) I (last name flrst MI): 11. Information requested through this form is author- Signature: ized by TiUe 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disdosure of lobbying activities is a material repr�entation offact Wi 11iam K. F' nne upon wbich refiance was placed by the tier above when Print Name: Y _ this transaction was mede or entered into. This disclo- sureisrequiredpursuaMto31US.C.135Z Thisirfior- Title: Chief of Police mation will be reported to the Congress semi-annually and will be available for public inspection. My person whofailstofiletFierequireddisdos�reshallbesubject TelephoneNo.: 651-292-3588 Date: to a civil penalty of not less than $SO,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. FCdE�81 jJSC �[lly: Authorized for Local Reproduction, Standard Form - LLL 70 Sectio V - You mu sf relu [ bis p age a p art otyout app/ica � - ,a Applicant Organization Legal Name: SPPn Og[ n: MN06209 Public Safety Need//nability to Address without Federa/ Assistance N/A 73 RESOLUTION CITY O�,SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA Presented By: Council File #� 0��5'133 Green Sheet #--� � Referred To: Committee:Date: 1 2 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is eligible to receive a 2005 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) from the 3 U.S. Department of Justice; and 4 5 WHEREAS, this grant is a joint award of $514,397 for the City of Saint Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, and 6 the County ofRamsey, Minnesota; and 7 8 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul is authorized to enter into the attached 9 interlocal agreement between the City of Saint Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, and the County of Ramsey, 10 Minnesota, for the 2005 JAG program award. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � o5-a� DepartrnenUofficelcounciC PD — Policepepartrnent CoMact Person 8 Phone: Chief John Hartington 266-5588 on Council Agenda by (Date): Date Initiated: 74MAR-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025733 � Department SeM To Person Inrtfal/Date 0 li De artment Police D ar[ment A55ign 1 olic De artment De ar[ment Director \_/ NUmbef 2 inaocial Services Financial ervices For Routing 3 i Attome Ci Attome Order 4 a r 1T Ma or 5 ouncil Council 6 i lerk Ci lerk 7 lice De ar[ment P lice De artmen[ Topl # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Signatures requested on the attached council resolution authorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into the attached agreement. Recommendations Approve (A) or Reject.(R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee� Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Ciry of Saint Paul has been authorized to receive a joint 2005 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) from the U.S. Department of Justice. An interlocal agreement between the City of Saint Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, and Ramsey County needs to be authorized. Advantaqes If Approved: Ability to receive the 2005 JAG as a joint program. DisadvantaSles If Approved: None. DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Loss of 2005 JAG funds available for a joint program that strengthens the criminal justice system. Total Amount of Trensaction: Fundinp Source: Financial Information: (Explain) 514397 U.S. Department of Justice Activity Number: 34199 � }� p W d p�sryiG�7+, A� eA�:IY."�tI :.,:.�� : ".. . (��.-: CostlRevenue Budgeted: � p5- �5�f GMS APPLICATION NUMBER 2005-91702-MN-IJ THE STATE OF MIl�TNE50TA COUNTY OF RAIVISEY KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MAPLEWOOD, ROSEVII.LE AND THE COUNTY OF RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 2005 BYRNE NSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AWARD This Agreement is made and entered into this 8th day of Mazch, 2005, by and between the CITY of SAINT PAUL, MAPLEWOOD AND ROSEVII,LE, acting by and through their goveming bodies, their City Councils, hereinafter referred to respecrively as "Saint Paul", "Maplewood" aud "Roseville" and the COITNTY OF RAMSEY, acfing by and through its goveming body, the Commissioners of the County, hereinafter refeaed to as "Ramsey", a11 of Ramsey County, State of Minnesota, witnesseth: WHEREA.S, this Agreement is made under the authority of the provision of Mimiesota Statutes Section 471.59, the Joint Powers Act; and WHEREAS, each goveming body, in performing governmental functions or in paying for the performance of governmental functions hereunder, shall make that performance or those payments from current revenues legaily available to that party; and WHEREAS, each governing body finds that the perFormance of this Agreement is in the best interests of a11 parties, that the undertalang will benefit the public, and that the division of costs fairly compensates the performing party for the services or functions under ttris Agreement; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paui agrees to provide the City of Maplewood $14,000, City of Roseville $12,000 and Ramsey County $145,652 from the JAG award for the Collabora6ve JAG Program; and WHEREAS, all parties believe it to be in their best interests to reailocate the JAG funds. pS-a5� GMS APPLICATION NUMBER 2005-91720-MN-IJ NOW THEREFORE, the Saint Paul, Mapiewood, Roseville and Ramsey agree as follows: Section 1. Saint Paul agrees to pay Mapiewood, Roseville and Ramsey a total of $171,652 of JAG funds as outlined above. Section 2. Maplewood, Roseville and Ramsey agrees to use $171,652 for the Collaborative JAG Program until September 30, 2008. Section 3. Notlung in the performance of this Agreement shall impose any liability for claims against Maplewood, Roseville and Ramsey other than claims for which liability may be unposed by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act. Section 4. Nothing in the performance of this Agreement shall impose any liability for claims against Saint Paui other than claims for which liability may be nnposed by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act. Section 5. Each party to this Agreement will be responsible for its own actions in providing services under this Agreement and shall not be liable for any civil liability that may arise from the furnishing of the services by the other party. Section 6. The parties to this Agreement do not intend for any party not a signatory to the Agreement to obtain a right by virtue of trus Agreement. Section 7. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligafions express or 2 d5-a5� implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement sha11 not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto. GMS APPLICATIOI�T NUMBER 2005-91702-MN-IJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL, RAMSEY COUNTY, NIINNESOTA Paul Police Department Chief AS TO FORM: Assistant Saint Paul Dkfector of Fin�icial Services Paul Mayor �,A��- �� s�, �� Presented By: Referred To: OLUTION p' PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee:Date: 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City of St. Paul, Police Department, to enter 2 into the attached Lease Agreement with Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, which includes an 3 indemnification clause. A copy of said agreement is to be kept on file and on record in the Oftice of 4 Financial Services. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Adopted by CounciL• Date: ��j��3,�OD.� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary: BY� /J' S�✓i�i�-�si� Approved by �I��r: Date: �` �� `�� ) ��dJby Mayor B �:�a»r.��n� Council File # �5' Green Sheet # 3025164 Requested by Department of: � Green Sheet Green Sheet' Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � f`fi-1�a1 Departmentloificelwuncil: Date Initiated: v" � PD — Policepepartrnent o�E�S Green Sheet NO: 3025164 CorMact Person 8 PAone- Departrnent Sent To Person InitiaVDate ChiefJohnHarrington � 0 oliceDe artment Polic D artment 2665588 p��y� 1 olice De artmeo[ De artmeat Director Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date�: Number 2 isa 'al rv; es F(nancia ' es � For Routing 3 i Attorne Cilv Attome Order 4 a r's Otfice Ma or/Assis nt 5 ouncil i Council 6 i lerk Ci I rk � ' 7 olice De artment Police De ar[men[ Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Signatures requested on the attached council resolution authorizing the City of St. Paul, Police Deparhnent, to enter into the attached Lease Ageement with Amherst H. Wilder F oundation to tease space located at 516 Humboldt Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department? C46 Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/5rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet �� Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The St. Paul Police Department will use the lease space located at 516 Humboldt as a Police Substation. AdvanWpes If Approved: The St. Paul Police Department will be more available to the community. Police presence will deter crime. DisadvantapeslfApproved: ��, w �� None. `/ V MAR 0 G Zp05 DisadvanWgeslfNotApproved: " . � A'!'T�pp�� Lost opportunity to interact with the community and deter crime. s"e 4 9 f� �\J 1( TotalAmountof CosURevenue Sudgeted: Transaction: FundinA Source: Activity Number: pq a f4��`'�34'O�} �G�7tfp�' Fi nancial Information: (ExPlain) , ��^ � � � �� o5 LEASE AGREEMENT TffiS AGREEMENT (hereinafter the "Lease") is effective as of the lst day of 7uly, 2004, by and between the City of Saint Paul, a body corporate and poliric under the laws of the State of Minnesota, acting through its Police Department ("Tenant") and Amherst H. VJilder Foundation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Landlord"). WITNESSETH: 1. PRENIISES. Landlord owns real property located in the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota located at 516 Humboldt Avenue ("Property"). The Property is improved with a building ("Building"). Landlord, in consideration of the rents and covenants herein contained, leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from Landlord, 700 square feet of rentable office space on the lower level of the Building, as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Premises"). 2. TERM. Tenant shall have and hold the Premises together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto for a term of two (2) years ("Term"). The Term shall commence on July 1, 2004 (the "Commencement Date") and end on June 30, 2006 (the 'Bxpiration Date"), unless earlier terminated as provided for in this Lease. 3. USE OF PRENII5ES. Tenant shall use the Premises as a neighborhood police assignment substation, for general office purposes and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of Landlord. In no event shall the Premises be utilized by Tenant as a ja31 or detention facility for apprehended individuals. Tenant wili comply with a11 applicable laws, ordinances and governmental regulations applicable to the Premises or the Building and with a11 rules and regulations from time to time reasonably adopted by Landlord. Tenant will not commit, permit or cause any nuisance ar waste in or about the Premises or pernut or cause any act or omission to be performed on the Premises which violates any law, statutes, regulation, ordinance or rule of any kind of any governmental body or which causes an increase in insurance rates for the Building or which violates any insurance policy maintained by Landlord. Tenant will not disturb or interfere with the rights of other tenants or occupants of the Building while using and occupying the Premises. 4. COMMON AREAS. 4.1 Common Areas. In connection with its use of the Premises, during the Term of this Lease, Tenant shall have the right to use the common areas in the lower level the Building as depicted on the attached Exhibit A and the Building parking faciliries (the "Common Areas") in common with others entitled to such use, which Common Areas shall include, but aze not lunited to, corridors, restrooms, meeting areas, sidewalks, pazking and other common facilities. The Common Areas shall be available to the Landlord, all tenants of the Buiiding, their employees, 1458397v7 f�'�q agents, ciients and invitees. Tenant agrees not to use or pernut the use by its employees or invitees of said pazking azeas for the long-term storage of automobiles or other vehicles. 4.2 Maintenance of Common Areas. Landlord agrees to manage, operate and maintain in good order and repair all Common Areas as more fully described in Secrion 7. Management and maiutenance of the Common Areas shall be at the reasonable discretion of Landlord but such management and maintenance shall be performed so that the Building is kept in a commercially reasonable condition for its intended use. 5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 5.1 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Laws. Tenant will not cause any Hazardous Materials to be brought upon, kept or used in the Premises or Building in a manner or for a purpose prohibited by or that could result in liability under any Hazazdous Materials Law. Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, will comply with all Hazazdous Materials Laws and prudent industry practice relating to the presence, treatment, storage, transportation, disposal, reIease or management of Hazazdous Materials in, on, under or about the Property required for Tenant's use of the Premises and will notify Landlord of any and all Hazardous Materials Tenant brings upon, keeps or uses in the Prexnises or Building (other than small quantities of office cleaning or other office supplies as aze customarily used by a tenant in the ordinary course in a general office facility). On or before the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, will completely remove from the Property (regardless whether any Hazardous Materials Law requires removal), in compliance with all Hazazdous Materials Laws, all Hazazdous Materials Tenant causes to be present in, on, under or about the Premises or Building. Tenant will not take any remedial action in response to the presence of any Hazazdous Materials in on, under or about the Premises or Building, nor enter into any settlement agreement, consent decree or other compromise with respect to any claims relating to or in any way connected with Hazazdous Materials in, on, under or about the Properiy, without first notifying Landlord of Tenant's intention to do so and affording Landlord reasonable opportunity to investigate, appear, intervene and otherwise assert and protect Landlord's interest in the Premises and Building. 5.2 Nofice of Actions. Tenant will notify Landlord of any of the following actions affecting Landlord, Tenant or the Properiy that result from or in any way relate to Tenant's use of the Property immediately after receiving notice of the same: (a) any enforcement, clean-up, removal or other governmental or regulatory action instituted, completed or threatened under any Hazazdous Materials Law; (b) any claim made or threatened by any person relating to damage, contribufion, liability, cost recovery, compensafion, loss or injury resulting from or claimed to resuit from any Hazardous Material; and (c) any reports made by any person, including Tenant, to any environmental agency relating to any Hazardous Material, including any complaints, notices, wamings or asserted violations. Tenant wiil also deliver to Landlord, as promptly as possible and in any event within five (5) Business Days after Tenant first receives or sends the same, copies of all claims, reports, complaints, notices, warnings or assezted violations relating in any way to the Premises or Properiy or TenanPs use of the Premises or Properiy. Upon Landlord's written request, Tenant wiil prompfly deliver to Landlord documentation acceptable to Landlord reflecting the legal and proper disposal of a11 Hazardous Materials removed or to be removed from the Premises and/or Properiy. All such documentation will list Tenant or its agent as a responsible party and will not amibute responsibility for any such Hazardous Materials to Landlord. ]458397v7 2 �--a5� 53 Disclosure and Warniug Oblitarions. Tenant aclaiowledges and agrees that all reporting and warniug obligations required under Hazardous Materials Laws resulting from or in any way relating to Tenant's use of the Premises ar Property aze Tenant's sole responsibility, regazdless whether the Hazatdous Materials Laws pernut or require Landlord to report or warn. 5.4 Indemnification. Tenaxrt will release, indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to Landlord), protect and hoid harmless Landlord from and against any and all claims whalsoever arising or resulting, in whole or in part, direcfly or indirecfly, from the presence, treahnent, storage, transportarion, disposal, release or uiauagement of Hazardous Materials in, on, under, upon or from the Properry (including water tables and atmosphere) resulting from or in any way related to Tenant's use of the Premises, or Property. TenanYs obligations under this section include, without limitation and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, (a) the costs of any required or necessary repair, clean-up, detoxifica6on or decontazninarion of the Property; (b) the costs of implementing any closure, remediation or other required action in connection therewith as stated above; (c) the value of any loss of use and any diminution in value of the Property; and (d) consultants' fees, experts' fees and response costs. The obligations of Tenant under this section survive the expiration or earlier ternunation of this Lease. G��.7�YM Tenant sha11 pay to Landlord annual rent in the amount of One and OO/1Q0 Dollars ($1.00) payable on the Commencement Date and on July 1, 2005. LANDLORD'S MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES. Landlord shall, at all times and at its own expense, maintain and keep the Building, including the outer wa11s, roof, floor, foundation, interior support columns, heating systems, air condirioning system, electrical system, plumbing systems, exterior windows, Common Areas, lawn areas and parking lot in good order and repair and in compliance with all applicable building codes. As used herein, the term maintenance shall include the removal of snow from the parking lot and sidewalks. Tenant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the Premises or Building caused by the fault or negligence of Tenant, its employees, or invitees. Tenant sha11 promptly notify Landlord in writing of the necessity for repair to the systems serving the Leased Premises. 8. TENANT'S MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES. Tenant shall be wholly responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for the maintenance and repair of the Premises, except for heating, electrical, air conditioning and plumbing systems located within the Premises and except for any structural elements or load bearing walls located within the Premises and will keep the Premises in as good condition as when turned over to it, reasonable weaz and teaz and casualty loss excepted. Tenant agrees to keep the Premises in an orderly, clean and sanitary condi6on; will neither do nor permit to be done therein anything which is in violation of the terms of insurance policies on the Buiiding; will neither do nor permit to be done on the Premises anything in violafion of laws or ordinances applicable thereto; and will neither commit nor suffer waste to the Premises. 1458397v7 C�J'�'S% 9. SIGNAGE. Tenant shall be permitted to erect a sign on the eacterior of the Building indicating the locaflon of a neighborhood po&ce substation on the Premises. Tenant shall neither erect nor display any other signage without the prior written consent of the Landlord. Tenant agrees to remove such signage upon exp�ation or ternunation of the Lease and to repair any damage to the Building caused by such signage at its sole cost and expense. 10. UTII,ITIES. Landlord shall pay for all electricity, natural gas, water and sewage services provided to the Premises and for the cost of electricity and/or natural gas to operate the heating and air conditioning system serving the Premises. Tenant shall pay for Tenant's telephone service. Landlord shall provide trash removal and pest control services to the Premises. il. INSURANCE AND INDENINIFICATION. Upon execution of this Agreement, Tenant shall provide to Landlord a certificate of insurance evidencing: (a) a general liability policy in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence with $3,000,000 aggregate coverage; (b) a property insurance policy providing coverage in an amount not less than the full insurable replacement cost of all of TenanPs personal property at the Property; (c) worker's compensation insurance and any other kind of insurance required by any statute, ordinance or regulation of any governmental body in connection with the operation or use of the property by Tenant. Such insurance policies shall be with an insurer licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and name Landlord as an additional insured thereunder. 11.2 Indemnification. Except to the extent caused by the negligence or intentional misconduct of Landlord and its agent(s), Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold Landlord and its agent(s) harmless from and against every third pariy demand, claim, cause of acfion, judgment, cost and expense, including attorneys' fees and court costs, and any other loss or damage which arises from or is connected with the use or occupancy of the Premises, the Common Areas or the Building or the Properiy by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, employees, licensees or concessionaires or which results from the violation of any law, ordinance, or governmental order by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, employees, licensees or concessionaires or wiuch result from the breach of this Lease by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, employees, licensees or concessionaires. 11.3 Waiver of Claims. Landlord hereby waives and releases all claims, liabilities and causes of action against Tenant, its officers, employees and agents for loss or damage to or destruction of the Building or any related improvements resulting from fire, explosion or other perils inciuded in a standazd "a11 risk" casualty insurance policy, and, Tenant hereby waives and releases ail claims, liabilities and causes of action against Landiord, its directors, officers, 1458397v7 4 05 �2`�� t employees and agents for loss or dan�age to or destruction of any of the improvements, fixCuxes or personal property, whether that of Tenant or others, for the Premises resulting from fire, explosion or other perils included within a standard "all risk" casualty insurauce policy. 12. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTIES. If the Building is substantially damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, or if damage to the Building makes the Premises untenantable for its intended use, or if the Premises aze substantially damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, either Pariy may terminate this Lease, provided the terminating Party gives written notice thereof to the other Party within fliirty (30) days after the date such fire or other casualty occurs in which case the Lease shall terminate. If neither Landlord nor Tenant terminates the Lease, Landlord shall within a reasonable tisne and at its own expense, restore the Premises, exclusive of any improvements, alterations or other changes which are made to the Premises by Tenant or which aze insured by Tenant, to as neaz the condition which existed immediately prior to such fire or other casualty as is reasonably possible and Rent shall abate during such restoration period. 13. CONDENINATION. If the entire Building or that portion of the Building which includes all or substautially a11 of the Premises is permanently taken by eminent domain, this Lease shall automatically terminate as of the date of such taking. If any portion of the Building is taken by eminent domain, Landlord shall ha�e the right to terminate this Lease by giving written notice thereof to Tenant within ninety (90) days after the date of such taking. If only a portion of the Premises is taken by eminent domain and Landlord elects not to terminate this Lease, Landlord sha11, at its expense, restore the Premises, exclusive of any improvements, alterations or other changes which are made to the Premises by Tenant ar which are insured by Tenant, to as neu the condition which existed immediately prior to the date of such taking as is reasonably possible. Upon completion of any necessary restoration, an adjustment shall be made to the Rent, if appropriate, to reflect any reduction in the size of the Premises resulting from such taking. Tenant shall have no right to any of the award or payment made in connecUon with such taking; provided, however, that Tenant shall be entitled to recover any separate amount for Tenant's fixtures and/or relocation costs which Tenant may be awarded under relevant statutes, ordinances or regulations. 14. ASSIGNMENT. Tenant will not assign this Lease, and will not sublet any part of the Premises, without the prior written consent of Landlord. Any such assignment or subletting will not release the Tenant from its responsibilities under this Lease, unless expressly agreed to in wriUng by the Landlord. 15. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION. 15.1 Default of Tenant. Each of the following shail constitute an Event of Default under this Lease: (a) Tenant breaches any agreement, term, covenant or condition which this Lease requires Tenant to perform and such breach continues uncured for a period of thirry (30) days after written notice from Landlord to Tenant (unless such breach cannot reasonably be cured within such thiriy (30) day period in which case Tenant shall commence such cure within such 1458397v7 5 05-�5� thirty (30) day period and shali proceed diligently to cure such breach within a reasonable time, not to exceed ninety (90) days); (b) This Lease or the Premises or any part thereof is executed upon or is taken by other process of law directed against Tenant, or becomes subject to any attachment at the instance of any creditor of Tenant, and the attachment is not dischazged or disposed of within fifteen (15) days after its levy; (c) Tenant files a petition in baukruptcy or insolvency or for reorganization or arrangement under the baulmiptcy laws of the United States or under any insolvency act of any state, or admits the material allegations of any such petition by answer or otherwise, or is dissolved ar makes an assignment for the henefit of creditors; (d) Involuntary proceedings under any bankruptcy law, or insolvency act or law goveming the dissolution of Tenant aze instituted against Tenant, or a receiver or trustee is appointed for all or substanfially all of the properry of Tenant, and such proceeding is not dismissed or such receivership or trusteeship vacated within sixty (60) days after such institution or appointment; or (e) Tenant attempts to assign, pledge, mortgage, transfer or sublet Tenant's interest under this Lease without Landlord's prior written consent. 15.2 Landlord's Remedies. If any one or more Event of Default occurs, Landlord may notify Tenant in writing that this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in such notice and regain possession of the Premises using legal process including eviction unless Tenant has voluntarily delivered possession to Landlord; provided, however, no notice from Landlard under this Lease or under any applicable eviction ar similar statute shall constitute an election on the part of Landlord to terminate this Lease uniess such notice expressly states that the Lease will be terminated as of a certain date. 15.3 Dama�es. If an Event of Default occurs and Landlord exercises its remedies hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord as damages on demand all expenses reasonably incurred by Landlard in connection with (i) the curing of an Event of Default; (ii) any ternunation of this Lease; (iii) any reletting of the Premises (including brokerage fees, legal fees and costs of repairing or redecorating the Premises). 15.4 Remedies Cuxnulative. Each right or remedy provided to Landlard in this Lease is cumulative and is in addition to every other right or remedy provided to Landlord in this Lease or existing now or after the date of this Lease at law, or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The exercise or be° nn;ng of the exercise by Landlord of any one or more of the rights or remedies provided for in this Lease or which exists now or after the date of this Lease at law, ar in equity or by statute or otherwise shall not prejudice the sunultaneous or later exercise by Landloxd of any or all other rights or remedies available to Landlord. 16. ALTERATIONS. Tenant accepts the Premises in an"AS IS — WHERE IS" condifion. Landlord is under no obligation to make any structural or other alterations, decoration, additions or unpravements in or to the Premises. Tenant shail not malce any alterations or improvements ("Alterations") to the 1458397v7 OS � 5g Premises without the written consent of the Landlord. If Tenant desires to make any Alterations, an accurate description of such Alterarions shall first be submitted to and approved by the Landlord. Any Alterations approved by Landlord shall be done by Tenant at Tenant's sole cost and expense. Tenant agrees that a11 such work shall be done in a good, worianan-like manner and in conformance with applicable building codes, that the structival integrity of the Building shall not be impaired, and that no liens shall attach to the Property by reason thereof. Tenant shall pay in a timely fashion for any labor or materials used in making such Alterations, shall indemnify and hold Landlord liarmless from any claims therefor, and shail protect and defend the Property from mechanids liens for labor performed or materials provided in making such Alterations. Unless the Landlord shall elect at any time that all or any part of such Alterations shall remain, Tenant shall restore the Premises to its original condition (except as to any part of said Alterations which the Landlord shall elect to remain) before the expiration or tertnination of the Lease at Tenant's own expense. Any such Alterations sha11 become the property of the Landlord as soon as they are affixed to the Premises and a11 right, title and interest therein of Tenant shall immediately cease unless otherwise stated 'm writing. 17. RIGH'TS RESERVED BY LANDL�RD. 17.1 Landlord specifically reserves the following rights: (a) to control, install, affix and maintain any and a11 signs on the Building and in the comdors, entrances of the Building except Tenant shall have the following rights relating to signs: right to display signs noting Tenant's idenfity and services at the Premises as stated in Section 9; (b) to reasonably designate, limit, restrict and control any service in or to the Building; (c) to retain at a11 times and to use in appropriate instances keys to all doors within and into the Premises. No locks shall be changed without the prior written consent of Landlord. This provision shall not apply to Tenant's safes or other areas maintained by Tenant for the safety and security of weapons, monies, securities and negotiable instruments; and (d) to make any repairs, alterations, additions or improvements, whether structural or otherwise, in and about the Premises or the Building and to demolish any improvements which aze part of the Building or are located in or around the Building and to enter upon the Premises for the purpose of inspecting, cleaning, repairing, aitering or improving the Premises to temporarily close doors, entry ways, public spaces and corridars to the Buiiding and to interrupt or temporarily suspend the Building services and facilities described in this Lease. Landlord will notify Tenant of any planned repairs, alterations, additions or improvements in and about the Premises or the Building by providing Tenant reasonable advanced notice, unless there is an emergency. In completing such repairs, alterations, additions or unprovements, Landlozd shall make all reasonable efforts not to disturb the Tenant. 18. SLTRRENDER OF PRENIISES. Upon the expiration or eazlier ternunation of this Lease, Tenant shail, at its sole cost and expense: 1458397v7 os a� � (a) Remove all of its equipment, trade fixtures, machines and other personal property from the Ptemises; (b) Deliver possession of the Premises to Landlord in good condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear and casualty loss excepted; (c) At the request of Landlord, remove all Alterations which have been made or ivstalled by Tenant in the Premises and repair any damage caused by such removal; and (d) Promptly surrender all keys for the Premises to Landlord. All personal properiy left in the Premises after the expiration or earlier texmination of this Lease shall be deemed abandoned and shall be deemed the property of Landlord. Tenant sha11 pay to Landlord all costs and expenses Landlord incurs in connection with the removal, transportation or storage of any property so left in the Premises and with respect to restoring the Premises to good order, condition and repair. 19. HOLDOVER TENANCY. In the event Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the expiration of this Lease and without the execution of a new lease and without Landlord's written consent, Tenant sha11 be deemed to be occupying the Premises without claim of right and as a month-to-month Tenant. 20. SUBORDINATION. This Lease is and shall be subject to and subordinate in all respects to any and all mortgages or other security interests, including any renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements and extensions thereof which Landlord hereinafter creates provided that the mortgagee or secured party provides Tenant with a non-disturbance agreement which acknowledges that TenanPs right to quiet possession shall not be disturbed if Tenant is not in default and so long as the Tenant shall pay the Rent and observe and perform all of the terms and conditions of the Lease unless this Lease is otherwise terminated pursuant to its terms. If requested by Landlord, Tenant sha11 execute and deliver to Landlord whatever instruxnents may be required in connection with any subordination of this Lease. Such instruments shall include, without limitation: (a) an agreement by Tenant that Tenant shall attorn to such mortgagee or purcbaser at any sale in foreclosure, and recognize such mortgagee or purchaser as the Landlord hereunder for the remainder of the Term; and (b) an agreement in writing by such party that so long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant's rights under the Lease and possession of the Premises shall not be disturbed by such parry. 21. RULES AI�D REGULATIONS. Landtord may, from time to time, adopt rules and regulations for the safety, benefit and convenience of a11 tenants and other persons in the Building. Landlord shall uniformiy apply such rules and regulations to a11 tenants in a non-discriminatory manner. Upon written notice thereof to Tenant, Tenant shall perform, observe and comply with any changes, amendments or additions thereto as from time to time shall be established and deemed advisable by Landlord for tenants of the Building. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any £ailure of any other tenant or tenants 1458397v7 g C�S-a.5� of the Building to comply with such rules and regulations. Tenant shall cause its employees, agents, licensees and invitees to comply with the rules and regularions. 22. NOTICES. All norices, consents, demands, and requests which may be or aze required to be given by either pariy to the other, shall be in writing, and sent by United States registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, address as follow: TO THE TENANT: St. Paul Police Department Central District 100 East 11�' Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Attention: Colleen Luna TO THE LANDLORD: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation 919 Lafond Avenue St. Paul, MT3 55104 Attention: Real Estate Asset Management The date which said registered or certified mail is mailed shall be conclusively deemed to be the date on which a notice, consent, demand or request is given or made. The above address of a parry may be changed at any tnne or from time to time by notice given by said party to the other pariy in the manner hereinabove provided. 23. ASSIGNMENT BY LANDLORD. Landlard may assign its right, title, and interest in this Lease to a third party, and nothing in this Lease shall restrict the right of Landlord to sell, convey, assign or otherwise transfer its interest in the Property. Any sa1e, conveyance, assignment or other transfer of the Property or any portion of the Properiy shail operate to release Landlord from liability under this Lease from and after the effective date of such transfer so long as Landlord's successor in interest assumes Landlord's obligafions hereunder in writing and Tenant sha11 thereafter look solely to the successor in interest to Landlord for the performance of Landlord's obligations under this Lease. This Lease shall not be afFected by any such sale, conveyance, assignment or other transfer and Tenant shall attorn to Landlord's successor in interest under this Lease. 24. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 24.1 Sinaular/Plural. Whenever the singular number is used in this Lease and when required by the context, the same shall inciude the plural, and the masculine gender shall include the femnune and neuter genders, and word "person" shaii include corporation, firm ar association. 24.2 Relationshin of Landlord and Tenant. This Lease does not create the relationship of principal and agent or of partnership or of joint venture or of any association between Landlord and Tenant, the sole relationship between the parties hereto being that of Landlord and Tenant. 243 Severabilitv. If any term or provision of this Lease shall to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Lease sha11 be valid and enforced to the fullest extend permitted by law. 1458397v7 9 cz�-a5� 24.4 Headin�s. The headings or titles to paragraphs of this Lease aze for convenience only and have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this I,ease. 24.5 Entire Agreement. This instrument contains all of the agreements and condirions made between the parties to this Lease and may not be modified orally or in any other manner than by agreement in writing signed by all parties to this Lease. 24.6 Recordine. Neither Landiord not Tenant shall record this Lease, but, at the request of either party, the parties shall execute and record a memorandum of this Lease. 24.7 Govemin� Law. The Parties intend this lease to be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24.8 Successors and Assiens. The covenants and agreements contained in this Lease shall bind and inure to the benefit of Landlord, its successors and assigns, and to the benefit of Tenant, its permitted successors and assigns. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank.] I458397v7 1 � 05 a.59 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have caused this instrument to be effecrive as of July 1, 2004. Individuals signing on behalf of a principal warrant they have the authority to bind said principal. � i Dated: \ , 2004 4 By: Mayor , t t Dated: x L OF SAINT PAUL. i , , Its: �ector, Department of Finance & Mana�eement Serv.ices : \ . S Its: Chie�of Palice APPROV�D TO FORM: �; Its: Assistarit Attorney AMHER'ST H. W� l g � Craig�3inger Its: Vice President FOUNDATION 1458397v7 11 C`�5 -a55 .•�i: �(''� b � [� 6 Z c�7 � �� rn x N � � L u R 3 m � R � � � ti � fl � � � � � R Q t � � ` � � � Depiction of Premises and Common Areas � a � '�l 1458397v7 A-1 Council File # Green Sheet # Presented By: Referred To: RESOLUTION � SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA -a�� 3025564 � Committee:Date: 1 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Police Department needs authority to implement the attached agreement 2 with the Public Housing Agency of t6e City of Saint Paul (PHA) to continue the A Community Outreach 3 Program (ACOP) from April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006; and 4 5 WHEREAS, since 1991 the PHA and the City of Saint Paul have collaborated to provide the community 6 policing program known as ACOP to create a drug-and crime-free environment for the safety and 7 protection of residents, employees, and visitors in public housing developments; and 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City of Saint Paul to enter into, and Chief John Harrington to implement the attached agreement with PHA which includes an indemnification clause. A copy of said agreement is to be kept on file and on record in the Oftice of Financial Services. 29 30 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � /u _'� f .� DepartmenUOtfice/cooncii: Date Initiated: V J '� � PD — policeDepartrnent � 07-MAR-O5 Green Sheet NO: 3025564 Cotrtact Person S Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person InitiaUDate ChiefJohnHarrington � 0 oliceD rtm o'ce e artm nt 266-5588 Assign 1 olice De artment De artmen[ Director Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z tt roe i Att rn � For Routing 3 a or's Office Ma or/Assistant Order . 4 ouncil Council 5 iri Clerk Ci Clerk 6 oliceDe artmen[ PoliceDe ar[ment ToWI # of Signature Pages �Clip AII Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Signatures requested on the attached council resolution authorizing the City of Saint Paul to enter into, and Chief John Harrington, to implement the attached ageement with the Public Housing Agency of the City of Saint Paul (PHA). Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission t. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department� CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any . current ciry employee? Yes No � Fxplain all yes answers on separete sbeet and attach to green shee[ Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � The Saint Paul Police Deparnnent needs authority to implement an agreement with the PHA to continue the A Community Outreach Program (ACOP) from April l, 2005 through Mazch 31, 2006. AdvantaqeslfApproved: Abi]iry to parmership with PHA and continue the ACOP Program which provides a drug-and crime-free environment for the safery of residents, visitors, and employees in public housing developments ° DisadvanWqes If Approved: � ��.a��a�{(`,�!t �iQ°�� None. � ` MAR16� Disadvantages If NotApproved: Increased crune and reduced police protection in public housing developments in Saint Paul. ��! !/ �� Total Amount of Transaction: 4$1425 CosURevenue Budgeted: � D � C � OQc All J J Fundinq source: Public Housing Agency Activity Number: 04700 Financial Information: �f Saint Paul �'�� (Explain) Contract No. 05079 � - � �� Service Provider ACOP FY06 CONTRACT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE SERVICES This Contract is made and entered into this 1�` day of Apri12005 by and between the PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF THE CITI' OF SAINT PAUL ("PHA"), and the CITY OF SAINT PAiJL ("Cit�'), acting by and through its DEPARTMENT OF POLYCE ("Police Department") for the provision of specific police services to improve the safery, security and livability of the PHA's public housing properties. WHEItEAS, since 1991 the PHA and the City haue collaborated to provide the community policing program lrnown as A Community Outreach Program ("ACOP") to create a drug- and crime-free environment and to provide for the safety and protection of tesidents, employees and visitors in public housing developments; and WHEREAS, the PHA desires to continue the ACOP program; and WHEREAS, the City, by and through its Police Department, desires to assist in the effort by providing effective police services at PHA locations; NOW, THEREFORE, the PHA and the City agree as follows: Secrion 1. Scope of Services Provided by the City The City agrees that the services rendered by the personnel assigned to the ACOP unit under this Cont�act (licensed, sworn police officers and non-sworn civilian employees) aze in addition to baseline police services, and that routine police patrol and response to 911 calls in public housing developments will continue to be the responsibility of other Police Department personnel normally assigned to such duries in their areas. The level of these and other baseline police services will not be reduced. The duties and extent of services of the Police Department shall include, but shall not be limited to: A. "The City, by and through its Police Department, will assign one police officer of at least the rank of sergeant and additional police officers and civilian staff to perform specialized patrols to enforce all state and local laws and the PHA rules specified in this Contract. Sworn officers shall at a11 times remain part of, subject to and in direct relationship with the Police DepartxnenYs chain of command and under Police Department rules, regulations and staudard operating procedures. B. The City agrees to assign police officers to targeted azeas during specified periods of tune identified by the PHA and agreed upon by the Police Department. C. The City agrees that the Police Depariment will employ a community policing concept and that ACOP personnel will be based at PHA locations as mutuaily os-ac�� Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 2 of 10 agreed between the PHA and the Police Departinent. The City further agrees that the Police Department will develop and maintain communications with residents and will assist in developing or enhancing crime prevention programs in public housing communities. D. The City agrees to collect and provide police workload data in public housing development and crime statistics, subject to federal and Minnesota state laws. This Contract provides sufficient basis for the exchange between the City and the PHA of data and information described in the Con�act. A request for information or data outside of the scope of this Contract sha11 be in writing. E. It is fiirther agreed that, upon proper notice but without necessity of a subpoena, police personnel will appear as wihiesses in the PHA's administrative grievance procedure, civil dispossessory hearings, or other civil or court proceedings where the issue includes criminal or quasi-criminal conduct on or near public housing property involving any resident, member of a residenY s household, or any guest or guests of a resident or household member, or where the issue includes any criminal or quasi-crnninal conduct off public housing property involving any resident or member of a residenYs household. F. Without limiting any of the foregoing, the City agrees that with respect to the services to be performed by any police personnel in accordance with ttris Contract, the appropriate Police Department Officer or Supervisor will meet with resident leadership and management representatives of the PHA on a routine basis for the purposes of reviewing the enforcement and prevention efforts and planning for future changes or modifications anticipated by this Contract. These meetings shall occur at least quarterly. G. The City agrees that Police Department personnel assigned to the ACOP unit work exclusively on public housing related matters, unless they are needed by the Police Department as additional support in an emergency situation. H. The City agrees that it wi11 provide the assigned personnel with such basic equipment and vehicles as may be necessazy and reasonable in order to allow the police officers to cany out the duties anticipated under this Contract. Any addirional motor vehicles, bicycles or other equipment which aze requested by and are furnished at the expense of the PHA shall remain the property of the PHA. The PHA and City may mutually agree to lease equipment or vehicles. I. The Police Department will provide at a minimum sixteen (16) hours of iraining on community relations and interpersonal communicarions skills to new staff assigned to ACOP. The Police Department shall designate a command officer as the Admiuistrative Liaison Officer, who will work in concert with the Executive Duector of the PHA 1� . � � Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 3 of 10 or that official's designee. The Admiuistrative Liaison Officer may be the same person as the officer of the rank of sergeant or higher, as required by Section l.A. The Administrative Lisison O�cez will perform the following duties: 1. Coordinate the disseuunation and processing of police and security reports in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws, provide supervisory assistance, and coordinate in resolving problems or canyiug out the provisions of ttus Contract; 2. Establish and maintain an ongoing line of communication with Police Department commanders and other police personnel; Prepare quarterly progress reports and evaluations of services requested and provided under this Contract for review by the Executive D'uector, the Police Chief, appropriate Deputy Chiefs and Police Deparhnent commanders and others as may be requested by the Executive Director or that official's designee; 4. Initiate and monitor ongoing lines of communication with PHA staff and resident leaders to effectively employ the cornmunity policing concept and to address in a timely manner concerns raised by community leaders; Assure that he or she or a designee will attend Resident Council meetings as requested by the PHA; 6. Assist or advise in the planning and implementation of other security prograins within the PHA; and Establish a clearly defined process for reporting to the PHA staff non- emergency criminal acflvities, which shall include prompt reports, including "calls for service" reports by Police Department staff, in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws, of criminai activities on PHA property, to facilitate appropriate response and tracking of such activities. Section Z. Scope of Services Provided by the PHA A. The PHA will provide training, where appropriate, to ACOP personnel on public housing management issues and will assist the Police Depariment in providing trainiug to residents and PHA staff on community policing and crime prevention issues associated with public housing. This training shall include, but not be lunited to, the following: Crime prevention and security responsibiliries; � � .• Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 4 of 10 2. Community organization/mobilization against the causes of and precursors to crime; 3. Drug awazeness and control; 4. Orientation and familiarization with the public housing communities for the assigned officers; and 5. Orientarion to the lease contract, and lease compliance enforcement procedures and policies. B. The PHA wili provide the following in-land accommodations, services and equipment: 1. Accommodations — The PHA will provide suitable space to be used as office space at locations as mutually agreed upon between the PHA and the Police Department. 2. Services — Office space provided by the PHA will be supplied with all utilities except telephone. The PHA also shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary to provide routine maintenance and repair service to maintain the space in good working order, including maintenance and repair of electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating and other faciliries and appliances supplied by the PHA. 3. Equipment — Office space provided by the PHA will be supplied with other additional equipment mutually agreed upon in connection with the performance ofthis Contract. 4. ModificationlDamage — The PHA will make reasonable modifications, including minor structural, electrical and mechanical changes to the accommodations provided in order to meet the City's operational needs. Any damage to the unit or equipment provided by the PFIA for City employees, which the PHA determines to be above normal wear for the item or accommodation, shall be repaired or replaced by the City at the discretion of the PHA. C. The PHA shall adopt policies and procedures requuing its staff to promptly report to the Police Department any criininal activities occurring on PHA property, to facilitate appropriate response to and tracking of such activities. D. The PHA reserves the right to reasonably request the Police Deparhnent to replace any ACOP personnel for the following reasons: 1. Neglect or non-performance of duties; as- a �� Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 5 of 10 2. Disorderly conduct, use of abusive or offensive langua�e, or fighting; 3. Criminal acrion; 4. Selling, consuming, possessing or being under the influence of intoxicants, including alcohoi or illegal substances, while on assignment to the PHA; 5. Substantiated camplaints from public housing residents or management. The PHA shall provide written enumeration of the reasons for the request for the replacement of the ACOP personnel, inciuding documentation and witnesses to the alleged behaviors. E. The PHA will provide the City with the applicable PHA rules and regulations for compliance with this contract. Section 3. Enforcement of Rules and Regulations A. The Police Depariment is hereby empowered to enforce the following PHA rules and regulafions: Authorized to remove unauthorized visitors in unoccupied structures of the PHA. 2. Authorized to remove unauthorized visitors on PHA property who aze creating a disturbance or otherwise interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of other PHA residents. Authorized to remove and/or bring criminal enforcement actions against unauthorized visitors who are destroying, defacing or removing PHA properiy. With regazd to the foregoing rules and regulations, the Police Department is hereby authorized, on behalf of the PHA, to give criminal trespass waniiugs to any persons deemed to be in viola6on of the rules or regulations, that is, to give notice to any violators that their entry on the property or premises is forbidden, and to arrest or cause the arrest and prosecution of any violators, when appropriate. B. The Police Department is also authorized to enforce the pazking provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code, Section 157.20, Public Housing Agency of the City of Saint Paul — Parking Restrictions. C. The Police Department is hereby empowered to have removed any and all vehicles found parked in violation of said rule or regulation, pursuant to established City procedure for impounding vehicles. o5-a�a Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 6 of 10 D. The Police Department is hereby empowered to enforce such additional PHA rules and regulations and perform such other duties as shall be specified in any addenda altached hereto or incorporated herein now or in the future. E. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as permitting or authorizing police officers to use any method or to act in any manner in violation of law or their sworn obligation as police officers. Section 4. Communications, Reporting and Evaluation A. Communications — Access to Information. The City agrees that the PHA will have unrestricted access to all public information, in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws, which in any way deals with criminal activity in any of the PIIA's communifies. Such information includes information made public pursuant to the Minnesota Govemment Data Practices Act or any other law malang information public or accessible to the PHA. Tt is further agreed that the Police Deparitnent will provide to the PHA copies of such public incident reports, anest reports or other public documents which document or substantiate actual or potenrial criminal activity in or connected with the public housing developments in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws. Tkus information will be provided at no cost by the Police Department on a regular basis in accordance with specific procedures that have been or will be established. B. Reporting. The Police Department will provide reports, in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws, to the PHA describing the activities supported by PHA funds. These reports may be provided monthly, quarterly or as otherwise requested by the PHA and may include the following data: 1. Hours worked: foot, bicycle, motorized, other 2. Calls/requests for service 3. Referrals to City/PHA/agencies 4. Suspicious persons — name and description 5. Vehicles abandoned/towed/stolen 6. Drug pazaphemalia confiscatecUfound 7. ArrestsJcitarions of both residents and outsiders to include age, sex, ethnicity 8. Property recovered/stolen 9. Advise residents and visitors 10. Hazazdous or quality of life issues in the area such as broken lights 11. Graffiti 12. Conflict resolution; e.g., resolved appazent or actual conflict between two or more people 13. Vehicle license number of suspicious persons 14. Weapons violations/seized � � i� Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 7 of 10 C. Media Coordination. The Police Department will relay to the Executive Director or his designee information related to any major crime or incident that occurs on pHA properry, preferably before the media is informed or as soon as possible, in accordance with federal and Minnesota state laws. D. Evaluarion. The City and the PHA shall cooperate on future evaluations of the community policing progam in public housing. Section 5. Plan af Operaiion The Police Department and the PF3A shall continue to administer the ACOP community policing program. At the request of either party, the parties shall jointly prepare a more specific plan of operations for use in preventing or eliminating drug-related crime. Section 6. Term of Contract This contract is effective as of April 1, 2005 and shall continue in effect until the PHA funds allowed to be spent under this conlaract aze e�austed (estimated to be March 31, 2006), or longer if additional funds are awarded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenY (HUD) or secured from other sources, unless eaziier teiminated in accordance with the terms of this Contract. Section 7. Compensation to the City A. All compensation to the City will be made on a cost reirnbursement basis. The PHA will reimburse the City for services specified in this Contract in a total amount not to exceed Four Hundred Thirtv One Thousand Four Hundred and Twentv Five Dollazs ($431,425) in the following expense category: Assigned Personnel Salaries $431,425 Other — For police officers assigned to the ACOP unit, the PHA agees to reunburse the City for up to 30 consecutive days of sick leave or for 30 consecutive days of a duty assignment other than patrol duties, but only for services performed in accordance with this Contract. Any additional sick leave benefits or salary due to such ACOP officer is the responsibility of the City. Attachment A to this Contract illustrates the approximate use of tl�ese funds. B. The PHA shall reimburse the Police Depariment on a monthly basis, upon performance of the proposed activities and receipt of invoices evidencing authorized expenditures. C. T`he City shall provide the following documentation in requesting reimbursement: o5-��a Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 8 of 10 Copies of Certifiefl Payroll Time Reports documenting names, employee identification, hours worked in public housing developments, supervisory approval of the report, and supervisory verification of the necessity foz any overtime worked D. All requests for reimbursement aze subject to the approval of the PHA's Executive Director, or that official's designee, and the PHA shall thereafter make payment of the approved amount within thirty days of receipt of the request for reimbursement. E. 1. The PHA may make specific requests that police personnel perform special details on behalf of the PHA. If these special details require personnei to work on an overtime basis, reunbursement to the City will be made pursuant to subsection E.2. 2. Overtime special details will be jointly agreed upon by the PHA and the Police Department for police personnel to perform acrivities on behalf of the PHA. Upon submission of proper documentation as required under this Section 7, the PHA shall rennburse the City for the full amount of the cost of such overtime compensation, including fringe benefits. Section 8. Audit Requixement The City and the Police Department shall have their financial records audited annually (as part of the City's annual audit) by an independent auditor and provide to the PHA a copy of the audit report, which is required for the City as a subgantee of federal funds. The audit shall include the PHA funds expended under this agreement and shall conform to the requirements of OMB Circular A-128 or later OMB circulars as applicable. Any audit fmding relaring to use of the PHA funds under this agreement must be addressed and cleared in a timely manner. Section 9. Non-Discrimination The PHA, the City and the Police Depariment agree that in the administration of the program(s) no person shali, on the grounds of race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, familial status, sex, status with regazd to public assistance, marital status, disability, age, sexual or affectional orientarion, political or other affiliation, be �cluded from participarion in the program(s) or be denied benefits of the program(s) and agree to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regazding discrimination. Section 10. Data Privacy All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseininated by the City, the Police Department or the PHA for any purposes in the course of the performance of ttris Contract is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 13.01 • � .• Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 9 of 10 et seq., or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. The parties agree to abide strictly by these statutes, rules, and regulations. The PHA has designated, and the City and the Police Department agree to designate, a Responsible Authority pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, who is the individual responsible for the collection, maintenance, use and disseminarion of any set of data on individuals, govez�nment data, or summary data pursuant to this Contract. Section 11. Indemnification The City does hereby release, discharge and agree to indemnify, protect, defend and saue harmless the PHA from liability for any cost, daznage, expense, injury or other casualty, to any person whomsoever or property whatsoever caused by or arising out of the Police DepartmenYs use and occupancy of PHA property or services provided under this Contract, provided that such indemnification shall not be applioable where a decision or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction indicates that said casualty to person or property was the direct result of acts of commission, omission, negligence or fault of the PHA, its agents or employees. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions in canynig out the terms of this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and sha11 not be responsible for the acts and/or omissions of the other party and the results thereo£ The liability of the City of Saint Paul and the Public Housing Agency of the City of Saint Paul, and their respective employees, officials and agents shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, et seq. and any other applicable law. Section 12. Right of Entry, Inspection and Repair The PHA, through its authorized employees or agents, shall have the right to enter the office spaces assigned by the PHA at any time, without advance notification, when there is reasonable cause to believe an emergency exists or during regular business hours upon one (1) day's norice for the purpose of inspection or repair of the office spaces or equipment therein or for such other purpose as may be deemed necessary by the PHA. Section 13. Disposal of Personal Property The PHA shall have the right to sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of any personal property left on the premises by the Police Department after the Police Department has vacated or abandoned the premises vs-a�a Contract No. 05079 ACOP FY06 Page 10 of 10 Seciion 14. Amendments; Termination A. Cbanges in the terms of this Contract may be made only by written amendment mutually agreed upon and signed by both parties. B. Either party may terminate this Contract upon providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Such notice shall be delivered by Certified Mail, Retum Receipt Requested. Section 15. Attachments The following attachments are hereby incorporated into tlus contract by reference: Attachment A: Budget Narrative Attachment B: PHA Family Dwelling Lease Attachment C: PHA Hi-Rise Dwelling Lease Section 16. Benefit and Duty This Contract will be binding upon and inure to the benefit only of the parties hereto. No third party or parties will derive any benefits from or have any rights pursuant to tlus Contract. Nothing in this Contract is intended to, nor does it, create a special duty on the part of either party to each other or to a third party. This Contract supersedes the most recent contract and all other previous contracts entered into by the parties for the same purpose as this Contract is made. By signing below, the Public Housing Agency of the City of Saint Paul, and the City of Saint Paul, Department of Police enter into this Contract which shall take effect on the date stated above. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL Its: Coniracting Officer By: Its: Controller CITY OF SAINT PAi3L DEPARTMENT OF POLICE By: Its: Chief of Police By: Its: Director, OFS By: Its: Mayor, City of Saint Paul By: Its: Director, Auman Rights Dept. Its: Assistant City Attorney � n �� N � � � C � H = S O � � V ( � _ : � � � C � � n � s t6. � a+ I � ' .� G� A �{-c�-�G► ,-►-� -e.� f A N c' � �- y e` U �� J 0 � � W N � m l � � J � � m d R N Q m a O �� o�° a�� m � y w� '� G _, L m :0 [C, t� � o � � � � U a 7� � S a v m - - 05� a.lob /{/f c��hmz�� 3 05 - � � �s��oN AVISO! Si no puedc vsred lea ing)es, favor deari�ammp�mbn4dePHA (Agendade Alojmmmm Aibliw) pua quelepcoparcianmwivtcp�ere. CEES[OOM! Yug aas koj nyeem his tau Aslw, nug n�sneeg ua Iuuj iwmreu kuj ym ¢ev �ppm (pHq) kom pab mhiav neeg Wua lus. TRATiSLATION [tOTTCE! Sf you cannot �d FngGsh, pleau azk yo�¢ PHA coniac[ personmprovideaince�p�eta. NOTICE' 7{yp�r motmadI"agiislt ptease ask yrnv PHA mnrecc pamn mpmvide a� m[ap+na. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL FAi�.Y DEVELOPMENT DWELLING LEASE Unit Identification �: Name of Tenant(s): Address: Dwelting Unit: Number of Bedrooms: The Public Hovsing Agency of the City of Saint Paul (PHA), in ttus Lease. called "Mamgemeni", Leases to The Tenan[ Family, in this I.ease called "TenanY', the dwelling unit as descnbed above according to the texms and conditions stated in this Leue. 'Che texm, "dwelling unit", refexs to the living unit and adjacent azea assigned for the Tenan4s e�lusive use and to the area(s) usigned vi Section 8. of iLis Lease. 1. TERM OF LEASE: RENEWAL OF LEASE This Leaze begins on . 1'his Lease will automatically renew annually, unless ended by either Management or Tenant as provided in iLis I.ease ox u othe:wise xequuedby law. 2. MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD Only the following persons may reside in the dwelling unit with the named Tenant: 3. PAYMENTS DUE iJNDER TH� LEASE A. Rental Pavments 1. The fust rent payment foc the period be° ++n;^g , and ending , , is $ . T7ils payment is due at the time this Leue is sigaed 2. The moathly rent of $ 9s due on or before the first day of each month beginning , Tlvs monthly rent may change for reasons siated in SecROn 5 of ilils Lease. If rent is not paid on tune, a late fee wil1 be cUarged in an amount as provided in the Admissian and Occupancy Policies. A fee will also be charged in an amount u provided in the Admission and Occupancy Policies for checks xetumed for non-sufficient funds or account closed. 3. If Tenant wanis to end tivs Lease (See Secfron 9.B.), the Tenant is responsible fox ient piomted on a daily basis for a '' m of ttucty (30) dzys after tke Tenant has given written notice to Manag�mant of an Intent to Vacate. If the Tenant wants to end this Lease but fails to give Managemeni a written nohce, rent will be cha ved for thirty (30) days from the day Mauagement leaxns the Tenant has moved. B. SecuriNDeoosit The Tenant }�as agreed to pay $ es a securiry deposit with Management. The securiTy deposit wiil be held by Manageme¢t in accordance wrth the Admission and Occupancy Policies, Minnesota law and Federnl zegulations. C Charees Due Cnazges for, but not limited to, main[enance and repair, late rent payment fee, fee for xenssned checks, and ]egally ellowable court costs aze due and cdlecnble two weeks after Management eives v+ritten notice to the Tenant of the charges. HD-424C — Fam�ly Development Dwelling Izase aev. �nrzaoo Pa�e i of 5 The TenanPs household has the right to the exclusive use and occupancy of ti�e imit. 11tis rigM �ncludes having guests siay in the uwi up to fil�een (15) days per guest per calendaz yeaz. Upon a show�ng of special cucumstances ox need, Management may extend this period for a reasonahle addirionai time, not to exceed diirty (30) days. This liautarion does not apply to live-in aides and foster children who may reside in the unit with the couseN of Management �► , .� 4. VCbTTIES A. Management w�ll pay the full cost of watzc, gulmge colleclion znd sewer sm�ice and w�71 fi�ish a renge (stove) and xefrigexamr. B. Tenant is respons3le for the payment of gas, elec�iary and heat As part of the detecmination of the moathly xent, Managemem agees to adlurt �� by ihe applicable utility allowance as stated in Ma�emenCs Ad�ssion and Occupancy Policies. 5. A. RedeterminationofRent At least once each year, �d otl�er timas az descnbed below, Management wi11 decide whetha the TenanYS rental mte should be changed, whether tk�e dwellmg unit size is still appropriate for il�e size aa�or composition of the TenanYs househoid, and whether the Tenant is eligble for wnvnued occupancy in accoxdance with $�e Adffission and Occupancy Policies which aze available for review at ihe ManagemeM Office. As requested by bfanagement at the time of ihe redetexa�atioa, Tenant shall provide acanate ciaxent information conceming: 1. The m�mba of people m Tenant's household, theic ages, geader and any other mfozmation zequued by Mana3ement 2. The souice and amount of income recei�ed by everyone in the TenanYs Lousehold 3. Aay allowable deductions. TLe redetexmination for continued occupancy wall inciude a xeview of TenanYs xent paying ]ilstory, housekeeping inspection results, tecord of coopernlion with Managemeni's pest con�ol pzogam and al1 other Leue compliant beltavior. B. Interim Redeterminatiou The xental xate shown in Section 3. will remai¢ in effect foc 1he pexiod between regulaz rent redetexminations unless dunng suchperiod: 1. There is an addition or loss of any adult member to ttte TenaaYs household or the addiROn o£ any minor not bom into the household during this tenancy. 2, 77iexe is any increase in monttdy gross hoosehoid income of $460 oi more, whether occuaing due to one income increase or due to mo=e than one incxease or the cumulalive increases of more than one family member. 3. There is any reported decreue in income or an increase in allowances or deducROns il�at would result in a rent decrease. 4. The curnnt rental xate-was calculated for a tempomry time period due to the inzbiliTy to accurately pcedict income for an annual period T7us includes, but is not limited to, allhouseholds wLose totat income u zeco. A change in income or tamily compositiou as speciGed above must be reported to Mauagement within 10 days of its occurseuce. The effective date for cLanges in rent based on mterim redetexminations will be in accordance with the Admission and Occupancy Policies. Sf ihe xenYal rate is adjusted, Management will mail oc delivet a notice of re¢t adjustment to the Tenant in ucordance with Secnon 11. Failure by a Tenant [o report any increases in house6old income duriog a schedWed rent and income review or as specified under Secdon S.B.Interim Rede[erminations, or failure to appear for a scheduled reut and income review will be considered a serious and material violation of the Lease and wiR result in any rent increase being etLective retroacdve to the time the increase wonld have been made. C. Chan2e of Unit Size Management will gi�e notice to Tenaut that Tenant will be required to move to another unit that is decent, safe and saniEary and is of an appropnate size undu ManagemenYs Occupancy Standazds in accordance with the Admission and Occupancy Policies undei ihe following circumsiances: 1. If Management decides tttat tFte Tenant is living in a unit wltich �s lazger or smaller than the Pf3A's Occupaocy Standards allow for the Lousehold size and composirion; or 2. If Management decidu that the unit is otherwise inappropriate Fox the bouseLold size or coIDposirion including, but nnt liauted tq when a unit modiSed for handicapped p�sons is being occupied by a household wiThout handicapped persons;or 3. If Management decides that the uwt xequues substantial repai� or is scheduled for modexnization or is not in decent, safe and sazutazy condition. After being notified of the aew uniPs availability, the Tenant must move to the offered unit wrtl�in 1LiY.y (30) days of the date of notification If ihe Tenant fails to move u xequued by ManagemenS �en Management has the right to take legal action to tex�nate 8ds Leue. Tenant may ask foi an explanation sTating ihe specific gcounds of the PEiA detex�nation. If tUe Tenant does not agee with the detexminahon, ffie Tenant has the right m request a hearing under ManagemenYs Grievance Procedure. 6. MANAGEMENT'S OBLIGATIONS Mana¢ement aerees to do the foilowine: A Repair and maintain the dwelling unit, equipmeni and appliances, and the common azeu and facilities wUich ate aeeded m keep the housing �n decent, safe and saniiuy conditioa B. Comply with all requicemen6 of applicable siate and lotal building and housing codes and FI[JD regularions concuning matteis materially affecting the health ox safety of the occupants. FiD�2JC- Pam�ly Deveic�pmen[ Dwelling Ixase �. �nn000 Page 2 of 5 . _ _� C. Keep development buildings, faciliRes and common areas, ¢ot otheiwise assigned to tenan� for maintenance and upkeen„ ina ctean and safe coaditioa D. Maintaia elecaicat, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating and other facilitiu and appliances, supplied or requued to be supplied by Management m good and safe working orda and condition. E. Pcovide uash and gatbage contamas for the pre�ses. F. Supply n�ing water, and zeasonable amounts of hot watec �d reasonable amo�mts of heat az apptopriate tisES of the year, all in w�liance with applicable state law and ciTy ocd"mance. G. Thoroughly clean tLe dwelling imit as necessary before the 7msfer of the Tenant from one dwelling ust to another and befoze a aew Tenant mnves in. H. Offa the Tenant a xeplacement dwelling uni; if ava�7able, if the condition of the TenanYs piesem dwelling imit is ]�acdous to ihe heakh or safety of the occupanis and the condition is not coxrected in a xeasonabte time. Rent wi31 be abated m propoxtion to the seriousness of the damage and loss in value of a dwelling if repa¢s aze not made witk�in a reasonable time or altemative uco�odatioas are not provided in accordance with this pamgapb, ex�ept that no abatement of rent will occ�s if the Tenant rejecls tLe akemxrive acco�odation or if ihe damage was caused by the Teoznt, TenanYs household or gies�. L Give the Tenani reasonable nodce of what certificalion, release, mformation or doc�entation must be gi�� to Management, including the date by wlssch any such itemmust be gjven. J. Nolify the Tenant of the specific gounds for any proposed adveise action by Management 7. OBLIGATiONS OF TEPSANTS. MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AND GUESTS The Tenant agees to obey ihe following xules. 1'he Tenant is also responsble for wusing members of the household aad guests to obey ffie folloawg niles. .A. The Tenant shall: I. Pay rent on the Srst day of the moad� 2. Pay reasonable chazges, in accordance with the current schedule of charges posted in the Management Office, for the xepa'u of damages beyond noimal weaz and teaz to the umt, developmeat buildiags, facilities, coffinon azeas, or �ounds caused by either intentional oc negligent conduct of Tenaay memben of the household or guesrs. 3. Use the unit solely as a private place W live foc the Tenant and membe:s of the TenanYs household u identified in Secrion 2., a¢d not to use the unit or pexmit its use for any oTher piupose. 11tis pro�sion does not exclude reasonable accommodation of TenanYs guests or visitois, who aze visiting with Tenant for piuposes other than m establish residency in Saint Paul, for a period of bme not to exceed fiReen (IS) days per calendai yeu. (See Sectiors 2). 4. Ask for consent of Management before membexs of the household engage in any profit making activities in ihe dwelling unit. Management must also decide whet6ec such acRVities a[e tegal and aze inciden[al to the primazy use of the Leased unit for residence by membexs of the household. 5. Obey the written cegulahons posted in the Maoagement Office. These regulaROns aze mazla a part of this L�se by refecence. 6. Keep the uwt in a clean and safe condiQOa 7. Dispose of all gazbage, iubbish and other wazie from the unit in a sanitary and safe xnannex. 8. Use only in a reasonable manuer all electdcal, plumbing, heating, ventilating, and other facilitias in the development buitdings and common azeaz. 9. Park �elvcles only �n designated pazking azeu and in a manner wlssch will not obsmict haffic and not pexmit any velricles to remain m the pazlong azea or othu pazt of the housing development when such vehicle is no longer in operating condition. 10. Immediately zeport to the Management Office any vandalism to the premises. 11. Immediauly repor[ to ihe Maintenance Office any need for repair to the interior or exterior of the dwelling unit and any other azea used by the Tenant in connection with the TenanYs occupancy of the unit. 12. Pazticipate in a aaining pcogum on houcekeeging, yazd and home care skills if Management decides tl�at the condirion of tLe unit does no[ meet the 6ousekeeping standards set forth by the PHA. Such training will be prov�ded by M2nagement 13. Comply with the wmmuniTy service or self-sufficiency requiremenu in accordanca with Federal 1aw, resulations and ManagemenPs Admission and Occupancy Policies. Each adutt member of the TenanPs household anut comply with ihese iequicements- B. The Tenant shall not: I. Assign or hansfer the Lease or sub-Lease Yhe unit. 2. Provide housing for boazdas or lodgexs. 3. Distwb other tenants or neighbors and shall prevent disturbance of other tenants or neighbors by guests, visitois or othec pasons under controi of household memben. 4. Scatter mbbish, damage, desiroy, deface or remove any par[ of the dwelling unit oz premises, and sha11 pxevent such scattering of xubbish, damage, deshuction, defacement or removal by guesis, visitors or other petsoas under control of household membexs. 5. Engage in, or allow members of the household, guesis or another peiaon under TenanYs conhol to engage in any crimina! activity, including drug-zelated cc�minal achviTy, that tUreatens the healtb, safeTy, or right to peaceful en)oyment of the public housing piemises by othez tenants or employees of the Management 6. Commit any &aud inconnechon with any Fedecal housing assistance pmgam. 7. Make any repaics or altexations or install any pexmanentiy affiYed cazpet or any equipment, mcluding, but not ]imited tq door locks, withouz the writtea appxovai of Management Install of satellite dishes, antennas or otha'reception devices, s6all be in acwrdance with rules adopted by Manag�^^^• 8. Aave any dogs, cats, fowl, snakes oi other anianls on the premises, except smalt caged bicds, 5sh in aquariums rn' sma11 caged animals ttat will be kept indooxs, in accordance withthe PFIA's Pet Policy. 9. Create (by act or omission) ot pern¢t W exist any condition on the pi�euilses wluch resuks m a risk m tlie pusonal health or safety of any peison or damage to pmperiy. F.D1i24C - Family Development DwelLng Ixsse Rev.'//1/2W0 Page 3 ot5 , � � 10. Engage in, or allow membezs of the household, guests, oi anothei peYSOn under ihe TeaanYs conirol to engage in, any activiCy, includ'mg cciffinal activiry, wltich vupaus t6e physical or social env¢onment of tLe pcemises, neigLborhood, or ihe development 8. TENANT MAIIVTEPIANCE 1Le Tenant shall maiaEain waikways. staixs, landiaSs> ��Ys Sro��, Paiios and landscaPmg adjaceat to the unit If the Temant is Smable to maintam the gcmmds due to TenanPs age or disability, ihe Tenant �st notify the Management O�ce. I� after notification from Mznagement for coaective action, the Tenznt mglec� m�iniam iLe az�s �ss'S°� �'e Tenant sba11 pay to Management all expeases necesszri' for Mznageme¢t to mamtain or xepa"u these areas. 9. TERNIINATION OF THE LEASE p, Mynagement will not teiminate ot tefiue �o cenew �e I.ease and wDl not evict Tenant from Yne dwellmg �it except for serious or xepeated violation of xoaterial te�ms of the Lease oz otha �ood cause. Serious violation of ihe I.ease includes but is not Iimited to: 1. Failure of the Tenant m timely supply to tUe PHA any ce[tificalioR �lease, info[mation or documentation oa Family income usets ot composition 2. Non-payment of Tenant ient oc other chazges. 3. Shut-offofTenant-purc6asedutilities. 4. Fail�e m accept a hansfer for reasons spe�� Section S.C. 5. Any activity, not just crimival acRvity, that tluea�ns ihe health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment uf the pzew�ses by othei tenant5 and public housing emp3oyees, m' dcug-related a¢d/oc criminal activity on or offihe preffises, not just on or neaz ihe premvses, or alcohol abuse that VIanagement decides interfexes with the hea18�, safeTy, or right to p��eful enjoyment of 71ie premises by o11�er tenants or neighbors, when such acavity has been engaged in by a Tenan; a member of ihe TenanYs household, a guest or anotLer peson under Tenant's control while the Tenant is a Tenant in public housing. b. Failure of the Tenant to accept Management's offec of a aew lease ievised in accordance with Federel ]aw and regulalions. 7. Failure of a member of ihe family household to comply with the communiry sexvice iequirements of Federal Lousmg 1aw and regularions. MinnesoEa law provides that a Tenant automatically psomises not to kaowingly allow illegal d�ugs on the prem�ses and �t the pcemises will not be used by the T�t or others acung under the Tenant's conhol to violate criminal dmg 1aws. The 1aw' provides that a breach of tltat promise revokes the Tenant's right to possession of the premises. Minnesota Stamtes, Section 504B.301, fiuther pro�ides Nat if illegal d=ugs or other illegal items aze se�zed on Ihe pzemises pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.5317, Subdivision 1, Tenant is unlawfully detaining the piemises, unless the TeuaN lias a defense under Minnesofa StaNtes, Secnon 609.5317, Subdiv�sioa 3. Eviction p:oceedings undez these essaimstances aze euluded from Management's Grievance Pxocedure. B. Thrs Lease may be texminated by the Tenant at any time by ��ing at (east fldrty (30) days wntten norice to ManzgemenT on or before the lut day of the month befoce the month the tenant intends on �ating the unit (see Section 11C.) The Tenant must leave the unit in a clea¢ and good condition and temm �e keys to Management when the Tenant moves out. Failure m pro�ide pioper written aohce or failure m leave the �t in a good and clean condition or failuce to xen¢n the keys to Management may result in additional charges to the Tenant C. If the signex(s) of the 7-ease is no longer a member of the TenanYs household, this L.ease will texminate. .S new Lease will be executed and signed by all aduk remaining �mbe� of the household if tbose pe:sons have aot �iolated the texms and pro�isions of ihe Lease and the family continues to be elig�ble fot low-income housing. D. If The Tenant iransfeis to another unit opernted by ManagemenS �s Lease will terminate and a new Lease will be executed for the unit into wluch the Tenant moves. E. Management will give Ihe Tenant written no[ice of termination of ihe Lease as follows: 1. Fourteen (14) days in flie case of failure to pay nvt; 2. A xeasonable time depending on the seriousness of the situation in ihe case of a thYeai or act agawst ihe health or safety of otha tenanis, ManagemenYs employees, or othez petsons; or 3. Thirty (30) days in all other cases. F. Acceptance of rent wiffi knowledge o£ good cause for texroinaIIOn of fhe Lease shall not be considered a waiver of ManagemenYs right m terminate tl�is Lease on the basis of such good cause nor of ManagemanYs right to assert such good cause in any legal action. If ihe Tenant continues to occupy ihe dwelling uuit after the Tecminetion of the Lease, the Tenani agrees to pay Management ihe xeuonable value of ihe use of the pxemises for the period tUat t1�e Tenant continues to oceupY ��t The reas°°�h1� °�1� f°s the use oFthe premises is equivalent to the amouat of rent foc such period Howevey such payments shall not constiNte reM and by accepting such payments Management does not waive its right W usert any Lease violarions in �y legal ar*nn If Managemeat decides to terminate tlus Lease, it will give Tenant a written notice wltich states the reasons for the tei'mination, infoxms the Tenant of hu or her right to reply and infoxms the Tenant o£Tenan4s rights undec the Czdevance Pxocedtue described in Section 13 of this Lease. lO.INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS A. Before move-in Msnagement and Tenant will inspect the imit Management will give Tenant a written statement of conditions of the unit and the equipment pro�ided with the unit The stalement will be verified and signed by Management and Tenant A copy of the statemem will be kept by Management in the TenanYs Sle. B. When Tenant moves out, Management will inspect the unit and fuinish Tenant with a written statement of damages For wMch TGnanL is cesponsible. If Tenan[ moves ou[ aftez businu5 lwuis ot on a weekend or holiday, Management will inspect the unit on the next business day after Tenant has vacated. Menegement will grve Tenant the oppornmity to be pxesent at this HD�24C-Faznity Developmrn[ Dweliing Lease Rev.7/12000 Page 4 of 5 D5 �� iaspection by giving Tenant watten notice, witivn a reasonable time, of the liIDe and date of ibis inspection No notice will be pcovided if Tenan[ vacates wit]iout notice to Management. C. M�gament may enter Tenant's unit u follows: 2. 3. Management vn71 piovide "Ienant wiw th two (2) days written notice staung � p�pose of its emry roto the unit, except that Mana�ement will provide Tenant with reasonable notice (written or ornl) when it is necessazy to mter ihe unit for makmg improvemen� or repa¢s. Management enty wi11 ba belo+een the hoias of 8:00 am and 4:30 p.m for the puqwses of perto�ng ro�mne inspec[ions and maintenance, incl'�'++� pest control opexations, for making improvements or mpaixs, or m show the �;ces for re-leasing; Management may enter the �mit at any time witho� �vance notification when the�e is a ieasonable cause to believe an emergeacy exists; If all adult memUexs of the household aze abseni at the time of enhy, Mauagemeat will leave a written sratcment in ihe imit specifying the daie, time and puipose ofeutry. 11 LEGAL NOTICE A Any notice to Tenant from Management sLall be in wating eifher. 1. Deliveced pecsonally and Landed to the Tenant ot another membei ofthe TenanYs household who is an adu1T, oi 2. Be sent by prepaid Sist clzss mail pioperly addtessed B. If the nolice is delivered to a pecson other than the Tevan; Management will ako mail a copy of ihe notice to ihe Tenant. C. Any notice Tenani gves to Mznagement sliall be in wxitin� and eithei deliveced to a Management employee at the us�ed Management Office or PFIA Cental Adminishative Office, or be propaly addiessed and sent by fust class mail. 12. ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY If Tenant is absent from the unit for fourtee¢ (14) consecutive days and rent is ower� Management has the right to consider tLat Tenant has abandoned the unit. Any of TenanYs remaming pexsonal property will be considered abandoned and may be disposed of by Management accocding to Minnesofa law. 13. GRIEVANCEPROCEDiJRE A71 disputes about the Lease or about the responsibilities of Tenant, Te�n{s household ox Manageaient vrill be procused and resolved in accordance a2th the Grievance ftocedure of Management which is m effect at the time the dispute anses The Grievance Procedure is posted in the Management Office and is made a part of this Lease by reference. 14. ADMISSLON AND OCCUPANCY POLICIES The Admission and Occupancy Policiu refecred to in this Lease are Yhe Admissio¢ and Occupancy Policies as approved and as amended by the PHA's Board of Comatissionexs and aze made a part of this Lease by reference. A copy of the Admission and Occupancy Policies and amendments is posted in the Management Office and may be examined at any time diaing business houis. 15. CHANGES TO LEASE Changes to Uils I.eue, other than changes in Tenant ient, shall be made only by a written addendum signed by both Management and Tenant. 16. RECEIPT OF LEASE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS BY TENANT The Tenant has received executed copies of tltis Lease and the Cttievance Procedure, 1�as been infoxmed that the Admission and Occupancy Policies aze posted in the Management Office and aze available for inspectlon and understands How they all apply to the Tenant's tenancy. 17. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS By siguing below, Tenant and Management entei' iMO this Lease wlrich will Take effect on the daie shown in Sacaon 1, TERM OF LEASE; RENE WAI. OF LEASE on page i of Hus Leue. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF 1'HE CITY OF SAIl�T PAUL Housing Manager Tenant Date: HD-424C- Fam�lY Devdopmen[ DwellinS Lease a�. vrn000 YaBe 5 of5 A�I��Mr�c �s-a� rtunscnnon pVL50! Sfmpuedeusredlaringia,favor de an.w a su my�eseniante de PHA (Agrnda de /+iojarmwm Phbtico) pam que kp�opa�dan� �m interyrte. CEEBTOOM! Yog uaz koJ �� ais tau Asldv. nug v�s neeg ua luuj lwm reu kq tom ¢ev Ioom (PHA) kom pab miriav neegWaislus IRnrvSU1YON NOTICE! �[ypu winotmad EnY�isn, pleau azk yo�u PHA conpct poson m P�^de an mtaQrere. vonce� 1[you �motmnd Engtish, plmuaskyowPHAcanvc[ perspn to pmride an mtnpecte. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAIIVT PAUL HI-RISE DWEId.ING LEASE Unit Identifirrtion �: Name of Tenant(s): Address: Dwellipg Unit: Number of Bedrooms: 1Le Public Eiousing Agency of the City of Saint Paul (PHA), in this I.ease calied "ManagemenY', leases to the Tenant Family, in ihis Lease called "TenanY', the dwelling unit u described above according to the teims and condirions siated in il�is I,eue. The texm, "dwelling uniY', refers to the living unit for the Tenant's exclusive use. TERM OF LEASE; RENEWAL OF LEASE Tivs I,ease begins on , . 17vs Lease will automa4cally renew aimuallv unless eaded by eithu Management oc Tenant u provided in this Lease or as otheiwise iequued by law. 2. MEbIBERS OF HOUSEHOLD Only the follow�ng persons may �eside in the dwelling unit with the named Tenant: This limitation does not apply to live-in aides and foster clrildren who may reside in [he unit w�ih the consent of M�gement. 3. PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE LEASE A. Rental Pavments 1. The fust rent payment for the period begiuning , , and ending is $ . 1Lis paymeni is due at the time ilus Lease vs signed 2. The montlily xent of $ is due on or before the first day of each month bec�nnin� . T7sss monthly xent may change for reasons shted in Section 5 of dvs Lease. If rent is not paid on time, a late fee wil1 be eLarged in an amount u provided in �e Admission and Occupancy Policies. A fee will also be ettarged in an amount as provided in the Admission and Occup�y Policies foi checks iehuned fox non-sufficient funds or account closed. 3. If Tenant wanis to end dris Leue (See Secrion 9B), the Tenant is responsible for rent prorated on a daily basis for a minimum of tUirty (30) days athr the Tenant has given watten nonce to Managemeat of an intent to vacate. Ifthe Tenant wants to end this Lease but fails to give Management a written notice, zent will be cLaryed for thuty (30) days from the day Management leams the Tenant has moved. B. SecuritvDeoosit The Tenant has agceed to pay $ as a securiry deposit wiffi Management. The sec�uiTy deposit wil1 be held by Management in accordance with the Admission and Occupancy Policies, Mi�esota law and Federnl xegulazions. C. Charees Due Chazges for, but not limited to, maintenance and repair, late rent payment fee, fee for relumed checks, and legally allowable eourt costs aze due and collecnble tvro weeks aftec Management gives w[ivennotice m the Tenant of ihe eLarges. 4. UTIIdTIC' S A.. Bv Manaeement HD-62AB—Hi-Riu DwellinS �e Rev. ]2000 Page 1 of5 The TenanYS househoid hu the right M the exclusive use and occupancy of the unit. This nght includes 6aving guests stay in the unit up N fifteen (15) days per guest per ca7endar year. Upon a showing of special cucumstances oi need, Management may e#end tlus period for a reasonable addilional time, not to exceed tlilrty (30) days. o5-a�a Managemeat will pay the fiill cost of water, gazbage collection, sewer service, gas, elechiciTy and heat and will fianish a range (stove) and xefrige�or- B, Bv Tenant Tenant �y2 nptify Ma�aoement prior m the iaslallalion of a room as conditioaer or food freezer. If Tenant has a mom air conditioner or food fieezez, Tenant will be chamed a iID]ity use fee by the PHA The chazge �st be paid each month. The moNhly amoimt chaz3ed for the room a"s coaditionec or food freezar may 6e adjusted from t�e to t�e by the PHA withouT prior notice to Ten�t 5. A. Redetermivationnfxent At least once each year, and other times as descnbed below, Managemeat will decide whether the Tenants renEal rate should be changed, whetha the dwelling �it size is sG71 appropriate for ihe size and/or composirion of the Tenanl's household, and wbethei the Tenant is eligible fox contiaued occup�w.y in accordance vrith ihe Admission and Occupancy Policiu which are avnitable for miew az the Management office. p,s reyuested by Management at il�e time of the tedetexmma.tion, Tenant shall provide ucurnte cu�nt mfoimation concerning: 1. The number of people in TenanYs household, thes age, gender, and any other information reqused by Mauagement 2. The source and amount of income receivedby everyone in ihe Tenants household. 3. Anyallowablededuchons. The xede[exmination for contimied occupancy will include a review of TenanYs tent pa}vig history, housekeeping inspecrion iesults, record of cooperntion vrith Managements pest conirol pxog and all othes lease comptiant beLavior. B. Interim Redeterntination The rentai rnte shown in Section 3. will cemain in effect for ihe period between regulaz cent redetexmmahons unless during suchpenod: 1. 1Lere is au addition or loss of any adult member to the Tenant's household or the addition of any minor not bom in[o the household duriag titis teuancy. 2, There is any increase in montiily gcoss househoid income of $400 or more, whether occun'ing due to one income incxease oi due to more tl�an one increase or the cumulative increues of more than one family member. 3. There is any reported deccease in income or an increase in allowances or deductions tl�at would xesuit in a rent decrease. 4, The cuxrem renial rate wes calculated for a tempoxary time pexiod due m the mabiliry to accuxately predict income for an aimual period. Tlils �ncludes, but is not limited to, all households whose total income is zexo. A change in income or family composition as specified above must be repor�d to Management within 10 days of its occuxrence. The effective date for cl�anges in xent bued on interim tedN.etm�nacions will be in accosdance with the Admission aod Occupancy Policies. Tf the rental rnte is adjusted, Management will mail or deliver a notice of xent adjusunent to the Tenant in acwrdance with Sectioa 11. Failure by a Teuant to report any inc*eases 9n household income during a scheduled rent aud income reriew or as speciEed under Secflon S.B. Interim Redetermivations, or failure to appear for a schedWed reut and i¢come review will be consideted a serious and material violafiou of the lease and will result iu any reat i¢crease being ellective retroactive [o the 6me the increase would have been made. G ChanEe of Unit Size Management will ,grve notice ro Tenant fhat Tenant wiil be requiced to move to another unit tltat is decent, safe and sanitary and is of an appxopriate s�ze under ManagemenPs Occupancy Standards in accosdance with the Admission and Occupancy Policiu imder the following circumsiances: 1. If Management decides that the Tenant is living in a unit wLich is lazger or smaller than the PHA's Occupancy Standards allow for ihe household s�ze and compositioa; or 2. If Management decides that the unit is otherwise inappmpriate for the household size or composition, inci"�'++,s„ but not litnited to, when a unit modified For handicapped pe�ons is bemg occupied by a household without handicapped persons; ox 3. If Management decides that the unit requixes substsntial iepau's or ss scheduled for modemization or is not in decent, safe and sanitazy condition Afta being notified of the new uniPs availabiliry, the Tenant �st move to the o$ered unit witLin thixTy (30) days of the date of notificahon. Tf the Tenant fails ro move as xequued by ManagemenS �� Management has ihe aght to take legal action to te�minate fltis lease. Tenant may uk £ox an enylanation stating the specific gounds of the PHA detexmmation. If the Tenam dces not agcee with We deteimination, the Tenant has the right to request a heazing unda ManagemenPs Grievance Policy Procedure. 6. MANAGEMENT'S OBLIGATIONS Manaeement a2rees to do the followine: A. Repau and maintain ihe dwelling unit, equipment and appliances, and the common azeas and facili4es which aze needed to keep the housing in decen; safe and samtary condition. B. Comply with aU cem»*P*��ts of applicable state and tocal building and housing codes and FND regulations conceming f ID-024B — Hi-Rise Dwelting Lease Rev.'J2000 Page2 of5 . �-a� '' matte� mateiially affecting the health or safety of the occupans. C. KeeQ development bui(dings, facilities and co�on azeas, not othenvise assigned m tenancs fox mamtenence and upkeep, in a clean and safe condinon. D. Maintain elecnical, Pl�bing, sanitazy, headng, ventila�g and other faa7ities and appliances, incIudmS elevatocs, suPPlied or iequssed to be supplied by Management in good �d safe wor}ing o=der and condivon. E_ Provide avd maiaiain fiuh and �azbage containexs for tLe devetopment F. Suppiy mm�me water, and masonable amouNS of hot crater �d xeasanable amoimis of heat az appcopriate rimes of ffie year, all in compliance with applicable stare law and city oxdinance. G. Thocoughly clean [he dwetlin� �it az aecessary befae the hansfer of the Tenant from one dwelling imit to anotha and before a new Ten�t moves in. H Offer tLe Tenant a repiacement dwelling imiS � available, �f 1he wndition of the TenanYs preseat dwelling imit is haurdous m the Lealth oi safety of the occupants and the condition is not coaec[ed in a xeasonable time. Rent will be abated in pxopoxuon m Yne seriousness of the damage and loss m walue of a dwellmg if xepass are not ffide witLm a ieasonable �me or aLtemarive acco�odations are not provided in accordaace with this paxagaph, except tl�at no abatement of xent will occur �f ffie tenant rejxts the alte[native acw�odation oi if the damage was cavsedby the Tewwt, Tenant's househoid or guests. I. Give ihe Tenane seasonable notice of wLat certification, xelease, information or doc�enrarion �st be �ven m Management iacludmg the dace by whichany such item rmut be given. J. Notify the Tenant ofthe specific gounds for any proposed adverse actionby Mznagement 7. OBLTGATIONS OF TENAN'PS. MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AND GTJESTS "ILe Tenant agees to obey the following niles. 'T1ie Tenant is aLso respons�b7e for causing membe� of the househotd and wesis to obey the following ivles: A. The tenant shall: 1. Pay rent on ��st day of the month 2. Pay reasonable charyes, in accordance with the current schedule of charges posted in the Managemeni office, for the xepair of damages beyond noxmal weaz and ieaz m che uni; development 6 g� facilihes oc co�on azeas, caused by either intentional or negligeat conduct of Tenan; memb�s of ffie howsehold or guests. 3. Use the unit solely as a private place to live for the Tenant and memUexs of the TenanYs household as identi�ed in SecUOn 2., and aot use the unit or peimit iu use for any oiher pwpose. T7vs pmvision does not exclude ceasonable accommodation of TenanYs guests oz visitors, who aze �isiting with Tenant for putposes other than to esiablish residency in Saint Paul, for a period of time not to exceed fifteen (1S) days pec calendaz yeaz (See Sectio¢ 2)- 4. Ask for the consent of Management before members of the household engage in profihnakmg activities m the dwelling unit. Management must also decide whether such activities aze legal and are incidenfal to the primazy use of the leased unit for xesidence by members of ihe household. 5. Obey the written regulahoas posted in the Management office. These xegutations aze made a part of this Lease by xefexence. 6. Keep ihe uztit in a clean and safe condition. 7. Dispose of a11 gazbage, mbbish and other waste from ffie �t in a sanitary and safe manner. 8. Use only in a xeasonable manner all electacal, plwnbing, heatlng, �enrilating, au'-conditioning, elevatoxs and other facilities in the developmem buildings and coaunon arezs. 9. Pazk no more tLan one velticle per licensed leaseholder in the designated pazking azeas. Tenant 56a11 pazk a vehicte in a manner tUat will noi obsiruct traffic and shall not pexmit any velucles to remain in the pazlang azea or other part of the housmg development when such vetucle is no ]onger in operating condirion. 10. Immediately repoR to the Management Office any vandalism to the premises. 11. Immedia[ely repoR to tha Maintenance Office any need for iepair to the mtenor or �terior of the dwelling unit and any other azea usedby the Tenant in coimecdon with the Ten�t's occnpancy of the imit. 12. Pazticipate �n a training progam on housekeepmg and home caze skills if Management decides that the co¢dition of the imit does not meet the housekeeping standards set forth by ihe PHA. Such hain�no aill be provided by Management. 13. Comply with co�unity service or self-sufliciency requirements in accordance with Fedeial ]aw, regulauons and ManagemenYs Adm�ssio¢ and Occupancy Policies. Each adult memba of the TenanYs household �st comply vrith these requiremenis. B. The Tenant sLall not: 1. :�ss�gn or uansfer the lease or sublease ihe unit. 2. Provide hous�ng foi boazders or lodgexs. 3. Disiurb other tanants or neighboxs and sLall prevent disturbance of otha tenants oi neighbois by a ests, visiton oz otl�et' pezsons under conhoi of household members. 4. Scatter cubbish, damage, desuoy, deface or xemove any part of the dwelling unit or premises and shall prevent such scattering of iubbish, damage, desauctioq defacement or removal by guests, visitoxs or other pe�ons imder contro( of household membeis. 5. Engage in, or allow membexs of the household, guests or anothez person under TenanPs conhol to angage in azry criminal activiTy, including dcug-telated criminal acRvity, that threatens ihe health, safery, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the public housing premises by other tenants or employees of tLe Management 6. Commit any fraud in coffiection with any Fedexal housing assistance progam. 7. Make any repaus oc alteiations ot iastall any pexmanemly affixed cazpet or any eq�pmeN, iacluding, but not limited to, door locks, without the wntten approval of Management Installation of satellite dishes, antennas or othez receprion devices sLall be in accordance wit6 xules adopted by Management S. Flave any fowl, snakes or o8�er animals on the premises, except small caged birds, fish in aquariums, small caged awmals that vrill be kept indoors or a dog or cat as approved by Management and in accordance with the PHA's Pet Policy. 9. Create (by act or omission) or permit to e�st any condilion on the pre�ses wluch results in a risk to the pecswal heakh or safety of any pexson or damage to pcopuly. 10. Engage ia, or allow members of the household, guests, or another persoa under 1Le TenanYs con4ol to engage in, any achviTy, including crimioal activiTy, wMch ixapain the physical or social envico�ent of the pcemises, Y7�e neighborhood, or the development 11. Smoke, or allow Tenant's guests, visitoss or another pexson undex the TenanYs confrol, to smoke in any common azeas of the hi-rise- Co�on arazs include ihe Commmity Room, Lallways, stairNays, elevatoxs, public rest rooms, laundry HD�l24B - Hf-Rise DwNling Leaze Rev. 72000 Page 3 of 5 d5-at� rooms and any other indoor space that is not wittin and a part of the TenanYs dweting unit S_ PET POLICY AND DEPOSTT A Tenant agtees to abide by all te+ms and conditions of tLe PHA's Pet Policy, wlrich m71 be �+^^;�i+�.l u Tenant by Manageme¢t B. Except as provided ia subsection D below, Managemeut and Tenant �tually aSree m z11ow Teaant to keep u a pet one cat or one dog or such otherpet as is allowed by ihe PfiA's Pe[ Poliry. Tenant ay�eas m regisrer ihe pet aith M�^^^P�t before bxinging the petmto the dwellmg imit G Tenant shall pay a pet deposit to Ma�aoement in accordance with the Pf3P.'s Pet Policy. Management will hold the pet deposit �mtil the tenznt moves out or no longu owns or keeps a pet ia the lu-rise. "17�e pet deposit will be fully refimded, with intecest, provided tUat no pet damage has been doae m the dwelling imit Amoimts necessary to repas such dawage will be deducted finm tLe pet deposit D. EXCEPTIONS: Dogs are not pe�tted at Mt Auy, Dimedin, Wabasha, and Euhange lu-rises. 9. TERD'fIlYATION OF THE LEASE A. Managemen[ will not terminate or refisse to renew tte Lease and will not evict Tenant from the dwelling �mit �ccept for serious or repeated violation of maienal tecros ofthe Lease or othei good cause. Serious violation of ihe Lease mcludu but is not limited to: 1. Failure of the Tenant to limely snpply to the PHA any certification, ielease, infozmaaon oi documentation on fan¢ly iacome, azse� or comQosition_ 2. Non-payment of Tenant rent or other chazges. 3. Failuce to accept a uansfa for mdsons specified 3n Section S.C. 4. Any achvity, not just criminat acrivity, that thceatens the health, safeTy, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by otha tenants and public housing employees, or dcug-celated and/or criminal u.tivity on or off ihe premises, not just on or neaz ihe premises, or alcohol abuse that M�gement decides mterfens with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment o£ tl�e premises by other tenants or neighboxs, when such activi[y Las been engaged in by a TenanS a member of the TenanYs household, a guest oi anodier peison undez Tenant's control while the Tenant is a Tenant in public housing. 5. Failure of the Tenant to accept ManagemenYs offer of a new ]ease revised in accordance with Fede:al law and xegulations. 6. Failure of a membe[ of the family household to comply wiTh the conmwniTy service requirements of Federal housing Iaw and regulalions. Minnesota law provides that a Tenant automatically promises not to knoa�ngly allow illegal drugs on the premises and t6at the preauses will not be used by the Tenant or otheis acling under the Tenant's control to violate criminal drug ]aws. The law pxovides that a breach of that promise revokes the TenanYs right to possession of the premises. Minnesota Siatutes, Section 504B.301, fiuther pcovides that if illegal ckugs or othec illegal rtems aze seized on the premises pursuant to Minnesoh SEamtes, Section 609.5317, Subdivision i, Tenant is unlawfully detaining tl�e premises, unless the TenaN has a defense unda Minnesota StaNtes, Secfion 609.5317, Subdivision 3. Evictton proceedings under these circumsiances aze excluded from Management's Grievance Procedise. B. 11tis Lease may be [erminated by the Tenan[ at any lime by gi�ing at least ddrty (30) days written notice ro Manage+nent on or before the last day of ihe month befoxe the month the tenant intends on vacatin� ihe unit (see Section 11 C.) The Tenant sLall leave the unit in a clean and good condition and retum ihe keys to Mznagement when ihe Tanant moves out. Failuce m pcovide pcopex writ[en notice or faIl�se W leave the umt in a good and clean condition or failure to ret�sn the keys to Management may result in addirional charges to the Tenant. C. If the signer(s) of the Lease is no longu a member of the Tenant's household, iLis Leue will termmate. A new I,ease will be executed and signed by all adult temaining membei's of the household if those persons k�ave not violated the texms and provisions ofihe Lease and ihe family continues to be eligible for low-income housing. D. If the Tenant transfecs to another unit opera�d by Management, this Lease m1� temilnate and a new Lease will be executed for ihe unit into wluch the TenanT moves. E. Management will give the Tenant written noUce of temunation of the Lease as follows: 1. Fouc[een (14) days �n the cue of faiiuce to pay rent; 2. A reuonable fime depeoding on ffie seriousness of tUe situation ia the case of a threat or act against the bealth or safeTy o£other tenants, ManagemenPs employees, or other pexsons, or 3. TLir[y (30) days ia all other cases. F. Acceptance of rent anth Imowledge of good cause foc teimiaalioa of tl�e Lease shall not be considaed a waiver of Management's ri�t to tenawate this Lease on ilie basLS of s�h good cause nor of ManagemenYs right w usert such good cause in any legat action. If the Tenant continues to occupy the dwelling unit after the Tei'minanon of the I.ease, the Tenant agrees to pay Management the reasonable value of the use of the premises for the period that the Tenan[ continues to occupy the unit. The zeasonable value for the use of ihe pxemises is equivalent to the amou¢t of rent for such period. Aowever, such payments shall not constitute rent and by accepting such payments Management does not waive irs right to asser[ any lease violarions in any le�al action. If Management decides to texminate tltis leaze, it wi11 give TensnE a written notice wluch states the reasons for the texmination, infoims ffie Tenant of his or her right to reply and infom�s The Tenant of Tenant's righrs under the Grievance Rocedure descnbed in Section 13 of tbis Lease. 10. INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS A. Before mov�m, Manageme� and Tenant will inspect t6e unit Management will give Tenan[ a written sbtcment of conditions of the unit and tlie equipment prorided mth the unit. The statement will be verified and signed by Management and Tenant A copy ofthe statement will be kept by Managem� � 1he TenanYs 51e. HD-4246—Hi-Rix Dwel7ing Izase Rev /2000 Page 4 of 5 B. C� �5-a6a When Tenant moves out, MauagemeN will inspect the imit and Tumish Tenant with a written sEatement of damages for wLich Tenant is zesqonsible_ If Tenant moves oui after business hours or on a weekend or holiday, Management wil1 �acpecf the imit on the next business day after Tenant has vacated Mznagemant wi11 grve TenanY tte oppoxdmiry fn be present at 8ils insper.tion by givIDg Tenant written nobce, within a reasonable time, of tl�e t�e and daie of the iavpeclion. No nouce wil1 be provided ifTenant vacates wiffiout noRce to Managemeat. Management may enter TenanYS �mii as folloas: I. �idanagemeat will pcovide Ten�t with two (2) days written notice stating the piapose of em[y mio the immt, except thaz Management will provide "Ienan[ with zeasonable norice (wtitten or oxal) when it is necessazy to enter the imit for making m�rovemen� or sepaus. Managemeut en¢y will be berneen ihe hoins of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 pm fror ihe p�¢poses of petfo�vz rotrtme inspections and �+++*��++�e, mclud'me pest control operntions, for �king improvements or repaits, or to show the p�mises for re-leasing. 2. ?vta�aaement may enter the �t at any time without adnance nolifi�on when thece is a ceasonable cause to believe an emecSencY exiss; 3. If all adult membecs of the household aze absent az Nie dme of enty, Mznagement wilt leave a writ[en sharement in the unit specifying ffie date, �e and piupose of eutcy, Il. LEGAL NOTICE A Any aotice to Tenant from Management will be in writing either. 1. Delivezed personally and handed to the Tenant or a¢o[her member of ihe TenanPs household wl�o is an adulY, or 2. Be sent by prepaid fust class maii properly addcessed B. Ifthe Norice is delivered to a pecson other than ihe Tenan; Management wili also mail a copy ofthe Notice to the Tenant C. Any notice Tenani gives to Management shall be in writmg and either deliveced to a Management employee at ffie assigned Management office or PHA Ce¢irai Adminuimtive Office, or be propedy addressed and sent by 5�t class mail. 12. ABANDONMENT OF PROPER'fY If Tenavt is absent from the unit for fourteen (14) conseculive days and ie� is owed, Management has ihe right to consider that Tenant has abandoned ihe unit Any of TenznYS cemaining pexsonal prope[ty will be considered abandoned and may be disposed of by Management according W Minnesota law. 13. GRIGVANCE PROCEDIJRE All disputes about tLe Lease oz about the cesponsibiliries of Tenank TenanPs household or Maoagemen; wil1 be processed and resolved in accordance wiih the Grievance Procedure of Management which is in effect at the time the dispute arises. 1'he Gaevance Proceduce is posted in tLe Management o�ce and is made a part of tLis Lease by reference. 14. ADMISSION AND OCCUPANCY POLICIES The Admission and Occupancy Policies refetced to in this Lease is the Admission and Occupancy Policies u approved and as amended by the PHA's Boazd of Co�issioners and is made a part of t6is Lease by xeference. A copy of the Admusion and Occupancy Policies and amendmenLS is posted in ffie Management Qffice and may be exaarined at any time during business homs. 15. CHANGES TO LEASE CLanges m tlus Lease, other iLan changes in Tenant rent, will be made only by a written addendum signed by both Mavagement aud Tenant. 16. RECEIPT OF LEASE AND O`1"HER DOCUMENTS BY TENANT The Tenant has received executed copies of this I.ease and the Cmevance Procedure, has been infoxmed d�at the Admission and Occupa¢cy Policies aze posted in flie Managemeat Office and are available for inspection and understands how ihey all apply m ihe TenanPs tenancy. 17. ADDIIZONALPROVISIONS By sigping below, Tenant and Managemenk enter into tt�is Leaze which will take effeM on the date shown in Section 1, TERM OF I.EASE; REIVEWAL OF LEASE on page 1 of this Lease. '' .� � Tenant `�., • �e Tenani `., Tenant FIDd]AB-Hi-ILse Dwe7ling Ieese Rev.]/2000 f ` Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC HO SING AGEi`ICY OF THC C �F SAINT PAUL Hovsing Managee �� Date: ✓ 3� CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER L FIL o. 05- a c� F 19014 & 19014A Voting ward 2 In the Matter of improving the area referred to as the BARER/BELLOWS RSVP (Residential Street Vitality Project), by constructing a new bituminous surface streets with concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveway aprons and outwalks, boulevards landscaped with sod and trees, and a new lantern style lighting system, and doing all other necessary work to complete said project, bounded by George Street on the north, Ohio Street on the west, Annapolis Street on the south and Stryker Avenue on the east. Also, the construction of and/or repair of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and/or water service connections will be made at the request of the property owners. (File No. 19014C & 19014AC) The streets to be improved are: Charlton Street Waseca Street Waseca Street Bellows Street Bidwell Street Winslow Avenue Stryker Avenue Stevens Street King Street Elizabeth Street Baker Street Morton Street Morton Street Page Street Sidney Street Curtice Street Winona Street Wyoming Street Dodd Road - From Annapolis Street to George Street - From City Limits to Page Street - From Morton Street to George Street - From Sidney Street to George Street - From Dodd Road to George Street - From Dodd Road to George Street - From Dodd Road to Winifred Street - From Ohio Street to Stryker Avenue - From Ohio Street to Winslow Avenue - From Bidwell Street to Stryker Avenue - From Ohio Street to Dodd Road - From Ohio Street to Waseca Street - From Bellows Street to Dodd Road - From Ohio Street to Dodd Road - From Ohio Street to Dodd Road - From Ohio Street to Charlton Street - From Ohio Street to Charlton Street - From Ohio Street to Charlton Street - From City Limits to Stryker Avenue �� -�c�i The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approve with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is $6,065,000.00 financed by Assessments, 2005 CIB and MSA funds. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 18th dav of Mav. 2005, at 5:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. 3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. Adopted by the Council: Date:�f///��/��,3,djld� Passed by the Council Secretary � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � PW — Public Works " Dateinitiated: � Green S�heet NO: 14-MAR-0S i CoMad Person & Phone: � Dan Haak I� i 0 266-60&4 � Assign � 1 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): � Number I 2 OSAPR-05 I For i I Routing I Order � I I ToWI # of Signature Pages �i (Clip All Locations for Signature) �' ��2� 3025726 Denarhnent SeM To Person initiaUDate - ublic Works Dan Haak � ,Council ' Marv Erickson iN Clerk Shari Moore ! Set date of hearing to approve the orders for the BakerBellows Residendal Street Vitality Project (RSVP). /9al�j l901�{,q File Nos..�9995 & k9983A iaauons: Approve �n� or Ke�ec[ (rt): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civii Service Commission Personai sernce contracts must wnswer me roiwwmg cauesnons: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Dces this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): This project is being done as part of the RSVP projecu. This project will be done over a period of 2 years (2005-2006). The rates will be the same for both yeazs. AdvanWpes If Approved: General improvement of the right-of-way will enhance and add quality to the neighborhood. DisadvanWAes If Approved: None. ; Disadvantaqes If NotApproved: � ;�; ,, i The pavement structure will continue to deteriorate, maintenance costs will rise and the level of service provided by these streets will ° i drop. ;, ToWI Amount of Transaction: FundinA Source: +�� Financiallnformation: � (Explain) 6065000 CIB, Assessments, MSA CosURevenue Budgeted: Y Activity Number: i .',��'�: c`�,. �,�, °° �=:'�� Council File # v�.� o r�sFSrrEn sY REF'ERRED TO Green Sheet # ��Z RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � CO�TTEE: DATE i WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.03 Subd. 1(b) provides that a governing body of a public a employer may by majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider 3 strategy for labor negotiations; and 4 s WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of Saint Paul to meet and discuss various s labor negotiation issues for the present term of negotiations; now therefore s BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby agrees to hold a closed s meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. io 13D.03 Subd. 1(b) said meeting to be held on April 6, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Northwest ii Conference room, Room 310, City Hall; and iz is BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proceedings of the closed meeting be taped and that i4 such tape sha11 be preserved in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.03 Subd. 2. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � /`Y�-1 �e� DeparhrnnUotfice/eouneil: Date tnitia6ed: v J _.. � Hu -x�� ,�R� Green Sheet NO: 3025792 CorRad Person & Phone: � �� SeM To Person InitiallDate Mgela Nalezny 0 m� � 2fi6-6515 p,ssiyn 1 � De azimeM ' r Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): N�aN�er 2 Attnrn ' For ROUftng 3 or`s Office or/A�a:atn..r Ofder 4 � 5 ' a C9e ToWi # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) - Action Requested: Schedule a closed meeting for Wednesday, Apri16, 2005 for the City Council to consider strategy for labor negotiations. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Co�racts Must Mswer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persoMfirm ever worked under a contract for this department7 CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this perso�rtn ever been a city employee7 Yes No 3. Does this perso�rtn possess a sldll not normally possessed by any currert city employee? Yes No Explain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Adva�ages if Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: None Disadva�ages If Not Approved: Total AmouM of Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Transaction: - Punding Source: Activrty Number: Financial Infortnation: (Explain) CouncilFIle# OS-269 Green Sheet # 3025854 CITY OF Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION PAUL, MIlVNESOTA Cominittee: Date WHEREAS, Sl�amion Crossing, Tnc. d/b/a/ TurF Club, located at 1601 West University Avenue in Saint Paul, has requested a waiver of the 45-day notice requirement for issuance of on-sale liquor over 100 seats, on-sale liquor 2 a.m closing, and Sunday on-sale liquor licenses; and 17 18 19 20 21 WHEREAS, the Haufline Midway Coalition Boazd of D'uectors and Iaud Use Committee has agreed to the waiver of the notice requirements; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the application is in order and there are no grounds for denial of the license and t1�at the failure to grant the waiver and the consequent delay in approving the license would cause exceptional and unusual hazdship to the license applicant; and WHEREAS, the licensee agrees that in the event a complaint is received prior to the expiration of the 45-day period and the complaint provides a basis for adverse action against the license, that the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection may direct the licensee to immediately discontinue all operations until a public hearing is scheduled, and that the licensee sha11 comply with said directive; now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, that the 45 day notice requirements of § 409.06 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code are hereby waived and on-sale liquor over 100 seats, on-sale liquor 2 a.m. closing, and Sunday on-sale liquor licenses aze issued to Shannon Crossing, Inc. d/b/a/ Turf Club, located at 1601 West University Avenue in Saint Paul, subject to the agreement stated above. Requested by Department of: By: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Appz By: Form Approved by City Attorney �: ��e �G � Adopted by Council: Date��-�///JS � Greerv Sheet Green Sheet � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet OS-269 � Depar6neM/officekouncil: Date Initiated: co -�,�� 2,-�a�5 Green Sheet NO: 3025854 ConY�U Pecson 8 Phw�e• Deoertrnent Sefk To Person InitiaUDate Jay Benanav � 0 uncil Z �� Assign 1 onncil De artmentDireci r Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 • Clerk Cti Clerk 23-MAR-05 For � � . Routing Order Total # of SignaWre Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Waiving tl�e 45-day notice requirement for issuance of on-sate liquor for over 100 seats, on-sale liquor 2 a.m. closing, and Sunday on- sa181iquor licenses at Shannon Crossing, Inc., d/b/a Turf Club, 1601 West University Ave. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contraets Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this depaRment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this petsonffirm ever been a city empioyee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirtn possess a skill not nortnal4y possessed by any - current city employee? Yes No ' " Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aHach to green sheet lnitiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, YVhat, 4Vhen, Where, Why): , AdvanWqes If Approved: Disadvantapes If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Trdnsaction: Fundinn Source: Activity Number. Financiallnfortnation: ' (Explain) ' � � Council File # �' � S3 Green Sheet # 3024890 Presented Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAWT PAUL, MINNESOTA 3� Committee Date WI�REAS, the L,egislative Hearing Officer recommends that the license application (ID # 20040003802) for Auto Body Repair/Painting Shop, Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle Licenses by John C. Fox, owner, doing business as J& K Auto Sa1es Auto Body, 363 Atwater Street, be approved with the following conditions: 1. The number of vehicles for sale displayed outdoors may not exceed 12 as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. 2. All customer and employee vehicles must be parked in the area designated on the LIEP approved site plan. Employee vehicles may not be parked or stored in the alley. There should be five parking spaces for customers and employees. 3. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicle parts, tires, oil, or any other similaz materials associated with the business. Trash will be stored in a covered dumpster. 4. At no time sha11 vehicies be parked in the driveway or in the public right-of-way. 5. Cars for sale may not be pazked on the street or public right-of-way. 6. All vehicles pazked outdoors must appeaz to be completely assembled with no major body parts missing. 7. Vehicle salvage is not permitted. 8. General auto repair is not permitted. 9. No body repair of vehicles may occur on the exterior of the lot or in the public right-of-way. All repair work must occur within an enclosed building. 10. Vehicles awaiting repair may not be parked or stored in the adjacent a11ey. 11. Customer vehicles may not be pazked longer than 10 days on the premises. It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to ensure that any vehicle not claimed by its owner is removed from the lot as permitted by law. 12. Provide maneuvering space on the property to allow vehicles entering and exiting the site to proceed forward. Backing from the street or on to the street is prohibited. 13. Licensee must comply with all federal, state and local laws. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves this license application with the aforementioned conditions. os- r s3 Crreen 5heet 3024890 Yeas N s Absent Benanav ✓ Bostrom � Harris y Helgen ✓ Lantry ,/ Montgomery �/ Thune ,i S Adopted by Council: Date �i�,q�i��. �l/p'� Adoption By: Approved By: Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council ,., _ , _ _ '� OS-/53 ,� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � , . �. �� DepartmeM/office/council: Date Initiated: co ��il 12JANA5 Green Sheet NO: 3024890 Contact Person 8 Phone: ��ent Sent To Person InitiaUDate Marcia Mcertnond � 0 oucil 265-8560 q��g 1 uncd D entDirec[or Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 2 uo � For Routing 3 � Clerk Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested; Approving license application wiffi condirions, per the Legislative Hearing Officer, for Auto Body RepaidPainting Shop and Second Aand Dealer-Motox Vehicle Licenses by 7ohn C. Fox, owner, doing business as J& K Auto Sa1es Auto Body, 363 Atwater Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following (�uesBOns: Planning Commission 1. Has this perso�rm ever worked under a wntract for this department? CiB Commffiee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this perso�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Exp�ain all yes answers on separete sheet antl attacb to green sheet Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Wtry): Advanq�les If Approved: . Sl @� ��s^c�C{3 �"'✓�`81��9' pisadvantapeslfApproved: ,�� .� �oa� Disadvanpges If Not Approved: " � --��-� � � � � - • ° ' " ' � : � a: ,w Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Punding Source: AcYrvitv Number. Financial informatian: (Explain) ,.'', �5-153 Green Sheet 3024890 � �3 2- z3 - a�� Proposed amendments 14. The licensee and property owner will endeavor to make improvements to tlus property in accordance with the Rice Street Design guidelines. 15. The licensee must be in compliance with all conditions, as verified by a LIEP inspector, prior to opening. 16. The license will be reviewed for compliance with these conditions at least every six months. Failure to comply will result in adverse action against the license. oS-/53 MINIJTES OF TI-IE LEGISLATNE HEARING J& K Auto Sales Auto Body - 363 Atwater Street Wednesday, December 7, 2004 Room 330 City HalllCourthouse, 15 Keilogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: JeffHawkins, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Christine Rozek, LIEP; Kristine Schweinler, LIEP Mazcia Moermond explained this is a legislative hearing to develop a recommendation for the City Council to consider in the application for these licenses. There aze three possible recommendation at this level: 1) grant the license without conditions, 2) grant the license with conditions that the applicant agrees with and will adhere to, or 3) send this matter to an Adininistrative Law Judge (AL�. What is not on the list is denial of the license. If the Council findings were that the license should not be granted, it would have to be sent to an ALJ. The ALJ process takes about 3 to 5 months. After the ALJ process, it would go back to the City Council for acfion. Kristine Schweinler reported their recommendation for the Auto Body Repair Shop and Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle Licenses is approval with conditions. Also, they have changes to Condifions 1 and 2. Condition 1 should read as follows: The number of vehicles for sale displayed outdoars may not exceed 12 as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. The following should be added to Condition 2: There should be five parking spaces for customers and employees. Ms. Moermond asked has the owner had a chance to read through the conditions or talk to staff. John Fox responded yes. John C. Fox, applicant, home address of 2650 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, appeazed and stated he applied for the licenses. Over the yeazs, he has bought and sold cazs. He never had a dealers license; it was something he dabbled in. His partner has mechanical ability and lrnows how to buy discount parts for repair and replacement. They thought they would do something with a lot and have more vehicles on display than just buying and selling a cars. That is why he applied far the license. He has already examined the location and it was suitable for that type of business and had been utilized for that purpose in the past. They hope to buy, sale, and repair cazs in that location. There aze industrial businesses and he used to deliver in that area when he did a root service for another company. Most of it seems to be B-1 to B-3. JefF Hawkins stated the area is actually I-1. Kerry Atrim, Community Organizer for District 6 Plauning Council, 213 Front Avenue, appeared and stated the neighborhood was flyered about a meeting. There was no one representing J& K Auto at the meeting, nor did a representative call the office. There has been cleaz neighborhood OS - �53 MINiJTES OF J& K AUTO SALES AUTO BODY - 363 Atwater Street Page 2 opposition voiced concerning the painting of the vehicle because of air quality issues. This conflicts with the district's large azea plan which is to m;n;mi�e and not ei�auce the auto related businesses. Repair faciliries already e�st there. There was question about the site plan with overhead doors. Tlus is considered a gateway to the neighborhood. The display is not to excess 12, but the site plan has quite a few display areas. If the committee does approve tlus with the conditions, which Ms. Atrim finds to be fair, District 6 Plauning Council would like clear recourse as to re-evaluafion of the licenses of all auto related businesses to ensure that condifions are met for their neighborhood. At a*n;n;mum, District 6 Plauning Council would like Mr. Fox to come to their meeting. Ms. Moermond asked the meeting schedule. Ms. Atrim responded December 15, 6:30 p.m., 1021 Marion. The owner will get a letter. In answer to several questions, Mr. Hawkins answered that I-1 zoned property would permit a body shop with paint. A business has been there for 36 years. He does not know of any air quality concerns with that business, and there is nothing in the files conceming this. Mr. Hawkins asked is there an existing paint booth there and has it been approved by fire. Mr. Fox responded yes. Ms. Schweinler reported it has been approved by Pire. Mr. Fox stated his failure to show up for the community meeting was because they put the information at 3b3 Atwater and he did not get it. If it came to 2650 James Avenue North, then he would have shown up for that meeting. He will be there at the ne� District 6 Plaimning Council meeting to keep them appraised of what he is doing. Ms. Atrim is welcome to come and inspect the shop at any time. She will note it is neat and clean. Ms. Moermond asked the hours. Mr. Fox responded they will be open at 7:00 am. They will haue to stay open until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. for people who are transitioning from work to pick up their vehicle or make arrangements to buy a vehicle. Ms. Moermond stated the business address is 363 Atwater and she does not see another address. Ms. Rozek responded LIEP has the home address on 3ames Avenue. Ms. Schweinler added that the applicant designated a mail-to address in their application, which is 363 Atwater. The business is not open yet, which is why the owner has not received anything. Ms. Moermond explained the district council system to Mr. Fox: the district council can be his greatest ally, as it is a collection of people who are residents and business owners in the area. If Mr. Fox is in contact with the neighborhood organization, he wi11 heaz about things sooner if sma11 things come up that can be resolved easily. It sounds like the district council is asking for a six month evaluation on the license. Mr. Fox responded he has no problem with that. Ms. Rozek responded that LIEP checks the conditions annually, and they respond to complaints, but it is riue they aze not there every week monitoring the number of cars in the lot. D S� � S3 MINUTES OF J& K AUTO SALES AUTO BODY - 363 Atwater Street Page 3 Ms. Moermond recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The number of vehicles for sale displayed outdoors may not exceed as as shown on the approved site plan on file in LIEP. 2. All customer and employee vehicles must be pazked in the azea designated on the LIEP approved site plan. Employee vehicles may not be parked or stored in the a11ey. There should be five parking spaces for customers and employees. 3. There shall be no esterior storage of vehicle parts, tires, oii or any other snnilar materials associated with the business. Trash will be stared in a covered dumpster. 4. At no time shall vehiales be parked in the driveway or in the public right-of-way. 5. Cazs for sale may not be pazked on the street or pubiic right-of-way. b. All vehicles parked outdoors must appear to be completely assembled with no major body � 10. 11. parts missing. Vehicle salvage is not permitted. General auto repair is not permitted. No body repair of vehicles may occur on the exterior of the lot ar in the public right-of-way. All repair work must occur wittun an enclosed building. Vehicles awaiting repair may not be pazked or stored in the adjacent alley. Customer vehicles may not be parked longer than 10 days on the premises. It sha11 be the responsibility.of the licensee to ensure that any vehicle not claimed by its owner is removed from the lot as permitted by law. 12. Provide maneuvering space on the properiy to allow vehicles entering and exiting the site to proceed fonvard. Backing from the street or on to the street is prohibited. 13. Licensee must comply with all federal, state and local laws. The hearing was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. rrn