3/26-3/30/2001 Meetings for the week of March 26th-March 30th http://www.stpaul.gov/depts/clerk/meetings.html
The City of Saint Paul
Meetings for the Week of
AotliAl
...........................
March 26th, thru March 30th, 2001
MONDAY - March 26th
*Ramsey County Board 9:00 AM Council Chambers
Board of Zoning Appeals 3:00 PM Room 330 City Hall
TUESDAY - March 27th
No Meetings Scheduled
WEDNESDAY - March 28th
City Council Organizational 10:00 AM Room 330 City Hall
Meeting
*Housing and Redevelopment 2:00 PM Council Chambers
Authority
*City Council---see Agenda 3:30 PM Council Chambers
*Public Hearings 5:30 PM Council Chambers
THURSDAY - March 29th
No Meetings Scheduled
FRIDAY - March 30th
No Meetings Scheduled
*Cablecast live and repeated on Saint Paul Channel 18.
Interpreter service for the hearing impaired will be provided at public meetings upon request. Request can be made by
calling(651)266-8509(Voice and TDD)Monday thru Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.A minimum of two days notice is
required.
For more information on any of these meetings,you can send Email to:
citizen.service(a,ci.stpaul.mn.us, or call the Saint Paul Citizen Service Office at(651)266-8989
If you'd like a reply, we'll get to you as soon as possible, but in most cases, please allow at least one
working day for a response.
1 of 1 3/23/2001 1:40 PM
MAR-23-2001 10: 16 RAMSEY COUNTY MANAGER 651 266 6039 P.02/02
MEETING NOTICE
BOARD OF RAMSEY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
15 W. KELLOGG BLVD., ST. PAUL, MN 55102
651 266-8350
Monday, March 26, 2001
Tuesday,March 27,2001
9:00 a.m. - Policy Board Meeting
Council Chambers, Third Floor Court House
Immediately following Policy Board Meeting
- Administrative Board Meeting
Council Chambers, Third Floor Court House
- Regional Railroad Authority
Council Chambers, Third Floor Court House
- Executive Session RE: Ramsey County v. BFI (potential litigation)
**CLOSED TO PUBLIC**
Room 220 Court House, Large Conference Room
- Executive Session RE: Labor Negotiations
**CLOSED TO PUBLIC**
Room 220 Court House, Large Conference Room
1:30 p.m. - Board Workshop—Energy Deregulation
Room 220 Court House, Large Conference Room
Wednesday, March 28,2001
8:00 a.m. - AMC Legislative Conference
Radisson Hotel, 11 E. Kellogg Boulevard
9:00 a.m. - Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, Executive Committee
2099 University Avenue
10:30 a.m. - Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
2099 University Avenue
Thursday,March 29,2001
8:00 a.m. - AMC Legislative Conference
Radisson Hotel, 11 East Kellogg Boulevard
Friday, March 30, 2001
ADVANCE NOTICE
April 3, 2001 —9:00 a.m. -Policy Board Meeting, Council Chambers
TOTAL P.02
.4t,
RE-(°E. NEE
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY BAR 27 2001
SAINT PAUL 'l,f `,• CLERK
NOTICE
BUSINESS MEETING
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001
9:00 A.M. TO 11:00 A.M.
AGENCY BOARD ROOM
480 CEDAR STREET: SUITE 600
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
480 Cedar Street•Suite 600 • Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2240
651-298-5664 • Fax 651-298-5666
SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY,MARCH 28,2001
10:00 A.M.
330 City Hall
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM
AGENDA
1. Police Department response to "racial profiling" concerns.
2. Council role in review and approval of proposed CityNet lease agreement. (See
attachment)
3. April policy session topic
4. Follow-up on budget issues(Peter Hames)
5. Display of legislative delegation images on Channel 18.
V
manner would effectively transfer powers traditionally exercised by the City Council to the
Administration. The City Council should insist on playing an active role in the development of
agreements of this type and insist the public be allowed to express themselves before its approval.
Terms
An overall reading of the proposed agreement leaves two general impressions. The first
impression is the Public Works Department has included terms in the agreement to ensure that
CityNet will not interfere with its ability to manage and operate the sewer system in Saint Paul.
The second impression is the remainder of the agreement is unbalanced to favor of CityNet. The
proposed agreement contains terms that grant CityNet unprecedented generous benefits while
accepting far less for the City than has been the case in similar situations in the past. Some
examples of the extraordinary benefits to be granted to CityNet are outlined below.
Duration of the Agreement. The proposed agreement provides for an initial three-year term
renewable,upon the same terms, covenants and conditions,at CityNet's option,of seven(7)
additional three(3)year renewal terms. This means that CityNet may elect to operate its
business in Saint Paul for 24 years under the terms in this proposed agreement. Such a duration is
unprecedented in Saint Paul and greatly exceeds the duration of any similar agreement. The cable
television franchise, for example,had an original term of fifteen(15)years. The most recent cable
television franchise has a term of ten(10)years with a five(5)year extension-at the City's
option. The City Charter limits the duration of franchises to twenty(20)years unless approved by
a majority of electors voting thereon. While this Charter provision may not be directly applicable
in this situation, it reflects the extraordinary nature of a proposal to have an agreement run for 24
years. This means, if at any renewal point during this 24-year period, CityNet deems the terms of
this agreement no longer to be in their interest,they may elect not to renew. If,however,the City
finds the terms of this agreement no longer to be in the City's best interest, it is bound for the
entire 24 years if CityNet elects to exercise its renewal options.
Rental Fees. The proposed agreement provides that CityNet pay the City rental fees in the
amount of 2.5%of its gross revenues. This is far less than the at least 5%of gross earnings
proposed in the City Charter for franchises. This is the rate currently paid by the cable television
franchise. It has been suggested that the City should accept this low rental fee because CityNet
may elect to install their system in the public right-of-way without paying any rental or franchise
fee. While this may be true,this is clearly not CityNet's business model and they are electing to
try to use city sewers because they can install their system far more quickly and inexpensively than
if they had to absorb the full cost of right-of-way construction. The proposal that the City should
accept lower fees because CityNet could do something that is far more costly to them and not
part of their business plan, seems naive.
Bonds. It is a common practice for the City to require parties that propose to conduct business
using public rights-of-ways to provide bonds to secure their obligation to defend and indemnify
the City against claims arising from usage of CityNet facilities. Such bonds are customarily
2
considered a cost-of-doing-business to be borne by the facilities operator. Also,construction
performance bonds are commonly paid by the facilities operator. This proposed agreement
provides for such bonds but the cost of these bonds are to be borne by the City not CityNet. For
the proposed$150,000 bond to secure the City against claims CityNet is violating the provision of
the cable television franchise,this bond is to be reduced and retired on a dollar-to-dollar basis by
the delivery of rental fees to the City. This appears to mean that this bond will vanish upon
CityNet's payment of$150,000 in rental fees and from that point forward the City will be
required to pay for its own defense for activities related to CityNet. It is also common practice
for contractors to be required to provide bonds to assure performance under the terms of an
agreement. Such bonds are also considered a cost-of-doing-business to be paid by the builder. In
this proposed agreement,the financial burden for this bond is again shifted to the City. CityNet
proposes to pay the City$50,000 with which the City may purchase a surety bond to protect
against CityNet's failure to perform. This advance is,however, to be fully recovered by CityNet
by receiving full credit for this advance against rental fees. Again,the ultimate cost of the surety
bond falls to the City,not CityNet.
Protection of Cable Television Franchisees. Joe Van Eaton of Miller&Van Eaton,a City cable
law consultant,has repeatedly raised concerns this proposed agreement may undermine the City's
current cable television franchise. While an attempt has been made to address this risk by adding
certain provisions to the proposed agreement,Mr. Van Eaton is still of the view the City remains
at risk. He has proposed solutions to this problem but they have been rejected by CityNet. This
proposed agreement does not,therefore,adequately protect the City in this regard.
Besides these major concerns, several other lesser concerns remain. These concerns should,
however, be resolveable through further negotiations and improved drafting of the document.
Recommendations.
Based on a careful review of both the specific terms for the proposed agreement and the process
through which it was developed, Council Research makes the following recommendations to the
City Council:
1. The City Council should reassert its authority to be actively involved in the development and
approval of any agreements where private parties are proposing to use City property for private
purposes.
2. The City Council should conduct a public hearing on the CityNet proposal to receive
information from all interested parties including prospective customers,competitors and the
public.
3. The City Council should advise CityNet the City will not enter into any agreement for the use
of the public right-of-way that exceeds 10 years in total duration.
3
3. The City Council should require CityNet pay rental fees of at least 5%of gross earnings
derived from the use of City rights-of-way.
4. The City Council should require CityNet to provide appropriate bonds at their expense and
such bonds shall remain in effect for the duration of the agreement.
5. The City Council should direct City staff that any agreement with CityNet must provide
protections for the City's cable television franchise as proposed by Miller&Van Eaton.
6. The City Council should direct City staff to redraft the agreement to address less serious
concerns to be identified by Council Research.
7. The City Council should commit to an open,public process for reviewing and evaluating any
CityNet agreement. This should include timely public notification and a public hearing.
8. The City Council should establish a process,by ordinance,for the development,review and
approval of any such similar agreement in the future.
cc: Susan Kimberly,Mayor's Office
Clayton Robinson,City Attorney
Sean Kershaw,PED
Tom Eggum,Public Works
Roger Puchreiter,Public Works
Peter Hames, OFS
Legislative Aides
4