Loading...
08/10/2004 - City Council Special -TL-~-f - MEMO city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: AUGUST 9, 2004 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / AUGUST 10, 2004 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING III. Lockheed Martin Storm Sewer Agreement / Grading Permit - As referenced in the Special City Council packet that was sent out on Friday, enclosed on pages la through ld is a copy of a letter from Lockheed Martin and a memo with additional background information from Director of Public Works Colbert. v i - /s/ Thomas L. Hedges i City Administrator 08/09/2004 12:51 651-456-2073 LOCKHEED MARTIN LAW PAGE 01/02 Lockheed Martio Maritime Systems & Scn-,Om P.O. Box 64525 MS UZD17 St. Paul, MN 55164-0525 Telephone 651.456.3466 Facsimile 651.456.2073 E-mail: kevln.c.darrenkamp@lmco.com LOCKHEED MAItT/N )Kevin C. Darrenkamp General Counsel MS2 Tactical Systems August 9, 2004 Thomas Hedges VIA FACSEMLE (651-675-5012) City Administrator AND U.S. MAIL City of Egan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 RE: Lockheed Martin Grading Permit Application No. EX-09-0406 Dear Tom: I wanted to extend my appreciation to you and the other members of your staff for meeting with me last Thursday regarding Lockheed Martin's Grading Permit Application. While, unfortunately, we were unable to resolve our differences about the storm sewer trunk charge and the interpretation of the Easement Acquisition and Exchange Agreement, I appreciate the candid and professional dialogue. As we discussed, Lockheed Martin's grading permit is associated with parking lot and driveway improvements that are intended to enhance security at the entrances to our Eagan facility. Accordingly, Lockheed Martin is eager to complete these improvements and desires to begin construction in time to complete the project before the onset of inclement weather. To that end, I also wanted to confirm our discussion last Thursday regarding potential modifications Lockheed Martin could make to its construction plans to eliminate the storm trunk sewer charge and, hence, allow this project to move forward while we continue to try and resolve our differences. Per our discussion on Thursday, if Lockheed Martin could remove portions of its existing parking area (to be replaced with green space) to reduce the increased impervious surface area of the total project to below 30,000 ftz then Lockheed Martin could proceed with the project without any storm sewer trunk charge. If this does not comport with your understanding of our discussion, please contact me immediately. Of course, any modification of its construction plans by Lockheed Martin should not be construed as agreement with the City of Eagan's interpretation of the Easement Acquisition and Exchange Agreement. Rather, it is simply an alternative approach to allow this important project to proceed. I think you would agree that it is important that our differences not impede improvements in security at Lockheed Martin's Eagan facility, particularly where many of our employees are also Eagan residents. !a 08/09/2004 12:51 651-456-2073 LOCKHEED MARTIN LAW PAGE 02/02 Thomas Hedges August 9, 2004 Page 2 Lockheed Martin does not intend to modify its construction plans (if at all) until after the Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday. However, I wanted to confirm the understanding we reached on Thursday for purposes of allowing expedited decision-making by Lockheed Martin, if necessary, following action by the City Council. Sincerely yours, Kevin C. Darrenkamp L- city of eagan MEMO TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRTOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRETOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: AUGUST 9, 2004 SUBJECT: LOCKHEED MARTIN STORM DRAINAGE FEE - GRADING PERMIT #EX-9-0406 ISSUE Lockheed Martin (LM) has submitted an application for a grading and excavation permit to allow them to expand their current parking lot facilities to accommodate an additional 116 standard plus 12 handicap parking stalls. One of the conditions of this permit is the payment of a Storm Drainage Connection Fee of $302,481.73 in accordance with an agreement dated 12-11-01. LM is objecting to application of this fee at this time. BACKGROUND The Lockheed Martin property (formerly Loral Defense Systems, Unisys, Sperry Univac, etc.) has never been assessed for nor paid any fees towards the City's Trunk Area Storm Water System to date. Per an agreement dated 2-21-89, LM was required to proportionately participate in the cost of a lift station and related force main outlet for Pond CP-4 (Community Center Pond) whenever it became necessary. With the subdivision of the former Unisys property and its subsequent development into the City's Central Park and Argosy University, the outlet was constructed as part of the Central Park and Parkway Public Improvements (Proj. 790R) in 2002. As part of the right of way acquisition for Central Parkway, the City entered into several new agreements with LM (i.e. Principals of Agreement Regarding Central Parkway, Easement Acquisition and Exchange Agreement, Master Development Agreement, and others). One of the related elements of these agreements required the City to replace 35 parking stalls that had to be removed due to the new alignment of Central Pkwy. Due to LM's uncertainty as to where these replacement stalls should be located, the City issued a check to LM on June 13, 2003 for $42,057.50 as acceptable compensation in lieu of actual reconstruction. To date, LM has not cashed this check due to the City's stated position that doing so would fulfill the City's obligations under the related agreement. Another element of the Easement Acquisition and Exchange Agreement stipulated that LM would pay the City's Trunk Area Storm Water Fee whenever any expansion of impervious surface exceeded 30,000 sq. ft. The City's 35 stall replacement obligation would be exempt from this "trigger" calculation. This expansion element of the agreement was personally negotiated by former Mayor Awada and former LM President John McNellis in consideration of the City agreeing to not assess LM's proportionate obligation under Proj. 790R (defer the partial cash payment now, but collect full payment at a later date with expansion). At the Final Assessment hearing held on 3-16- 04, LM was not assessed for any Trunk Area Storm Drainage fees. The other parties to the 1989 proportionate agreement (i.e. Northwest Airlines and Unisys) have since both agreed to similar deferral agreements, but with a trigger of only 10,000 sq. ft. on new impervious surface. On May 24, 2004 the City received the Grading and Excavation Permit application from LM which showed an increase in impervious surface of 52,970 sq. ft. Crediting the City's 35 stall obligation resulted in an increase of approx. 40,800 sq. ft. which clearly exceeds the "trigger" condition of 30,000 sq. ft contained in the governing agreement. LOCKHEED'S APPEAL LM wants to appeal the City's requirement of payment of the Trunk Area Storm Drainage Fee at this time. They contend that the calculations of total impervious surface should take into consideration the conditions at the time of the agreement's execution (2001) and subsequent impervious reductions via the removal of their old private drive. They have submitted calculations that state a loss of 47,920 sq. ft of impervious surface during construction which is more than the proposed net addition of 40,800 sq. ft. of expanded parking stalls. They have informed staff that, as an alternative, they are investigating a possibility of removing a sufficient number of existing stalls to stay below the 30,000 sq. ft. trigger, but are not offering that option at this time. STAFF'S POSITION The City Attorney and Public Works Director believe that the governing agreement is very clear in relating to "future" expansions for the trigger and that, absent any clause referencing a prior condition credit (similar to the City's 35 stall replacement obligation), it is not applicable and is an attempt to modify an existing agreement by inserting another conditional credit. Staff also has stated to LM that all properties in the City are expected to pay their fair share towards this fund. This fee has been applied equitably to all other businesses, corporations and residential properties throughout the City including a County Regional Park. I will be available at the Council's workshop on Aug. 10 to provide further information as necessary to help the Council consider LM's request. Cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services Bob Bauer, City Attorney Russ Matthys, City Enginee ~CL Agenda Memo August 10, 2004 Special City Council Meeting III. LOCI~~ED MARTIN STORM SEWER AGREEMENT / GRADING PERMIT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction regarding a request by Lockheed Martin to amend the easement acquisition and exchange agreement that was executed by Lockheed and the City of Eagan in December 2001. FACTS: • During the fall of 2000, the City entered into negotiations with Lockheed Martin (LM) to obtain right-of--way to accommodate the new Central Parkway. This involved incorporating several old easement and assessment agreements into a new comprehensive master agreement. • In an effort to address storm drainage obligations, LM has never paid a storm water trunk assessment, it was agreed that no storm sewer assessments would be charged to LM until such time in the future when significant development or expansion of the LM property causing more impervious surface would occur. • The outcome of many months of discussions and negotiations was an easement acquisition and exchange agreement executed by both LM and the City of Eagan in December 2001 that specifically defines "significant development" to be "an increase in the impervious surface area of the LM property in excess of 30,000 square feet." • LM is proposing to shift and add parking to the east of their corporate entrance to enhance property security which according to conditions in the agreement has triggered the need to pay this trunk storm water charges of $302,481.73 (2004 rates). • LM has held two (2) meetings with the City during the week of August 2 - 6 and has asked for time on the City Council agenda to address a modification to the agreement to again delay payment of the storm sewer trunk obligation. • A letter from LM and additional information from Director of Public Works Colbert will be provided as an addendum to this agenda item on Monday, August 9. ATTACIiMENTS:~ There will be a letter from LM and additional background provided by Director Colbert as a special distribution on Monday, August 9. Agenda Information Memo August 10, 2004 Eagan City Council Workshop Meeting IV. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT RFP DISCUSSION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To receive a presentation and make a preliminary determination regarding the identification of the Ryland-Schafer/Richardson partnership as the Master Developer for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. FACTS: • The Cedar Grove Redevelopment project is coming about as a result of the interaction of a wide variety of stakeholders and decision makers. From early in the process, the City's efforts have been guided by a strategy and process that has focused on the City's goals for the project, the roles of the various participants and the feasibility of the potential project(s). The project is at a point at which substantial progress has been made and construction of some aspects of the project has been undertaken. The next step is to identify a developer to carry forward the next phases of the development/redevelopment activity and to outline the process and timeframe within which those phases will occur. • At its meeting of April 13, 2004, the EDA and City Council approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a master developer to undertake the remaining development activities in the portion of the Redevelopment Area bounded by Hwy 13, Nicols Road, Cedarvale Parkway and Silver Bell Road and authorized its distribution. • At the Council direction, the RFP focused on selecting a single developer with a proven track record of working closely with cities to reflect the community's vision in a project that can be implemented over a reasonable time frame. It also outlined the City's concept plan, which identified preferred uses and mixes of uses anticipated to be incorporated into the various subdistricts within the area. The RFP did not require developers to prepare detailed designs of specific redevelopment projects at this time, but did ask the proposer to generate a concept plan that would permit discussion of how the City's general vision could be implemented. • Proposals were solicited from a number of prospective developers. One proposal was received on May 21 from the partnership of Ryland Homes, a national residential developer, and Schafer/Richardson, aTwin Cities developer and property management company that is the current owner of the Cedarvale Mall. Feedback from other prospective developers suggested that the decision by the Schafer/Richardson, the largest single property owner in the redevelopment area, to be a partner in a proposal, reduced their perceived likelihood of being able to submit a successful proposal. Even so, staff has proceeded with its due diligence review of the proposal to bring it forward for the City Council. Agenda Information Memo August 10, 2004 Eagan City Council Workshop Meeting Page 2 • The City's redevelopment consultant and staff have met on several occasions with the proposed partnership in the last two months to review details of the development concept and project approach and to complete a developer analysis for consideration by the City Council. As outlined in the analysis noted in the attachment section below, we believe that the Ryland-Schafer/Richardson partnership has the ability to implement a viable redevelopment plan for the Cedar Grove Area. The matter is being presented to the City Council for its determination as to whether the partnership's vision conforms sufficiently with the City's and whether the Council believes that it can work effectively with the partnership to implement that vision. `~~ The presentation is proposed to follow the outline below: ~-L~ • Staff and Consultant Overview of Strategies, Goals and Accomplishments to C~ Date ~ Developer Introduction of Development Team • Developer Overview of Redevelopment Concept • Council Interview -Prepared Questions • Council Discussion with Developer -Additional Questions and Issues • Council Discussion of Next Steps and Direction to Staff ISSUES: As outlined in the RFP, the City's selection of a Master Developer to be its redevelopment partner is a stepwise process. Not all decisions can or should be made at once. If the Council is satisfied that the Ryland-Schafer/Richardson partnership can successfully fill that roll, it may give preliminary direction for staff and the consultants to enter the preliminary development phase identified in the Redevelopment Strategies outline noted as an attachment below. A formal action to that effect would be place on the EDA/City Council agenda on August 17, 2004. The EDA and Council will consider the refinement of the various aspects of the redevelopment plan over the weeks and months ahead. It is important however for the City and developer to reach successively higher levels of commitment to the project approach as each step in the refinement occurs and related agreements or plans are approved. ATTACHMENTS: • Redevelopment Strategies outline on a es _ • R,e(~u~est for Proposals on page~~ with City's Concept Use Plan on page -"-F-~-- • Developer proposal on pages 'S • Developer Concept Plan enclosed without page number. • Consultant's developer analysis on pages ~( -~ 3 Agenda Information Memo Page 3 August 10, 2004 Eagan City Council Workshop Meetin¢ Developer interview questions on page ~ "1,. (Proposed assignment of Council questions noted) Interview evaluation form on pages . ~~D V 1 ~i~/ W • ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a °' ~ ~ ~ ~, a~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ U as ~ s e ~ .~„ ~ N R ~~~iii tt ~~ `~ I~ ~ hn ~~ VI~sV c ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ +' N ~ ~~ N ~ ~ N CCS ~ ~ U O N Q W L Q~ W d Gi di N N ~? V V •e•+ N CCU -+-+ v a a~ a~ a~ ._ a~ 4~ U • a~ 0 a~ c~ a~ C~ U r~ u -M-+ 0 a~ a~ -~ 0 a .~ O U .~ a~ a~ c~ ~O ._ c~ .~ c~ U N ~O a. r~ u a~ 0 a~ a~ z3 a~ c~ a~ ._ CU ~2. X W ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ U Q ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~o W> 0 .~ .~ Q .~.~ ^~ .. .*.~ L ~ ~ L 4i p ._ i V ~ ~ ~ ~ a R~ ~.- ~ ~ s- O ~ s. ,. ~~~ V ~ ~.. ~ ~ to ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~, ~ L p ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ L o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ i' ~ ~ ~ 0! ~ ~~ W ~ tIf ~- N M .. N R~ O V .Q i 0 cv 3 a~ c a~ 0 0 V ~_ ^ ,~ ._ ~ ~ a~ -~ a~ n r~ .~ ^ •~ ~- o o Q ~~ 0 0 .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -~ ._ c~ a~ sZ. ~} V 0 1 L 0 _~ n .~ i. O v ca .~ a~ zs ._ L n ~~ a~ ._ a~ cu ._ a~ 0 ^ a~ a~ .~ .~ ._ L ~~ ~~ ~ ~ U ~~ i Q~ ~o s W> 0 !- N A ^~ .~.i ^~ L r~ ^~ a~ a ~+ a L S.. tQ .~ L V 0 C!i U ., L V~ t~ V~ ^~ ..~ .N a~ ~~ 0 '~ a~ cu Cl~ L . ~. a V ^ Q ~~ 0 V 0 W L L 0 a~ a as ;~' Q~ L C ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ U ~~~ Q~ ~ o s ~ w > a~ 0 9 .--. N O ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ -~ ~ o > Q. ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 0 /^\ .> a W W o 0 - ._ cn cn v ~ ~ 0 ' ~ 0 ' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' . ~ ~_ U U U > U RS W y- 0 Q la -4-+ U N ~O O Cff 0 U .~ 0 U _o 0 -~ c~ a~ 0 Q ~,."~ ~~ a~ 0 a~ a~ U N N 4) CCS 0 ~o .~-. a~ _01 W a~ -~ c~ a~ .; tU .~ 0 ~ °' a~ ~ ~~ N ~ U_ Q C o~j N (U L Q (J) ~o ~, W> 0 ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~. ~ O ~' CU ~ u > o Q ~ c~ ~ U U? o . ~ N j ~ C6 ~ ~ ~ a p ~ U .~ ~ . ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L Q~ O 1' W o ~ ~ ~ ~ o U 0 ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tt~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ V ~ ~ o ~ ° ~ ~- o ~-- ~ .. _ . ~ > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U C tt5 U ~ ~ -~ 0 0 ~ o L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ U C'~ ~ ~ o . ' o `~- ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ - ~ 's~ -~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q L L -~-+ ~ ~ Q. o ~ ~ o ~ °~ v ° > ~ ~ ~ > °~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ 0 0 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ o~°' a~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ cn > ~ O ~ Q <C ~ ~ > > > s ~~ ~~ ~~ N ~ U ~ ~ ~ i Q ~ O W > 0 is 13 N ~ N ~ Cti ~ U C ~ ~ U_ Q C o~j tD ~ N ~ ~ ~a ~ O W > D 1~} ^ 0 s ._ 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ v .o ~ 0 0 ~ o Q. ~ O ~ e~; t,- ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~~~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ U ._ U ._ V ._ U ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 U U U U • ~ • • ~~ ~~ ~~ .~ ~ Q U C ~~~ L Q ~ o w > a~ l5 O O .~ tCf ;~"+ a.+ .~ 0 U 0 Q. s~ ~..~ . ~. W .^~ U 0 a~ ^~ W 0 .~ O U Q. v U O a~ 0 0 .~ ^~ l.L 0 a~ a~ z3 a~ 0 0 ^~ W • -1-+ .~ ^~ W ~- ~ ~ CC5 > ._ - ~ o o ~ o -- U ~ ~ ~ _~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ -`-' o ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ U ~ ~~ ~~ ~U ~ ~`~a ~ ~ U o~ (ll N i Q~ ~ O W > 0 ~~ .. 0 c~ .~ .~ W ~ ~ .- ~ cn .- a~ > o o ~ ~ ~ V N ~ ~ ._ ~ -~--+ S. ~ v ~ .- a .~ a~ ~ ~ U 4~ ~ ~ L N Q ~ ~ ~ • W a~ 0 .~ .U L 0 N .~ 0 O ~7 v! 0 ^~fwA' ~/ f a~ a~ 0 U W W 0 a~ a~ U .~ c~ U N ~~ Z3 • V! L a~ U 0 U 0 0 • ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ U ~~~ Q~ ~ o ~ ~ W~ 0 C N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U_ Q C otf ~ ~ ~ fl.. ~ ~ O W > l~ 1~1.J ttf ~. L L Q ~~-+ t/~ 4~ d L tQ ~. L _~ 0 a~ 0 a~ a~ -~ N L_ ~~ .~ .~ a~ -~--~ ~~-~' ._ iq ^~ W W 0 a~ a~ a~ ._ Ct~ -~i-.+ W ^~ V L -~^-,+ W S.. ~a a 0 U .j ^L LJ.. s a~ 0 v a~ -~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .N ~ ~ U ~~ ~~~ Q~ ~o ~, W~ 0 -F-+ .~ ~ .~ .~ /~~ 4- ^w V} c~ ._ c~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . L .~ _ :~= ~ ~ ~ ~ -- as o ~. „'~~ ~, o C.) CU ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'j ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U ~O -1-~ ^ ~ ^ ~~ c~ ~. U .~ U C~ (^'~+] W 0 a~ Q • 0 .s~ .~ ._ L 0 O cn C~ [^~+J W ._ v ~a ~, °' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ U Q ~ ~~ ran L Q v ` O W ~ 0 0 ~~-+ L 0 ~3 ~ M - -~ ~ o ~ ~ •_ ~ ~' o •_ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ .~ .~...~ '`~V "fir' v ~, ~ `= +•~ o ~ . ~• "'FV c, a~ ~ ~ 'a W ~ 1 ` ~/ a~ CCf O N O N c~ .~ ^v W '~•.r. a~ r~ `~ ', U N O -.. N `a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ U o~ N N i d~ ~o ~, W > N . ~ .... ~ ~ O ~ v O ~ ~ W o ~ o ~ > °~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ Q o- i+^~ ^~ rW V! a~ U 0 U N ^~ W a~ a~ c~ -~-~+ ^~ W U O U a~ 0 '~ v/ 0 .~ c~ a~ ~--+' 0 a~ N O .~ c~ 0 a~ a~ t..L~ c~ ~. °' ~~ ~, ~ ~ U Q o~$ N N i Q~ ~o ~, W ~ 0 as ~ ~~ _ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a -~ > > ~ ~ N A ~ ~ ~ Q, ~ Ct3 ~ ~ ~ O +~ CCU ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ U a~f ~ N N Q~ ~ O W > 0 a3 4~ N Q -~..~ -~ Z N 4~ V O S.. W Q. _Q• W ^~ W 4- S~ CU .~ N W ~U ~ ~ o ~- U ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^L~ W _~ a~ .~ .~~ ^~ W 4- ~--1 -1-+ U 4) .~ ^~ W > o ~ .- -~ ~ .~ o ~ au a~ cn o ~' ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ N U_ ~ C c~j N N L Q~ ~ O W > T N M a~ C N ~ N ~ N p~ ~ ~ U Q C o2j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Q ~ O L ~ W > D as N ~r-+ •e-r d Z G.1 N N V O L ~. ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U o ~ Q -~.-~ Q ..~ U tCS ~,~, o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ W O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q) . _ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ ~-= _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"' ~ N s tU i N ~ C„~ _, ~ U U ~ ,} _,__ ~ U CtS ~ ~ U) Cn Cn s_ ~ _ • - ~ U LL > > ~~ ~~ u ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ w > v a~ ri-~+ -1~+' L ^ W tt~~ 4--~ W a a~ to .~ CQ . t11 ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q) Cv ~.. ~- o ca - °~ ~ > .~, ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ U ~ • ~ c~ 0 a a~ 0 c~ -~ ~^^•• Q. W . ~. .~ ^~ L ~_ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ o ~, U CU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CU ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ U ~2. ._ ~ ~ .- _ ~ ~ ~ • v x a~ a~ m ~~ ~~ ~~ .N ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~- 0 ~ ~ w~ 0 a~ N ._ U O a c~ r~ (^,~`J W AO W [A'~`j W a~ VJ [A~, `) fW i ~j~w, v / (^/~`) W W • .~ ~U CU .-~. 0 ~~ {^~ i~ ~g CU U 0 U ~w ~vV/w//, ^ ^ 0 0 ~, °' ~~ ~, ~ ~ U Q ~ -~ ~~a~ ^L~ Q W O W ~>1 W I. Introduction Eagan, Minnesota is a vibrant community of about 66,000 people located in the southeastern portion of the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. It is the 8'h largest city in Minnesota and located just 15 minutes from downtown St. Paul, and 25 minutes from downtown Minneapolis. We proudly welcome and encourage you to visit our website at ci.eagan.mn.us. The City of Eagan and its Economic Development Authority (EDA) have begun the redevelopment of its Cedar Grove area in order to once again make the area a strong, vibrant gateway to the City of Eagan by creating a viable mixed-use area that utilizes its highway visibility and accessibility, while maintaining compatible land use relationships with surrounding areas. This is the goal of The Cedar Grove Redevelopme~rt Area, a project undertaken to reawaken the spirit and vibrance of this area of the community. The vision for The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area is to be mixed-use, transit-oriented, pedestrian friendly development. The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area is located east of Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) and includes properly on both the north and south sides of Highway 13. Highway 77 is a principal arterial running from Eagan to Bloomington, Richfield, and Minneapolis. The site is less than four miles from the Mall of America and Interstate 494. Interstate 494 is the major loop serving the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The strengths of the site include the following: (1) Access to Cedar Avenue and Highway 13; (2) Proximity to the "494 strip;" (3) The adjacent residential base south of the Site; and (4) Improved traffic infrastructure that is nearly completed. While the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area has its strengths, it also has some challenges. Its primary challenge is the "tired look" of many of the existing properties and the need to reposition investment in the area to take advantage of new market opportunities. There are four general areas that the City and EDA are considering for redevelopment for this RFP: the West District, the Central District, the East District and a portion of the Gateway District. This redevelopment will expand upon some of the viable, existing Cedar Grove core businesses. The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area calls for reoriented, newly designed, and attractive structures, which will maintain an individual identity, and complement the architectural theme. To assist you with this proposal, the EDA has scheduled aPre-Proposal Conference for: Wednesday, D-lay 5, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road 651-675-5000 Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Page 1 aq The Goals of the redevelopment are to: • Revitalize Cedar Grove Area as a gateway/landmark of the community. • Improve traffic access and circulation to and through the area. • Encourage a mixture of market-supportable land uses compatible with one another and with the surrounding area. • Incorporate new urban development expectations by incorporating a pedestrian focus, transit opportunities, mixed residential and commercial uses, uniform and cohesive design elements, structured parking and public green space. • Protect long-term vitality of residential areas adjacent to commercial areas and consider the needs of existing businesses in redevelopment or relocation efforts. The City is seeking a creative, qualified master developer to oversee the development of the targeted area, with a mixture of retail, housing types, and/or restaurant and hospitality uses as identified on the Concept Plan. While the City strongly prefers a master developer for the Cedar _ Grove Area, it is willing to consider proposals for partnering with a master developer for development of the area. It is also willing to consider modifications to the boundaries for each subdistrict within the Cedar Grove Area. • The intent of the redevelopment is to increase the intensity of commercial activity in the Cedar Grove Area for use by the general public. Therefore, retail use along Cedar Grove Parkway is required. .;. The (:ity is open to consideration or proposals that provide a team approach to redevelopment. The master developer will be responsible for focusing on the strategy to implement the Concept Plan, including assembling parcels, identifying the specific types of uses for each area, and phasing in the development for each area. • The City is desirous of developing projects of exceptional architectural and urban character. To this end it is hoped that the master developer will package projects in such a way that ~ different architectural treatments may be employed for ~ different aspects of the project allowing the total project to develop the look, feel and texture of a downtown developed over many years of intermittent development. _:,~._.w..._- • For businesses that will stay in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, the master developer will be responsible for working with those businesses to integrate them into new buildings or to make improvements and design modif cations to their existing buildings that complement the new development. This will include working with the businesses that hope to remain in the area and assessing their willingness, ability and desire to stay in the area and comply with the redevelopment goals. .l f `(J~ ~ '=~~ ~2 l 4 j~~; ~,. ~ ` :.~, ® LlYrod PakNaPSbMhC+P~•r+~~9'fknriAMYIYI,w Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ Page 2 • Replacement of public parking will be key in developing a commercially viable area. The master developer will be asked to follow the Cedar Grove Design Framework as they locate parking for the various elements of the project. Underground and structured parking is to be encouraged where it can provide opportunities for greater development intensity. • While the City and EDA have identified the four areas for redevelopment, the master developer would have the opportunity to propose change to the boundaries of the areas within the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. The City expects the master development firm to incorporate and support the principles demonstrated by the Cedar/13 Redevelopment Study for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area (copy is available from the City). In turn, the City is committed to a public/private partnership and win/win relationship. The City has been planning and preparing for redevelopment for several years. The Eagan EDA has completed the first phase of property acquisition by acquiring 16.77 acres of the acre site. Public improvements totaling an estimated $12 million have been completed in the area. These improvements include ,~ 7 .~. ~y Sy ~` ~~ ~_ t z F ~ _ ,e,./ , 'y ~~~ w ,._ ~ k~ \~~ .~-__.. the storm sewer, roadwork and streetscape. Following October of m ~~•~~• ~,, 2002, the AURA defined a traffic budget, which gives pertinent ~~~ information for the intensity of development within the specifics of the area. II. Description of Sites •'• Location The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area is located east of Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) and includes property on both the north and south sides of Highway 13. Highway 77 is a principal arterial running from Eagan to Bloomington, Richfield, and Minneapolis. The site is just over three miles from the Mall of America, the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport and Interstate 494. Interstate 494 is the major loop serving the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. ~ ~~~ '~'%A' ~~'~ ~'`~ ;' AREA LOCATIQN ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~, Engn r ~~... c.o.. w.n.w .r . w 1 ~wr _~ ~'J Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP 3' Page 3 The strengths of the site include the following: (1) Access to Cedar Avenue and Highway 13; (2) Proximit•• to the "494 strip;" (3) The adjacent residential base south of the Site; and (4) Improved traffic infrastructU that is nearly completed. While the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area has its strengths, it also has some challenges. Its primary challenge is the "tired look" of many of the existing properties and the need to reposition investment in the area to take advantage of new market opportunities. There are four general areas the City and EDA are considering for redevelopment for this RFP: the West District, the Central District, the East District and a portion of the Gateway District. These four areas constitute the majority of two new neighborhoods for Eagan; the Central Cedar Neighborhood and the Cedar Gateway Neighborhood. Each neighborhood is a mixed-use, walkable district with residential, office and recreational uses. Each neighborhood is able to be traversed, on foot, in ten minutes making them very pedestrian friendly. The creation of these two neighborhoods will expand the viable, existing Cedar Grove core. The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area calls for reoriented, newly designed, and attractive structures, which will maintain an individual identity, yet complement the architectural theme established for the neighborhoods. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP 2 -~ Page 4 West District The West District redevelopment area consists of an area that is oriented to Nicols Road, Cedar Grove Parkway and Cedarvale Boulevard. This redevelopment area contains roughly 18.5 acres of potentially developable land. The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area suggest that this is the best location for a hotel and office complex. The City would be open to consideration of multi-story structures that provide enhanced visibility for the project itself and the redevelopment area. Redevelopment Plans anticipate the removal of all, if not most, of the existing buildings in the District. The hospitality market in the City continues to grow. There are active and growing demands for lodging accommodations and for food and beverage services, not only from visitors but also from residents who choose to stay in the City. For 2003, the City was one of only two Convention and Visitor's Bureaus in the metropolitan area to show growth in visitors. The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA), in conjunction with the City of Eagan and Dakota County, is committed to providing enhanced transit opportunities in the Highway 77 Comdor. MVTA has worked closely with the County to locate a Passenger Station and a Car Park and Ride facility at the southeast quadrant of Highway 77 and Highway 13. MVTA will approach this project in a three-phase effort. Phase I will include the installation of a surface parking lot and enhanced bus service to the Mall of America Transit Hub and other destinations. Phase II will include a parking structure and an integated passenger waiting station, and associated service facilities. The facility will meet the stated goals of Dakota County to facilitate a Bus Rapid Transit System in the Cedar Avenue Corridor. Phase III will include access improvements and a proposal to change the current highway access and configuration of Highway 13 and Highway 77 interchange. The proposed modifications include both automobile and transit vehicle access directly off of northbound Highway 77 into the station as well as direct egress from the station back onto northbound Highway 77 for transit vehicles. MVTA is working to secure funding for all three phases and is working with MnDOT and Dakota County to finalize the plans for configuration of the Highway 77 and Highway 13 interchange. The transit station provides an important urban anchor at the edge of the Central Cedar Neighborhood. Residents are within afive-minute walk of transit options connecting to all parts of the Twin Cities. ~ntral District The Central District consists of roughly 39.2 acres. The area is divided by Cedarvale Boulevard and is bordered by Highway 13 and Cedar Grove Parkway. The Central District is expected to act as the pedestrian-oriented link between all of the districts. The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area suggests that this is the best location for amixed-use development. The Plan proposes development consisting of office, food and beverage, service, and retail Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ Page S with multi-family housing and a central urban greenway as the center of the Central Ceda- Neighborhood. The plan envisions people walking on tree-lined streets with shopping at the stree offices above and their homes above the offices. Parking is hidden behind or under the buildings. The streets are vibrant and safe 24 hours a day because people are always there. It is easy to live here, work here and get to anyplace else in the Twin Cities. The center of the neighborhood is an active intersection of restaurants, shops, and public spaces where residents and visitors can enjoy their free time. Redevelopment Plans anticipate the removal of the Cedarvale Mall and all, if not most of the existing buildings in the District. The architecture of the Central District reminds us of old mainstreets but firmly set in the early 21St Century. Directly south of the Central District, U.S. Homes is constructing a 230-unit owner-occupied townhome complex. Construction should begin in 2004 and completed late in 2006 East District The East District is 12.3 acres between Cedarvale Boulevard and Cedar Grove Parkway. There are two businesses, Jensen's Supper Club and the Cedarvale Bowling Center, that have expressed an interest in staying in the area and working with a developer to comply with the redevelopment goals. Jensen's Supper Club is a new restaurant that strongly reflects the supper clubs of an earlier time Jensen's offers fine American dining in an up-scale but relaxed environment. The Cedarvale Bowling Center draws more bowlers than any other in the 5-state Midwest area. The Center contains 32 lanes, and a total of 653,000 games were bowled in 2003. The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area suggests that this is the best location for a recreational and entertainment district and multi-family housing. The East District sits in the boundary between the Central Cedar Neighborhood and the Cedar Gateway Neighborhood. This is a perfect place to build on the existing entertainment uses to create a recreation and entertainment center within a ten minute walk of any resident or worker in the two new neighborhoods. The entertainment center is easily reached from Cedar Grove Parkway or the new transit center. Other than the businesses noted above, the Redevelopment Plan anticipates the removal of all, if not most of the existing buildings. Gateway District The Gateway District is 15.1 acres along Highway 13. A portion of this area is being developed by Keystone fora 129-unit senior housing complex. It is anticipated that construction will be completed late in 2004. The Redevelopment Plan anticipates the removal of the properties on the north side. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ Page 6 ,~ -- ~_ ~ ~ V ~v ~ r= The Plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area suggests that '{'~ + ~, L:,. , ~/'' the balance of this area be developed with a combination of ~~;~ - ~ ~ ~,s'~-' ~.,3 additional senior housing and office and retail space. This area is W~ ~` w ~`: ~'`~: ,} s r ~ S ~ envisioned as the center of the Cedar Gateway Neighborhood; ,~~_ ~ ' ''~'~~ ~, ~? the entry to the Cedar Grove downtown. A development of f ~,'~;~ ~` ' `~` ~ r~ buildings tight to the street with retail of the ground floor, offices ~ Lam" `~ ~':-Y and additional senior housing surround the Gateway structure , ~,~~~-i~* ',~,~ ~,~ k ~ :,' heralding the entry into the neighborhood. ~ ~;,;~ To date the City has not actively pursued major redevelopment ~~~~ ...~ of the portion of the Gateway District north of Silver Bell Road. y, ~,~,~, ~,,,,,~,~;,,~„~,,,,,,;,,;Y„u,~ However, it is very important to the City that the area north of ~-•--~ '""°"'"`"""`°~`° w.,,d "~'~' Silver Bell Road complement the overall redevelopment of the Cedar Grove District. Therefore, the City would be interested in proposer perspectives to the best ways to accomplish the overall redevelopment • Zoning All four of the sites are currently zoned CGD. The zoning supports the community's vision of celebrating the broader neighborhood as a vibrant, walkable town center that contains a mix of uses, attractions and living options. It also incorporated the new urban development expectations of a pedestrian focus, transit opportunities, uniform and cohesive design elements, structured parking and public green spaces. Information on zoning is available at the City of Eagan's website at http://156.142.111.38/upload/images/current~lanning/cedargrovedistrict.pdf. A copy of the Land Use Map is available at http://156.142.111.38/upload/images/comprehensive/sa5_LU inside.pdf. The Comprehensive Guide Plan is available at http://156.142.111.38/live/page.asp?menu=2085. •'• Design Considerations Part of the strategy m strengthening the Cedar Grove area is to diversify the reasons people use it. The City is focusing on creating atransit-oriented environment and .weaving recreational opportunities and non- vehicle uses into the area by improving pedestrian links. In regard to private development, the City believes that the area's long-team success relies upon creating a mix of uses including retail, destination-oriented commercial, hospitality, and housing. Other elements tl:e Ciry desires include: • Compatible and complementary commercial fronts for retail, office, and services. The master developer will not only need to work with design compatibly issues for new development, but also work with some existing business owners to make design modifications that complement the new construction. • Housing should have sufficient "critical mass," so residents feel like they are part of a neighborhood rather than occupants of separate, isolated developments. • New roadways built to create smaller blocks should interconnect with existing area roadways to create a network of pedestrian, transit and automobile circulation. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Page 7 3s • Underground parking is required for higher density residential development, structured parking encouraged to permit higher density combinations of uses, and in all cases, primary parking should be located behind buildings, internal to developments. • Placement of buildings up to public sidewalk to provide a traditional downtown character as opposed to a suburban character. • Storm water management at the source. Space for storm water ponding is limited; therefore developers are encouraged to suggest techniques such as rainwater gardens, rooftop gardens and pervious pavement to manage storm water in small spaces. The City expects the master developer to provide a creative, urban design that encourages and incorporates the use of high quality, durable building materials. Architectural detailing is highly encouraged and landscaping and streetscape design should be used to enhance pedestrian circulation and create a sense of unity and identity. The Cedar Grove District Zoning District Uses and Standards are available on the Ehlers website (www.ehlers-inc.com/minnesotalprojects/minnesota~rojects.htm). These guidelines are important in creating the community's design vision. Developers are asked to comply with the specific guidelines so that the proposed development remains consistent with the architectural integrity of Eagan and the stated goals for redevelopment. III. Desired Developer Commitments/Contributions • The master developer must focus on a strategy for implementing the Concept Plan for t' Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. The strategy will include incorporating the current developments in the area, acquiring land, and working with the businesses that will remain in the area. • The developer must demonstrate an understanding of new urban development by incorporating a pedestrian focus, transit opportunities, mixed residential and commercial uses, uniform and cohesive design elements, structured parking and public green space. • The developer must demonstrate an understanding and commitment to the City of Eagan's concept for redevelopment. • The developer must demonstrate the experience necessary to organize and deliver a high quality project of the type and scale proposed. • The developer is expected to provide private capital to fund 100% of the fair market value of the project. IV. City of Eagan Commitments • The City may consider requests for gap financing as appropriate to assure the desired level of quality for development. • The City may assist in land assembly if the developer is unable to acquire the properties through direct negotiation. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ ~ Page 8 V. Desired Qualifications • Experience in development of mixed use projects including the type of housing, hotel, entertainment and hospitality, retail and/or office redevelopment proposed. • Experience in land assembly in fully developed areas where businesses and residents are currently located. • Proven organizational and project management capabilities. • Demonstrated experience in obtaining debt and equity to finance the proposed type of development. • Experience in public/private development work. • Commitment to collaborate with City staff, EDA, and elected officials. VI. Submission Requirements Please submit fifteen (1 S) copies with the following information: 1. A development strategy including number, type, size, estimated market value, and use for each project component. A sample form is attached and available electronically at www. ehl ers-inc. com/minnesotalproj ects/minnesota~roj ects.htm. 2. A site plan that indicates how the developer would propose to situate general uses on the site(s). The site plan should be a simple "bubble diagram." This RFP does not anticipate and discourages architectural drawings with elevations specific to the site. However, pictures of similar work done for other communities are welcomed. 3. A general description of the public improvements, which may be required to support the new development. Potential improvements to consider include streetscapes, water and sewer, etc. The City understands that engineering has not been initiated and that a detailed engineering analysis would be undertaken when the project proceeds. However, the City would appreciate preliminary information about the type of improvements proposed. 4. Proposed sale prices/rents of residential units and lease rates for the commercial space. 5. Generalized development proforma, detailing sources and uses of funds (including proposed cost of land). 6. A description of the project team including, but not limited to the lead developer, development planner, architect, engineering consultant, attorney, etc. All principals and partners must be disclosed and pertinent information provided. Any future changes in principal partner(s) will be considered by the City. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ Page 9 7. Summary of related development experience, financing capacity and references from cit•- officials in at least two (2) communities where you have completed similar developments 8. Description of unique characteristics and design elements that would be incorporated into the project. Pictures of similar projects completed in other Cities may be provided. Please do not submit original drawings specific to the proposed development. 9. Process for acquisition of private property and relocation of existing businesses. 10. Proposed timeline for development. A realistic and feasible timeline will be among the key criteria considered in the selection of a master developer. All RFP packages shall be submitted to the City of Eagan, no later than 4: 00 p.m., May 21, 2004. Responses should be addressed to: Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment Attention: Jon Hohenstein Community Development Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122-1810 651-675-5000 VII. Selection This information will be reviewed and evaluated by the EDA and City and they will make the selection of developers for final proposals and interviews. In making a selection of a master developer, the City will consider the following items: • Proven qualifications to carry out a project as outlined in this proposal • Demonstrated experience in urban and suburban mixed-use redevelopment • Demonstrated experience in implementing new urban design concepts in redevelopment projects • Demonstrated understanding of the City's vision and goals for the azea as reflected in the proposed approach to the project • Anticipated public participation costs as compared to development value • Demonstrated ability to work with existing businesses to integrate them into the redeveloped area Thank you again for your interest in developing within our community. We look forward . receiving information regarding your proposal Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~ O Page 10 VIII. Preliminary Project Schedule Issue RFP April 15, 2004 Developer Information Session May 5, 2004 RFP Due May 21, 2004 EDA/City Developer Review June 29, 2004 City Staff Interviews Developers Comparison of RFP Responses Council Identifies Developers for Interviews Council Interviews Developers Additional Follow-up Completed Approval of Developer August 17, 2004 Preliminary Development Agreement Approval September 21, 2004 Start of Construction To be determined by Review process Please direct questions about the Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment and this RFP to: Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Jim Prosser Sid Inman Rebecca Kurtz 651-697-8503 651-697-8507 651-697-8516 Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~ Page 11 Site Maps And Site Features Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~O mar Cr+~xle Rtde,~~rt Arw ~fstx~ Flip end Gc~ttC~pt f~1~~- Legend CG Rrdevdoprner~ aaw GG brow Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~~~ Cedar Grove Redevdopmeni Area District Map and City Owned Parcels Legend c1ry oM;~+ aa.oel O Eedar Gtme Partza ~CYa Redevelopment Area ~CG Projed Areas C9q Ownetl/Acquired Parcels MaP.la........_. Tmt PIFJ_._.. Acres... 1 100190003025 7.8 2. '101672007001 1.8 3 104445!105201 0:5' 4 100190002009 1.8 d 100190002008 0.6 5 101370003001 0.9 8 10019000BD08 0.5 7 100190004212 1.0 8 100190002012 1.7 9 101352001001 0] 10 100190007008 U.7 N Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP /~~ Site Features The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area contains approximately 258 acres and is located at the intersection of Cedar Avenue (Highway 77) and Highway 13. The Cedarvale Mall site currently has low visibility from Highway 77. With the redevelopment of the area, the City expects that multi-story structures will increase the visibility of the area from adjacent roadways. Access to the site has been improved by roadway and intersection improvements that have been installed as part of the Redevelopment. The site is adjacent to Cedar Avenue, which is a major north/south arterials that runs from Eagan to Minneapolis, and runs by the Mall of America and the airport. The site has primary access from Highway 13, just east of Cedar Avenue. The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area has the potential to once again be a vibrant gateway to the City of Eagan. The revitalization and reinvestment in the area will spur momentum and increase the attractiveness of the site for future residents and businesses. The larger Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area is located east of Cedar Avenue, encompassing property on the north and south sides of Highway 13. The site is located in the far northwest portion of Eagan's city limits, and the site's intersection provides the first exit to Eagan to the southbound motorist on Cedar Avenue. The majority of the redevelopment district is located between Cedarvale Boulevard and Cedarvale ~ Parkway, which is located south of Highway 13. The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area south of Highway 13 includes the existing Cedarvale Mall and multiple freestanding retail and general businesses. Many of the buildings are outdated and have been reused since their original construction. Additionally, a number of the buildings are vacant in the area. The site is bordered by multi-family and single-family housing to the south of the area. Construction has been completed on many of the streetscape improvements to Cedarvale Parkway. North of Highway 13, the redevelopment area is bounded by Silver Bell Road and includes mostly industrial properties. The northern portion of the District is not included in this request. In anticipation of the Redevelopment of the area, the City has completed extensive improvements of the roadways, intersections, streetscape, and the storm water management system. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~ West District .;. Historic road development has resulted in frontage roads and an oversized right-of--way for Cedarva Boulevard. The City anticipates that development proposals will make more efficient use of property while maintaining adequate right-of--way for the remaining circulation system. • Fourteen (14) properties are under private ownership. • The City has acquired two parcels (100190008008 and 100190007008) on the east side of the area. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Central District .;. • The City is working with a few businesses that are likely to stay in the area but that will be provided with new locations in the area. A number of neighborhood and service businesses, such as Cedarvale Barbers, have expressed an interest in being part of the redevelopment plans. Certain destination uses, such as Grand Slam and Bailey's Fitness Center, should also be considered in redevelopment planning. • Historic road development has resulted in frontage roads and an oversized right-of--way for Cedarvale Boulevard. The City anticipates that development proposals will make more efficient use of property while maintaining adequate right-of--way for the remaining circulation system. • Twenty-two (22) properties ~ are under private ownership. The largest single property in this District is Cedarvale Mall, currently owned by Schafer Richardson. • The City has acquired one parcel (101370003001) along Highway 13. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~ East District .•. The City is working with a few businesses, including Jensen's Supper Club and the Cedarvale Bowli: Center, which are likely to stay in the area but will have design modifications to complement the new development. These businesses will also need assistance with resolving parking issues. • Nine (9) properties are under private ownership. • The City has acquired one parcel (100190002009) on the southeast side of the area. Gateway District • The City is working with one national fast food restaurant chain, which is expected to stay in the area. • Nine (9) properties are under private ownership. • The City has acquired two parcels (1016720001001 and 104445006201) on the southwest side of the area. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Regulations •:• Development of the area will be regulated by the City's Cedar Grove Zoning District and by the Comprehensive Guide's Special Area Plan Number 5. For more information, see the City of Eagan's website at http://156.142.111.38/upload/images/current_planning/cedargrovedistrict.Qdf. Environmental • The City completed an Alternative Urban Areawide Review, which is dated October, 2002. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~ Market Information Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ' 1 The following presents an Executive Summary of potential development opportunities in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area in Eagan. This market update analysis was prepared by Maxfield Research in the winter of 2004, at the request of the City of Eagan to serve as a general overview to some of the market opportunities of this area. It is expected that the selected developer will undertake a more detailed market study later in the development process. It is also expected that proposals submitted for this development will incorporate strategies to enhance market potential for this site. A copy of the market update analysis is available from the City of Eagan. Housing: The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area offers opportunities for attached housing development. Since the supply of available land is decreasing in the majority of the market area, in-fill redevelopment sites will play a greater role this decade in fulfilling housing demand. )n addition, the proportion of demand for multifamily housing versus single-family homes is increasing. These factors present the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area with an increased opportunity to fulfill housing demand. In general, the most attractive opportunities would target: Townhomes: Up to 400 townhome units could be developed through 2010. These units can be marketed to younger residents, as well as empty nesters seeking one-level or two-level townhomes. Condominiums: Up to 80 condominium units could be developed through 2010. The buildings can either be freestanding or located above commercial or retail space. Due to the higher vacancy rates in the apartment market, some of the demand for apartment units could be substituted by condominium units. Up to 80 additional condominium units could be developed in the redevelopment area, thus a total of up to 160 units could be absorbed through 2010. • Market Rate Rental Apartments: Up to 300 market rate units in multiple buildings could be developed through 2010. A small portion of these units could be located above retail. Due to the soft rental market at this time, a portion of the demand could be substituted for condominium housing (up to 80 units). This general finding draws support from the following: Downtown living alternatives have become increasingly popular. This has been reflected in the recent or ongoing successes of downtown multi-family projects in smaller communities such as Stillwater, Hopkins and Robbinsdale. Notwithstanding these positive indications, downtown residential development will face substantial challenges. To date, among recent developments, only Guardian Angels is located downtown. At the other projects, marketing success has driven in part by affordability issues, with homes selling well below $200,000 in many cases. Downtown land costs, along with ample competition from these ongoing developments, will drive at least some downtown residential developments into the higher-priced niches. Such developments will need to offer high-quality units, building amenities and proximity to recreational and retail amenities. Retail Overview and Business Environment: The current mix in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area consists of mostly neighborhood stores that draw the majority of their customers from the immediate area. Nearly 70% of the retail square footage in the area is classified as neighborhood retail. Currently there is no specialty retail located in the area. If existing retail space is removed, it is recommended that it be replaced. Therefore, the amount of space that the Cedar Grove site could support is 70,000 to 78,000 square feet of neighborhood retail by 2008, plus the amount of existing space Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP ~~ removed for redevelopment. It is estimated that the site could also capture up to 38,500 square feet of specialty retail space by 2008. It is recommended that 60,000 to 70,000 square feet be developed through 2010. Lease rates for retail will vary considerably by type of use. Current retail rents in Eagan range from $5 to $1~ net for older buildings. General smaller in-line retailers are likely to pay between $14 and $18 per square foot net for new space. • Absent rapid residential growth, retailers will seek locations in locations that provide high visibility due to: high visitation levels, local employment concentrations, proximity to anchor destinations, and/or access to major highways. At this time, the Cedar Grove Redevelopment area derives much of its retail sales from neighborhood traffic, and does not offer the auto- or pedestrian traffic sufficient to drive sales volumes that will in turn support higher rent levels. Where the Eagan market is able to attract new retail development, the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area will face competition from alternative locations near conventional and large-format retail centers elsewhere in the area. Ongoing development of such retail centers will influence the mix of uses in the downtown area: while many businesses will be able to maintain their customer bases and draw upon visitor spending, others (typically those providing utilitarian goods such as drugs, groceries, hardware, etc.) will face increasingly formidable competition. • Established franchise retailers generally prefer conventional shopping center formats, which offer easily perceived parking, anchor destinations, and uniform store hours. Such tenants, while not necessarily suitable for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, typically pay higher lease rates, offer greater stability, and are more easily contacted by leasing agents. Most developers will seek opportunities to target these tenants rather than unique businesses seeking Main Street retail space. Office Development Prospects: Office development will seek proximity to (1) other office concentrations, which furnish a supply of potential tenants and (2) professional labor. The Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area currently cannot satisfy either criterion. The general surroundings do not contain any large office parks. Of the total office demand in the area, it is estimated that the Cedar Grove Market Area could capture between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet by 2010. There is potential for the Cedar Grove site to attract small professional business users, such as insurance agents, attorneys, architects, graphic designers, real estate agents, accountants, financial planners, banks, dentists, chiropractors and medical officers. The majority of these businesses would serve the local household and business base and may be incorporated into a mixed-use development, such as located above retail allowing a greater utilization of land. Lease rates for office space will vary considerably by Class of space. Current office rents in and near Eagan range from $8 to $9 net for older buildings. The majority of office users are likely to pay between $12.50 and $14.50 per square foot net for Class A space, whereas Class B office users are likely to pay between $8.50 and $12.50 per square foot net. Net Class A office space will likely command around $15.50 to $16.50 per square foot net. Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Hospitality: vlost sectors of today's hotel market are suffering from low occupancy, due to business travel not yet back to pre-recession levels and the state of the economy. It is expected that the hotel market will eventually rebound, although it could take some time. The hotel market is slowly rebounding and should recover, however it is recommended to hold off development in the short-term. Proposals should address strategies that might enhance the market potential for hotel development (i.e. hybrid hotel). Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP S~ Zoning Ordinance Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP Development Program Worksheet Eagan Cedar Grove Redevelopment RFP U z N W a W~ J~ 0 N Q W~ ~.+ 6~ ,.L," it 0 ~.+ bA a ~ o w ~ ~ O A ~~ .~ ~o ~ a r ~ ,-~, d.... L CJ err a! .N_ ~ ~ .~ o a py , .~ ~,, ~., d U Cr' O '~ ~ ~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~ ~- ~H l., ~~ ~a a ~., ~~ w ~ U~ ^~w ao~ c~a. _~~~ o~~ V ~ ~ r r W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:'.: ~ L L y W :1 SA ~ ~, ^S `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O G .~ u v z ~v w W~_ U O N W~ C/] 0 3 ^~ !~~ I A a~ •O ~~ a ~, ti ~ ~, v d ~ ~ . ~ o d ~ ` ° d ~, ~ ~ ~} ~ " M v O v~ v-i ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ i. ~ ~ y 'J .Q LZ, F-r ~~~ z ~., ~ - a c ~~ w w w r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, _ ~ O o v-~ v-~ ~ ~.. .. "~ p v1 N [~ tii. ~ ~. C i M yy ~ 69 ~' 69 M b9 -. +J ~ JJ w ~~ w ~i w _ ~• ~, o cr v~ a- v~ cr v~ ~, o v oo cYi ~ ~ ~ ~ f WY ~ w ~y ~~r O O v) JJ JJ vJ vJ f ~ y ~~' HN ~ O ~N 0 ~ ~ ~ti n ~' ~, N ~ ~ ,--~ L o ~..+ w ~ w Y , u y - L ^' O O a' V] ~ Cy C/J r r O E ' ' ~ ;~ N ~ N ~ 69 69 69 o ~ N O CU O ~. ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ O OO y~ 0 U A U ~ ~ O U ' ~ O ~ f1. a~ ~. .L" a> p NNj~ O 3 ~ o ~ a~ `~ 3 0 '~ o `~ G) U ~ E-' O ,.~ a i z o o s .~ 3 F~ O .~. h V Hx a a o SS 08/06/2004 08:01 FAIL 8522266024 RYI.AND HOMES ~,. ll ~~~ he 9tylrnd ~o~oeap, Inc. .' G00 F_~;ec trtl~e Drive rden Pram-, MN 55.',94 i_ontroctor c Lic # 20035dd3 August 5,''004 Ww~+rylond.COm Mayor and City Council Members Community Development Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, tVIN 55122 Re_ Eagan Cedaz Grove Redevelopment Request for Qualifications Dear Mayor and City Council Members Thank you for the opportunity to submit our qualifications for developing amixed-use project iu the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Ryland Homes and Schafer Richardson have joined together to work on a vision for Cedar Glove. We believe we have both the experience and the fmaneial stret-gth to bring the redevelopment to fivition. Ryland Homes and Schafer Richardson brine a wealth of experience to redevelopment projects that are similar itt scope to what is proposed. Ryland's redevelopment e.cperiepce includes projects in New Hope, Circle Pines and Hopkins. Schafer Richardson has extensive redevelopment experience in the warehouse district and along the Mississippi River in Minheapolis. Schafer Richardson is the largest owner of property in the Cedar Grove redevelopment area, which is a key to the success of the project. As you know redevelopment projects require a committed development team vvho will successfully navigate the numerous issues t11.~t arise when redeveloping a property. Currently Ryland and Schafer Richardson are working on the redevelopment of property in Columbia Heights. Qur project experience demonstrates that we can successfully complete the redevelopment of Cedaz Grove. Ryland Homes Ryland ):Tomes is one of the nations largest homebuilders and a leadi~pg mortgage finance company. Founded in 1967, Ryland Homes has build over ?00,000 homes_ Ryland Mortgage Company, founded in 1978, has provided mortgage fmaneing and other related services to more than 165,000 homebuyers. Ryland FTortle5 have been in the Twin Cities for IO years and vve have quickly become one of the regions top homebuilders. Far the year 2004 Ryland will build more that 700 homes throughout The metropolitan area. Rylaod Homes employees nearly 100 full time employees. Ryland Teaxu members who will be working on the project have a diverse background. Team members consist of planners, architects, landscape architects, engineers, marketing, futance, and construction rnanagentent. Ryland team xnember5 provide a multidisciplinary approach to developing projects that are innovative and meet life-cycle choices of demtanding homebuyers. ~ 002 ~P Ryland is building homes in nine communities throughout the metropolitan area. Our model line of homes consists of eight different collections that have numerous elevations, floor plans and options. This extensive collection of homes allows Ryland to meet the needs of individual markets. Our collection of homes includes single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. We have developed a collection of homes that are specifically designed for a traditional residential neighborhood and homes that are designed for suburban living. Schafer Richardson Schafer Richardson consists of professionals with over 65 years of combined real estate experience and a professional support staff of nearly sixty individuals in administration, accounting, and construction. With its current affiliates, GSR Commercial Real Estate Services and SR Construction, Schafer Richardson provides a full level of services including investment, sales and leasing, development, property management, and construction services to the commercial real estate industry. The 1.86 million square feet commercial real estate portfolio, in which the company has an ownership interest and currently controls, has been developed and assembled in the Twin Cities during the past 8 years. The company's niche has been to acquire value added buildings, invest cash and hard work, and then reposition the properties in the marketplace. Schafer Richardson's successful growth and track record with this strategy speaks for itself. The company has been actively working on several redevelopment projects in the Twin Cities. These projects, in various stages of the development process, include for sale including lofts, townhomes and flats, senior rental housing, and retail. Schafer Richardson continues to pursue urban redevelopment opportunities. Project Team Members The key members on Ryland's team will consist of our in house staff of professionals. As indicated earlier we have on staff planners, engineers, architects, market strategists and finance professionals. The lead staff members for this project will consist of Wayne Soojian, Chris Enger and Brian Sullivan. Brian Sullivan will be the lead contact for this project Wayne Soojian, President of Ryland Homes Wayne is the President of the Twin Cities Division of Ryland Homes. He is a Certified Planner with over 20 years of experience in both the public and private sector. He has been with Ryland for nearly 10 years. Chris Enger, Land Resources Manager, Chris has a background in public administration and development and has been with Ryland for 3 years. Prior to joining Ryland he worked in the public sector for over 25 years most recently as a City Manager of Eden Prairie Brian Sullivan, Land Resources Coordinator. With nearly 20 years of experience as a Landscape Architect and Certified Planner, Brian has been with Ryland Homes for 2 years. Prior to joining Ryland he worked as landscape architect and planner for planning and engineering firms in Minnesota and Maryland. Schafer Richardson is a commercial real estate fum headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Schafer Richardson Inc. began in 1995 as a full service commercial real estate company offering leasing and brokerage to outside clients. As success in development and syndication activities increased, Schafer Richardson's focus has become servicing their own portfolio of properties. In 57 5-1/2 years, Schafer Richardson has acquired 1,750,000 square feet of commercial real estate in the Twin Cities. Brad Schafer, Principal of Schafer Richardson Inc Schafer has over 18 years of experience in commercial real estate. He concentrates on development and syndication, debt & equity formation, property management and consulting. Schafer is Graduate of University of Wisconsin with a Bachelors Degree of Science in economics Kit Richardson is a principal of Schafer Richardson Inc. Richazdson has been in commercial real estate and architecture for over 30 years. Richardson specializes in design, development, and construction services. Richardson is a graduate of Princeton University where he received his degree in architecture. Project Understanding Shaffer Richardson and Ryland Homes recognizes the redevelopment of the Cedar Grove District is a hallmark project for the City. Cedar Grove has enormous potential and we have the experience to bring the project to fruition. Working as the master developer, Schafer Richardson and Ryland will identify and analyze alternative uses for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. We anticipate developing a plan that includes commercial uses in the East District, hospitality, office or high density residential in the West District, and mixed used and townhome development in the Central District. The future transit stop at Cedar Avenue in the West District will bring additional vitality to Cedar Grove. To start the planning process we would begin with a market study that would identify the ideal mix of uses for Cedar Grove. Schafer Richazdson and Ryland will work with our network of real estate and development partners on identifying appropriate uses and developing alternative plans for the study area. We envision Cedar Groves as a sustainable community with opportunities for people to live and work within the project area. The revitalization of an underutilized area of Eagan that has convenient access to the regional transportation system, natural features and the services that Eagan offers make this a desirable location for a special lifestyle. This is a vision that is shared by Schafer Richardson and Ryland Homes. We understand and share the City's vision to foster a sustainable development that respects the vision of the City of Eagan. The importance of having the right mix of uses is vital for obtaining this. Through market analysis Ryland and Schafer Richardson will identify an appropriate mix of uses that will be financially viable To ensure that this vision is reached public improvements would be required. A detailed study will be required to determine the amount of public participation needed. We anticipate that at a minimum infrastructure improvements and the remediation of any environmental contamination encountered would receive assistance from the City. Infrastructure improvements would include access improvements from Hwy 13, pedestrian linkages between the North District and the remainder of the District, trunk water and sewer improvements, credit for parkland dedication and streetscape improvements. In addition help in acquisition and relocation costs may be required. The process for achieving this vision will be through a process of analyzing market trends and physical features, creative urban design, community participation and teamwork. We understand the process outlined in the Request for Qualification. We believe it is essential that all stakeholders are included in the process for achieving the vision of a revitalized Cedar Grove. The mazket will drive the total value of the project. After a market study and concept plans have been developed the value of the project will be determined. We do know that we will work diligently to achieve the highest market value for Cedar Grove as is feasible. S~ Once a general land-use concept is arrived at, and a basic proforma established with the City we would contact property owners in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment area to determine their level of interest in selling their property. If the property owner(s) were not willing to sell at a reasonable market price we would seek assistance from the City in acquiring the property. The process for involving existing property owners and businesses will consist of several steps. We would hold at least (1) joint meeting with business owners to introduce the concept with them. We would expect involvement from the City at this meeting to show partnership and support. If existing property owners businesses wish to stay in there existing location and structure, we would work to accommodate them if there is enough value in the use to allow for them to stay and there is agreement with the City that the use is a good fit within the redevelopment plan. If the use were compatible and supportive to the concept plan, we would work with property owners on both the purchase of their properly and the sale or lease of the new location. Sources of funding will come from a combination of public and private sources. Ryland is a publicly traded company with sufficient cash reserves to internally fund our contributions to the project. The Schafer Richazdson/Ryland team is a highly qualified team who has the expertise and the commitment to see this project through to completion. We have the financial resources to do the work. We will meet the goals and objectives of the City of Eagan and we are positioned to successfully complete the redevelopment of the Cedar Grove District. Following is a brief description of the team members who will be working on this project. We anticipate that planning and site acquisition would take 1 to 3 years to complete. Construction could begin as early as spring 2005 if property is under control of our development team. Project timing is as follows: • Planning and Financial Feasibility: September/October 2004; • Property owner meetings, September -December 2004; • Preliminary Design, September-December, 2004; • Government Approvals of Concept and Phase 1 January- March 2005; • Construction of Phase 1 April of 2005-Apri12008; • Approvals of subsequent Phases, Fa112005; • Construction of subsequent Phases, 2006-2010. Attached for your review is a preliminary concept that Ryland has completed after reviewing our qualifications we believe you will find that Ryland Homes and Schafer Richardson has the creativity and resources needed to revitalize the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. We look forward to working with the City of Eagan on this ambitious project. You can contact me at 952- 229-6000. Sincerel ~" C ris Enger /~ Ci~ Land Resources Manager ~.~L! Brian~ullivan Land Resources Coordinator Cc: Brad Schafer, Schafer Richazdson -.y Q z Q a a O A z Q ~i W fi, O U 1 O1 ~ U a z ~ ~ y d v y r '~ '~ d ~ o ,r .i ,~: CS ~ ~ ~ ' G a> ~ ~ •~ CS ZS '~; i ~ O ` ~' 1 ~ ~ ~ r' U '.' o ~ ~ ~!' p C i ~'~ ~~ y o i'o ~ CS d ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~; ° ~ rj y~~ '~ ~~ y ti C v d y a > q > ~ .~ ooi ~ •p~'b .~ O~ b obi '~ ~ ~, ~ -~ ~, ~ ~, 'ZS O U ,~' O O ~ ~ ~ i ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ . ° ' ~, E O i ,,. or o ' ~ R i ty ~ u b o o I. ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z "~ 0 i y N '~ h ..p r~~ y p Obi ~ 7d. ~ U 3: ti q h y ~ ~ ~' Q ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ b Ch 0> . O y ~ ~: ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,.Y • °~ o> 'r v ~ ~ obi 0. ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ,t1 E Q h I.-~ C .. • +' o~ '~ i 0 .,t y O V ~ O ~ ~ n' ~ •1 ... . y y 'ZS i~ n~ r~ o CSC ~ C ~ w ~ fi ~ ~ ~ 0 °° ~ p j U ~ -o o Cs ~ '~ o c; -o d i r ~ O ~ 0 0 ~ :~+ u ,~, ~ ~' O y ti `~ d O C fi ' ~ °' ? b ~ ~ o i ~ ~ d i o i ~ d v o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.i .~ '~ r '~ ~ i y ~ ~ y ~L ~ 4~ d q, C ~ -off' ~ i h ~ Q ~ y~ ? Z O o> ~ U obi ~ ~ ti .y Q i '~ ~ C h 'T3 R O ~~ . y V y y d ,h,~ d h d Z h d h ~ C d aAi '~; fi ~ m ~ p1 b p ~ ~ a V ~ m ~ 'ZS ~ O o~ ~ ~ o ~ C d .~?, ~ ~ C ' Q O. _ f O ~ ~ ZS Q' ~~ ~'~ i^~ °~'~ Q ~ O ~ d O~ ~ O YC . s. . ~ 0 ~~ '~ 0~ 'Z V ^~ Q K CI ~ ,~ ~ v ~ K •Y ~ ~ W ~ i> o ~ i~~~ `.1 0~~ v u ~ e~ w ~ O v y ~o a~ o~ q ... ~ S g d sy .o 0 ~ h~ y>~ o r .~ ~~ `ti ~ x a o A ~ ~ ~ O `ti ° ~'~ o'er " ~ ° R ~ 0. i . °: ~ •~ o . • `ti a ~ ~ ~ y ~' •~ +- U " ov ` z ~ d C ~ ~ ~ i ti ~ ~, ~ o, i y y r +.. O O 'ZS ~' `~ QQ O ~ w r. y ~ .~ •~ OVi d b0 r Q' ~ 'ZS v a 8 .o ~ +. ~ ~ ~ ~.~,~, ~ ~ a Do4. ~ O ~ ,~, y e ~„zQ Ey ~ ~ a ~ h O ,~. ~ °' ' O ~o ~ ^~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ R, e ~ b C '~ r Ca ~ v " o ~ ? ~i o o '~ Q CS 4 p, a~ y~ 0.R > y o C .~ y d y s ~ w h y b 'b C i i ~ -o ~ obi 'C i v Y ~ O a. 4 ~ ~ i ~ 'ts U U ~ i y ~ o r ~' r ~ O ,O o y ~ d .b C ~ ~ ,moy ~ ~ fi o> h ~ ~ h O O ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u O +,,,. OJ .. , j ti ''~ a 'ZS y ? ~ 's `ti d ~ b o ~ o ;, y • o~ o i . :; c ~ ° ' ; ~ o d a y y C ~ 0. 0 . ,~ y 'Z3 r a d ~ •»' C '~ ~ ~ ~ o ?, ~ U "d O M O 3 H O .~ .~ i1, O N ~. O. O Q s. a~ a ro V b a~ U 0 o z~ r~ z d a w a O W A z d C7 d W (~ F+ U ~ °~ ' . R ~ opi .r `~• h O '~ ~, ~ O y ~ ~ v fi v ~ ~ ` ~ o> ~ O y O \ ty'Ct ~ ti d p~ ' ., .. ~' a`i U on Q O ~ ~ ~ . ,: h h ' O "D -D O 7. C •~ ~ ~ tl 'ti ti ~ Y ~ obi ~ obi tl ~ ~• y ZS y a ~ O r O ~ ~ ti ~ ~ •O~ v `° ~ Q F r ~ O h Z o ~ m ? o`tia,y o h ~ q,~ r a,Q.~ t L ~ : p ` AC ~ ~ ~''O OO >~ 0.r'a' ~ r O ~ ~ S fi y .. S ~ ~ ~ ~ TS } CS rj ' 0 ~ y y N • r ~ •~ r V fi O " Oi ~ ~" " ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 7 a ~ y ~ y •h ~ ~ a, a ~ h 'Y N p O •ZS y N ~ b 0 •Zi ~ c~ ` ~ ,r o~ O 3 ~ i , O+ C O ~ W Q -r m '~ i ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ i Q •~ ~ 4, tl q.'Zt ~ i tl O ~ O q, ~ .~ v C, ~ on r ~ V ~ ~ w K~ ~ O C ~ .°10 ~ h O y u b r s C •1 ~ p ~ ~ o d ~ •~ ~ ~ Q ~ •Lt d ti Oi O ~~,,, S y ~ ^. ~ ~ • L a+ •~ ~ y ~ ~ d `y fi ~ o~ r ~ ~ '~.'~' ~ S ~ ~ a Q ~ h C y p. O C U •~ C d .r ~ ~ .L" ~•' d ~ Q ~ h U ~ ~ .~ C .~ tl y ~ U ~ d ~ tl 'Zt q,~,s ~ o y y CS r •U O r ~ y ~ o ~ ,~ ~ ~ C O sa o r v ~; ~ d ~ y ;S ~. 4 ~ a' O y c ~ ~ , s ; ' c C, o ' "O ~ tl °' C te $ ~ "O r ~ ,~ ~ ~ O~ r d ~ cs h y o ~ d o •~ c ~ o, ~ d a r ~ 'ZS C~ i~~ "a C a d" fi 0 ~ o i ~ ~ ~ Zs ~ ~ •y y o C O~ v oUi y ~ ~ a p h v '~ ~ i o p d p d r ~~ .~ ~ h •~ ~•' ~ ( ~ ~ w r r ^V ti U 01 ti •Q1 0 0 a i ~. ~ .~, o Q sy i O ci ~ ~ .~°'• q R ~ O ~ .o q, y ~ p ,~ y ~, 6~ o~i ti O ~ y fy h " 'ZS ~ O O m -O ~ O h O U ~ •~ ~ 'ZS „~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ C. O r ~ d o d d ..~ > TS ~ o ~ oai U ~ ~' ti " ~ y ~ '~ , . y O r Cp ~` ~ O h o~ ~ b ~ i ~ d ~ •~ p ~ 06 rC p h N fi y CS ,~ •Zi ti O .• N p ? y ~ ~ .~.~ y ~ ~ . ~ ~. ,y o~ h h c;V ~ Q Or d~~ d Q _ ofii ti fi d O U m C O C O ti 'ZS Q~ ' ~ h ~ +.~ ~? 'CS ~~~ _~ U~ •~ ' tr 'r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ? 0 0 a, ~ ~ F+ Ct ~ 4, ~ ts 3 ~ cy ,s tr r d ~• o ~. _. fi C~ of ~ ~ r. ~ ~ U O 'Zt ~ C h •~ fi 5 ti i •~ '~ y ~ hd y ~ y C~ O r ~~ ? fi ~,• O ,~ ~ v d ~ O y~ r U ti •. . d " fi r~~ fi ti~ •~ O CS ~ y~ C V Obi O h •O O. U o~ y ^. s. O •~ ~ •CS ~ •~ `h fi 'b ~ N O fi • 4' ~ tl U ~' ~ 't! "' p fi ~ O ~C r ~~ U U .ter ~ obi o .p p `'~ y ~ O r U ~. r ," l tl v ~ Q „~ ~ ~ bQ •~ ~ '~ ~ y ~ i y .• O ~ U o~'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a `~ y • >Z •~. N ~i ,~ •~ . O ,r ~ ~ d ~ , ~ O, d '~• C ~. fi • C C ~ ~ `.. ~ b4 ~ `1 "' Ct • ' ~ `J ~ O ti ~ 69 •~ h O ~ ,~. O ~ r ^' ~ d ~` y O d 1 . V ~ U ~ p .~ ZS ~ m ~ p ti fi i p C% •y U tea' ~•' ,~~. C a0 ZS Or 'Cf '~ ~ h 'l ~ O1 Oa et p °.r' r ~ y ~ ,~?, ~ Oi °' ~ a •~ h r h • v ~ ,. d 'ts ~ m ~. ~ . ~ .~. ~ e „p ;Z3 O• o> . d s. y o °' °' q y ~ a a y .r a .o . ; h m -r v y '„ `" o .• ~. d ~• v r h h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Gz, ' O s •O d i c~ •• r ,.: .s a tl d o i c o i o i m ~ C ti ~ ~ -o d ~ ~ a, ~ 'Zi o~ i ~... •~ h ~ ~ •,. .. 4, ~ v Ear s r. ~, v v d o> ~*. a ~.• a ~ O fi '~ • •~ C °p O y b°o ~ Q ~' fi ~ ~ ° ~ ~ u 'Ci ~ CS ~ .pa •~ ~ C o; d ,r ~ r ~ .fi ~ s. ty ~ o ~ ,~ ' y y v ~ .~ •.~ r ,r o, ~ ~ ~ y oti0i b tl y ~ ~ ory •y ~ oUi .p m ° ~ on q' ~ R' '" ~ pQ °' ~ e °C '' y C ~ '~ •~ h ~ '~ •y " ' 4 ~ fi ~ x 0. ~ ~ m •y U ~ r ?~ {+ o ~ O p ~ ~ w `~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ G ~ C.. Q ~ d h Q •~ y ~ ^V ti ~ ~ ti ^~ ~ '~1 ~ fi .R. d ~ O '~ fi ^' y fi ~ 01 r ~ ~ •~ .~ ~ ~ p ~O y ~ ` •~ ~ d b ~ ~ V y •O a~ F l ~ 'Zi ~ ~ , s ~ °' pD'° ~ `'~ a am' ~ ~ .fi ~ ~ a O ~ •~ ~ ~ U .gyp ~ 'ZS C A or y 0 ' O ~ ~ ~ °~ p ?~ '" ~ a0 •^' 'ZS i v ~ O d p ~ y ~ "'• i b i r ~ ~ '~ oN ~ v v ' fi ~ C ° a, ~ •~' ~ '~ ° ~ ~ o o ° a' •~ ~ [' ~ ~ U ~ n [ \, ~ te ~ U •y c. •y te Z .~ o ~ , ~ 'ZS ~ •y ;y ~ fi ~ `: y N N C O O p C O ~~ U •° • p ~ ~ E"^ ~,.~~ ~ U~ ~ ~ .~z ~p~~p ~~fifi~~ .~ i i fi ~ ~~ ~~ z -~ ~-, d ~~ O~ d O O~ d ~ ~ h i m ~ 1 ~ o V ` o h r ~ y h y r ... ~ ^. r o i h ~ ~ °' b C o~i o fi ~ ~~ ~ o~i :~ ;~ `•'y °U' .~ i k :~' °i fi ' ~ ~ `•~ ~ 'CS d i ~ q ~ A es ~ 04 a 5 °~' ^• r r ~ r h u ~ ~ ~ o r ~ :; o oUi ;; r ~ °' C ., '~ y .b C ~ ~ ~ `ti fi z fi _ .~~ h d y ;ZS y CS r h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •V ~ ~~ ' ~x .r y d y ~ ~ V ~ v a ~ o ~' o r •° ,~ • ~ r o ~ ~ ~ o~~ 3~ o~~ o x v~ r v ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~4 ~. r -o >L7 ~ d . -o 'ZS'~ `; h c ° ~ a, r 4. ~ ~ c y °; ~ A v ~ v ~ o i ~ a" ~~~~ ~ Uh h'tl o Q ~•~ C •~ ~ A v v ~ y~~O''o . ~ N U 'C 'mot O M O [~ O .~ .~ ~. G. N Q~ Q~ CL O a~ Q a`i a 0 U c W 0 0 ~~ z~ ~~ FREERS & ASSOCIATES INC City of Eagan Redevelopment Developer Interview August 10, 2004 Mayor Geagan -Describe your redevelopment experience in developing projects similar to this one (especially neighborhood office, retail and housing). 2. Councilmember Tilley -Describe your previous experience incorporating existing local businesses into a redevelopment project. Councilmember Maguire -What are the major challenges to accomplishing the development program you have proposed? 4. Councilmember Fields -Describe your approach to move from concept stage to construction completion within a reasonable time frame. 5. Councilmember Carlson -Identify the expected level of public improvements and other development required to accommodate your development. 6. Mayor Geagan -What is your estimate of cost to refine your concept and how will that cost be financed? ~a t/~ _ ~a W< Jo ~....~ O w CC W I y 3 ... ~. y 0 ... ~a c: a L d C ~"' ~ w A w G 0 ^~ R a w e~ Cli L '~ O a~ u A v u y y C O C V :: ~ 'd ~~ .7! ~ C •~ v b m a u a . ~. _ D , ~ dx ~ ~ O ~.. ~ ;~ „ G 3 gw C G ~ 'O y ~ 3u:'3 ~~~ ~3~ a Y`°3°' L C G d q N ai w O G .? .D V w E a' 'C p ~ ~ a' w ~ ~ ~ ,?? ~ 4 . ~ C C °' A a d G ~ ~ u U 'y .~ . N G ° ~ ~ g o > b . ° ~ c 5 ya ~ .~ °' as or~i F. " ~ ~,` d > R ' r m O' U ? p d r t 7 Z '~ m m~ ."~. a y ~. V U b ~ tl A ~+x3 .--. L. ~ O Cr b ~+~ 'd °~ k y G b ate.. O 'b ~ " p, ~ a~i ':~ !}'~ y~~ ~ N N a ~ a ~ A Ir Y ~' N O U . N ~~~ ~ u o a H ~ y ea v . . ti b m u> .~' U y a~ ~ ai '0 ~ > a p ~ O U .~ ~ d U m b A « d b y d~ C 7 ~, °~ d ~ ~ o~ v~ m ~.' . ~ ~ a d w O O .U. -.~ a d u u ~ d~ . ~ v ~ 'T .~ L O 4 O U td ~~ a p p OU OD ~ A y C O y~ 0 O' ~ 7[~@I~~'A" v3 ~W W' J; =a W. ~~ N d a a :~ R e W d •L D h~l a 0 i~ .~ O a in 6~ G 0 a~ A d 0 u y s E U ~ ~ b ..Ui ~ w . ~ tom. ~ 0 ~ N y C ~ 5 .°- 3 N y 0°0 `° ~ . ° V • ~ rTi y ~ N „ ~ b OD N .5 G ,y, U u v ~ 6 ~ ° 'b y «~ d° a o a~ ~ C .~ K 5'y > ~ [ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ U .y V .l U n u ~ "' o y ~ ~~ a ~°~ d ~ ~ d ~ mse °' 0 0 bD ~' 4J 4 ° ' K v d R . ~ ~° " V ^ '° N O y U O " ~ ~' y o °c' °' 3 G b d 4 N ~ d O 'b 3 C fl td N y "" a~ T , O b ~ y ~~ C ~ .-. ~ is ~ ~] w •~ . v .a m ~ ~a d m ° .9 C v . u o. E K w a n.•y b °'x u~ A> i9 °~ o o~ dv ;; d, O :: °...' y d 3 ~ .w.. d i. ~ d d > ~ A ~ ~ y O N ~ ~~ `may .~ •~ °J~ ~ V~~ '~ A .~ ''~~ ~~ 5 ~ Oy1 'C , . • ~ > A d i °~ `~ ~+ b i0a~ ° ~ y °D a`0i > y b 3 c is 'C eD ~ ~ ~ y y , , u y .i a> C~ =~ ~~ u 'b x d C u ~ ~a ~ ~~ ~ •G y ~ ~ J ~ C .rJ pq C'd ~`~ V U C'~ O ~p yv • ttl C m ~~ C O ~ ; ± ayi O + Y '~ v' A r~ ayi ~ d> C ~ Li..T. W 'O m w w A A A m A: 'y 3° A x' ~e v v F `~~~'~ AI~gS~~ ~~ Agenda Memo August 10, 2004 Special City Council Meeting V. RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM BURNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED POLITICAL PROGRAMMING & BELT ACCESS RULES. DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: • Provide additional direction on political programming rules in light of feedback from the City of Burnsville and the Burnsville Eagan Telecommunications Commission. • Direct staff to place the remainder of the revised BECT Access Rules on the next consent agenda. • Or, in the alternative, ask for a meeting with the Burnsville City Council. BACKGROUND: • Community Television operates under a joint powers agreement with the cities of Eagan and Bumsville. • On May 26, 2004 the Burnsville Eagan Telecommunications Commission approved new Sponsorship Rules and updated Operating Rules and forwarded them for Council adoption, with one exception-political programming. Additional feedback on that item was sought from both cities. • On July 13, 2004 the Eagan City Council provided feedback on three different options regarding political programming rules and gave direction that it preferred the more restrictive Option II. • Noting the current election season and the fact that there have been no complaints about the existing political programming rules in the last 19 years, the City of Burnsville suggests approving the rest of the updated Operating Rules but continuing to operate under the existing rule (Option I: more open access for political programming) through November and directing the Telecommunications Commission to continue to study the matter through to the election and report back if any changes are recommended. • The Telecommunications Commission agreed with the Burnsville recommendation at its meeting on July 28, 2004 and noted an additional safeguard already exists under the rules. The Community Television Manger (Mark Hotchkiss) has authority to prohibit objectionable programming not covered by other specific rules and that an appeals process to the Commission is in place, though it has never been used since 1985. • Commission Attorney Mike Bradley has advised that Option II for the political programming rules would likely be legally upheld for the government access and community access channels, but not on the public access channels. ATTACHMENTS: • Attached on page ~ of your packet are the three draft options for political programming. • Attached on pages~7-75 of your packet are the recommended Operating (Access) Rules. Poi r4-ical ~C'dmmin~ 5.10 Political Progranuning Option 1 5.10. Political Programming. Because BECT does not enter into prior restraint practices and the facility is open to all citizens of Burnsville and Eagan, BECT does not place any restrictions on political programming that is not already covered by these policies. Additionally, BECT is under no governance from the FCC or any other governing or contractual body to assure "Equal Time" for candidates and issues. BECT may, from time-to-time, host candidate and issue forums either through a third party organization or in a manner that will promote equal access. BECT will strive to offer non- biased programming when conducting "in-house" productions by way of notifying all parties and giving equal access to scheduled forums. Option 2 5.10 Political Programming. Candidates for election or reelection to a publicly held office shall not be provided access to BECT or its facilities from the first day of filing for office through the election for that office except: a. Candidates may participate in televised official events of public bodies; and b. Candidates may appear on BECT in political candidate forums and video voter guides in which all candidates have equal opportunity to participate. c. Political programming will not be shown during the time that polls are open. The applicable definition and determination of whether someone is a candidate shall follow filing deadlines set by the Secretary of State. Option 3 5.10. Political Programming. Political candidates and advocates for ballot issues are welcome to utilize BELT services on the same terms as any other access user. BECT will not, however, schedule any programming endorsing particular issues or candidates within 24 hours of any regular or special election. Candidates may appear on the Public Access channel in political programming made exclusively in Burnsville or Eagan using BECT equipment and/or facilities. ~~P l~ccess `~4es Burnsville Eagan Community Television Operational Use Policies Final DRAFT May 26, 2004 BUfflsvil le/Eadan.-. Comm'uniiLy:°Television ___.. ____ _ __ Burnsville Ea an ~Corrimynity Television BECT Operational Use Policies ~`] SECTION 1: ACCESS TO FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1.1 Access to BECT facilities and equipment shall be on a first-come, first-served basis, except for exceptions found in these guidelines. 1.2 Access to equipment, studio facilities, trauung sessions, and cablecasting of programs shall not be withheld, prohibited, or restricted in any way because of race, color, creed, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, marital status, status with regazd to public assistance, age or sex. 1.3 Access to BECT facilities and equipment is reserved for residents of Burnsville and Eagan. Non-residents may utilize facilities and equipment if they are working on behalf of and area organization(s), upon approval from the BECT Manager. Area organizations included churches, schools, and non-profit organizations. 1.4 ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: All equipment users will have to attend a Bumsville/Eagan Community Television sponsored training session, or be able to demonstrate proper use of equipment. Users of equipmentlfacilities will be required to sign the RESPONSIBIIITY FORM for equipment use. 1.5 ACCESS TO CABLECASTING: Program producer(s) must sign a STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE form for completed programs. The producer(s) aze responsible for insuring that all persons appearing in completed programming have signed the RELEASE FORM, and that any applicable copyright permissions have been obtained. 1.6 ACCESS TO TRAINING SESSIONS: Any individual may attend a BECT sponsored training session. A fee will be charged. Lack of ability to pay a training session fee will not result in denial to attend the training session: The fee may be waived and volunteer hours assessed. SECTION 2: USER RESPONSIBILITY 2.1 Liabilities.and Indemnification: The producer has total responsibility to know and understand the BECT policies and procedures. As such, producers assume complete financial and legal liability for their activities during the utilization of BECT services, equipment and facilities. The BECT, the Burnsville/Bagan Telecommunications Conunission and the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan assume no responsibility for producer actions and will be indemnified and held harmless for any claims or damages resulting from producer utilization of BECT services, equipment and facilities. 2.2 The BECT user/producer is responsible for insuring that use of equipment does not result in: 2.2.1 ADVERTISING: No advertising material will be cablecast. The display of commercial logos, products and services shall be avoided whenever and wherever possible. 2.2.2 OBSCENE OR INDECENT MATERIAL OR LANGUAGE shall not be cablecast, nor programs that promote illegal acts. ~~urn5vilie/Saga Community Television BECT Operational Use Policies ~~ 2 2.2.3 LOTTERY INFORMATION: Neither lotteries nor lottery information will be cablecast. 2.2.4 COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS: The producer of the program shall beheld responsible for any disputes arising from unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. 2.2.5 SELLING OF PROGRAMS: The producer shall be held responsible for reimbursing BECT for the actual cost(s) for any program or program portion produced with BECT equipment that is sold or otherwise receives remuneration of a monetary nature. Production costs are the determination of BELT. 2.2.6 DEFAMATION: Programming containing defamation is prohibited. Defamation shall mean any material in a program and/or presentation that would be deemed defamation, slander or libel by local community standards or by standards established by any federal, state, or local regulation or law. 2.3 The user is responsible for adhering to booking times and reservations. 2.3.1 Being late for a booking time or reservation may result in the time being booked for another producer that requests the time. 2.3.2 The user is responsible for informing the BECT staff if equipment or facilities previously booked will not be utilized or if there is a change in the pick-up or return time. Staff reserves the right to re-assign use of facilities or equipment if the user is more than thirty (30) minutes late. 2.3.3 Users utilizing production equipment aze under the supervision of the BECT Manager. 2.3.4 It is the user's responsibility to identify them self to the person(s) being taped, especially if the subject is not awaze of the taping. At no time may an access user identify themselves as an employee or agent of BECT, the Cities of Burnsville or Eagan, or the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission. 2.3.5 The user assumes full responsibility for use of BECT production equipment when the equipment is signed out for their use, other than normal weaz and tear. Should damage incur to the equipment, the user is responsible for informing the BECT staff as soon as possible, but no later than upon return of the equipment. The BECT Manager will review each equipment/facility damage and/or loss and determine the extent that the user is responsible for reimbursement, up to and including full reimbursement for repair and replacement. 2.4 Productions using any BECT equipment must fully credit BECT at the end of a program for facilities use and assistance. The credit, "Production Facilities Provided by Burnsville/Eagan Community Television," should appeaz on the screen for a time equal to the other production credits and must be on the master and all copies. This credit must be shown at all public screenings. Burnsvilie/Eagan 3 ~ommun.ity Television $ECTOperarionalUsePolicies rn W 2.5 The access user is responsible for having read and understood these guidelines. 2.6 Users should address any questions or concerns to the BECT Manager. 2.7 A producer may petition the BECT Manager for a waiver of these rules in order to accommodate productions with special requirements by submitting a program production proposal in writing. 2.8 A User who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or whose conduct endangers the safety of people or facilities, or who engages in any illegal activity while using access equipment or facilities or on BECT property, will be prohibited from using the access channels and facilities. 2.9 Tobacco use is prohibited in and around BECT equipment. SECTION 3: BOOKING EQUIPMENT POLICY 3.1 Prior to reserving facility or equipment use, individuals and/or groups MUST be trained in a BECT sponsored training session, or show competence in equipment use by testing out with an BECT staff member. 3.2 Access facilities and equipment are available to BECT system residents approved by the Community Television Manager or staff designee, and individuals and groups from outside the service territory approved by the BECT Manager or staff designee. 3.3 Use of equipment or facilities must result in prograti,ming for one of the BECT channels. 3.3.1 BECT requires that any program made with BECT equipment receive its premier cablecast in the Burnsville/Eagan service azea. 3.4 BECT facilities and equipment aze for non-commercial use. The use of equipment or channel time for profit-making or revenue-generating functions is strictly prohibited. 3.5 If the person requesting equipment or facility use is not eighteen (18) years of age or older, a parent or guazdian must sign the appropriate responsibility forms required for the facility and equipment use or check-out. 3.5.1 Parents or guazdians of equipment or facility users that are between• fourteen (14) years of age and eighteen (18) years of age must sign blanket responsibility forms, allowing the minor to check out equipment, or use equipment in the facility, without being accompanied by an adult. Blanket responsibility forms must be updated by the parent or guardian with each calendar year. 3.5.2 Minors aged thirteen (13) years and under must be accompanied by an adult in all cases, including training seminars. 3.6 Each person or group requesting use of equipment or facilities other than the mobile studio may: Burnsville/Eagan 4 Community Television BECT Operational Use Policies ~~ 3.6.1 Schedule up to one (1) month in advance. Example: On February 29, bookings will be taken up to March 29. On March 1, bookings will be taken up to April 1. 3.6.2 Reserve up to four (4) hours of studio production time per week. For live studio programming, please refer to Section 5.4 for reserving the studio. 3.6.3 Reserve up to four (4) hours of editing time per week per editing facility. 3.6.4 Reserve up to one (1) twenty-four (24) hour block for portable check-out per week. Saturday to Monday time periods and time periods that include holidays will be counted as one (1) booking. 3.7 Time in excess of the above maybe obtained on a day-to-day basis. If there is unreserved time available in the next twenty-four (24) hours, it may be reserved. 3.8 In the case of portable equipment, policy 2.3.2 still applies. Please call the BECT center early to check on the possibility of extending your time so as to allow enough time to return the equipment in case other bookings have been made. 3.9 One portable camera system is allowed per person or group per check-out EXCEPT when the multi-camera portable system is being used. 3.10 If there are no bookings prior to or following reserved time, time maybe extended with staffpermission. Beyond this exception, all booking times must be strictly adhered to. 3.11 Consecutive bookings by members of the same group will not be accepted. SECTION 4: REMOTE EVENT COVERAGE 4.1 It is recognized by the BECT that community event coverage must be balanced between entities in the service territory, and that the BECT exists not only because of volunteer involvement but because of viewer support. 4.1.1 To this end, the BECT will generate a community event production schedule on a periodic basis that identifies events for which coverage is a high priority and identifies and reserves the appropriate equipment. 4.1.2 The BECT will work with volunteer producers to fill crew positions on priority events. 4.1.3 The needs of the community event production schedule will supercede any other guidelines found in the BECT Operational Use Policies. 4.2 Following the completion of the priority production schedule for a given period of time, booking requests for the mobile studio and the multi-camera portable system will then be taken from volunteer producers for that same given period of time. 4.3 The producer of the community television event will be considered the person responsible for the planning, execution and completion of the production . BUI'r1sY1I le/. Eagan 5 Community Television BECT Operational Use Policies 4.3.1 The producer must be certified in Mobile Studio Production and/or Multi-Camera Portable System production as applicable. 4.3.2 The producer is responsible for assembling aset-up crew certified in Mobile Studio Production and/or Multi-Camera Portable System production as applicable. Crew positions such as camera operators, announcers, cg operators, etc., need not be certified at the discretion of the Community Television Manager or his/her designee. 4.3.3 The producer maybe required to supply a completed Remote Production Proposal as deemed necessary by the BECT Manager, or his/her designee, because of special production requirements orbecause of staffnon-familiarity with the producer or crew. 4.3.4 A crew list and Premises Release Form must be submitted one (1) week prior to the production, unless the gathering of this information has been arranged by a staff member. 4.5 All volunteer remote event productions, crews and equipment aze subject to the approval of the BECT Manager. Event production requests may not be granted, or may be cancelled, based on factors such as location, staffing and equipment considerations, weather and safety issues. SECTION 5: CABLECASTING 5.1 Completion and submission of a Statement of Compliance form will constitute a formal request for cablecast time. A Statement of Compliance form is required for any tape to be cablecast, whether locally produced, dropped off, or mailed to BECT. 5.1.1 Programs submitted for playback that aze not facilitated or produced by a BECT producer must be sponsored by a resident of the BECT cable service territory. The resident sponsoring the program must sign the Statement of Compliance. 5.2 The person signing the Statement of Compliance will be considered responsible for the content of the program. 5.2.1 The Statement of Compliance must include the responsible party's full name and legal street address. P.O. boxes are not acceptable. 5.2.2 Blanket Statement of Compliance aze acceptable for series programs. The responsible party will be required to fill out a new Statement of Compliance for each series program for each calendar year. 5.3 Programming will be scheduled at the discretion of the Community Television Manager. 5.3.1 No standard or regulaz cablecasting time slots aze available. 5.4 A live programming slot/time may be requested for up to 13 consecutive week increments and scheduled with the approval of the BECT Manager. This includes the use of the production studio. ;. 8u ~n+ ipe Eagan- Comm'un'ity Television BECT Operational Use Policies 6 5.5 It will be assumed that any videotape mailed to BECT for playback without a SASE for return mail becomes the property of BECT after ninety (90) days. 5.6 It will be assumed that any videotape dropped off at BECT for playback and not picked up within ninety (90) days will become property of BECT. 5.7 All programs must be accurately timed and have color bars, slate, and countdown at the beginning and at least one (1) minute of black at the end. 5.8 Upon determination by the Community Television Manager that a program contains material for a mature audience, and/or unsuitable for children, the program will be scheduled in time slots no earlier than 11:00 p.m. 5.9 Staff reserves the right to suspend or cancel the cablecasting of any program that either contains poor technical quality and/or due to the physical conditions of the tape. 5.10 Political Programming Option 1 5.10. Political Programming. Because BECT does not enter into prior restraint practices and the facility is open to all citizens of Burnsville and Eagan, BECT does not place any restrictions on political programming that is not already covered by these policies. Additionally, BECT is under no governance from the FCC or any other governing or contractual body to assure "Equal Time" for candidates and issues. BECT may, from time-to-time, host candidate and issue forums either through a third party organization or in a manner that will promote equal access. BECT will strive to offer non-biased programming when conducting "in-house" productions by way of notifying all parties and giving equal access to scheduled forums. Option 2 . 5.10 Political Progranuning. Candidates for election or reelection to a publicly held office shall not be provided access to BECT or its facilities from the first day of filing for office through the election for that office except: a. Candidates may participate in televised official events of public bodies; and b. Candidates may appeaz on BECT in political candidate forums and video voter guides in which all candidates have equal opportunity to participate. c. Political programming will not be shown during the time that polls aze open. The applicable definition and determination of whether someone is a candidate shall follow filing deadlines set by the Secretary of State. Option 3 5.10. Political Programming. Political candidates and advocates for ballot issues are welcome to utilize BECT services on the same terms as any other access user. BECT will not, however, schedule any programming endorsing particulaz issues or candidates within 24 hours of any regulaz or special election. Candidates may appeaz on the Public Access channel in political programming made exclusively in Burnsville or Eagan using BECT equipment and/or facilities. Surnsville/Eagan- 7 ~,~ Comr~nunity~elevision BECT Operational Use Policies SECTION 6: TAPE LIBRARY PROCEDURES 6.1 The content of any videotape owned by BECT is the sole responsibility of the access producer. Further, the producer is the sole owner of the content of the tape and said content may not be altered or censored in any way without the permission of the producer. 6.2 BECT requires that programs made outside of the franchise territory must be sponsored by a resident, or representative of an institution in Burnsville or Eagan, and that the sponsor act as the party of responsibility and of record in the franchise territory. 6.3 All tapes owned by BECT must be stored in the BECT library. 6.3.1 Edited or unedited tapes maybe checked out by the producer for atwenty-four (24) hour period, or from Saturday to Monday. 6.4 Edited and/or unedited tapes will be held in the tape library for ninety (90) days from the day they are entered in the tape library. 6.4.1 Access producers may request that their unedited tapes be retained for another ninety (90) day period if their project cannot be finished in the ninety day time frame. 6.4.2 The producer of any completed program made at BECT may book up to the equivalent of time of their completed production to dub one (1) free copy of their production. Additional dubs may be purchased at the fees in effect on BECT's rate cazd. SECTION 7: STORAGE OF PROPS AND SETS 7.1 Approval for storage of props, sets, backdrops, costumes, etc., must be obtained from the Community Television Manager, and is subject to the availability of storage area. 7.1.1 As storage situations change, the access producer maybe asked to remove the materials from storage. 7.2 Any props, sets, costumes, etc., stored by BECT maybe used in any access production. Ownership of the aforementioned will remain with the original owner. Copyrighted items such as logos and organizational symbols and emblems may not be used without permission of the copyright holder(s). Materials left in storage will not be the responsibility of BECT should damage or Loss occur. SECTION 8: SPONSORSHIP AND PROMOTION Burnsville/Eaga~~ $ Cornrn'unity Television BECT Operational Use Policies Producers of public access programs through BELT have the right to solicit sponsorships under these guidelines: 8.1 "Sponsorship" is defined as goods, services, or grants in aid of a production provided to a program producer by a third party, not to include salary, pay, per-diem, or any form of profit paid to the producer(s) or crew. 8.2 An acknowledgement of sponsorship maybe made, but any acknowledgement of sponsorship shall be made only in the following manners: character generation, display of logo, and/or spoken audio at the beginning and/or end of the program in the same style as the other program credits. The two production methods in which sponsorship may be displayed must follow one and/or the other of these two formats: 8.2.1 Special thanks to (name of sponsor) for (goods, services, or support provided), and/or, 8.2.2 This program made possible (in part) by a grant from (name of sponsor). 8.3 No price, product or service description maybe included in the sponsorship credit. 8.4 Individual sponsorship messages shall be no longer than 15 seconds. 8.5 Sponsorship messages must be reviewed by the BECT Manager to ensure compliance with BECT sponsorship rules before they aze cablecast. 8.6 A maximum of 60 seconds of sponsor acknowledgements will be allowed before or after a single program, along with placement during "natural breaks" in programs. In addition, no more than 20% of any programmung hour will consist of sponsorship messages. 8.7 BECT may serve as a financial depository for the collection and release of funds for individual producers. Producers obtaining sponsorship funding for programming are required to use the funds within one calendar year. At the end of one calendar year, the funds revert to BECT and will be considered as BECT revenue. 8.8 In-kind sponsorships donating goods or services aze allowed subject to the approval of the BECT Manager. SECTION 9: REQUESTING CHANNEL SPACE FOR CHARACTER GENERATED MESSAGES 9.1 Message space is available to the general public on the Community Bulletin Board Channel. 9.1.1 All rules and guidelines that apply to BECT programming content and restrictions also apply to CG messages. 9.1.2 Messages maybe submitted up to one (1) month in advance of the event being promoted/advertised, but not less than one (1) week in advance of the event being promoted. i3llfnsvil le/Eagan 9 Community Television gECTOperationalUsePolicies ~j~ 9.1:3 No permanent character generated message pages are available; all message page locations and durations are at the discretion of the Community Television Manager. 9.1.4 All messages must be submitted on a 8 %i x 11 white paper(s) or by email. 9.1.5 BECT reserves the right to edit message content 9.2 City Government Channel 16, and Educational Channe118 are reserved for messages from those respective institutions in the community. SECTION 10: REGULATION OF POLICIES 10.1 The BECT and/or the BurnsvilleBagan Telecommunications Commission reserve the right to waive any self-imposed regulation when such waiver is judged to be in the public interest. 10.2 All users of BECT's facilities should be aware that they maybe held accountable for their actions by the same laws that govern any public activity. 10.3 Any person seeking relief against BECT, the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, or its member. cities, relating to any programming on BETC shall be limited to injunctive relief and declazatory relief. See 47 U.S.C. § SSSa(a); Coplin v. Fairfield Public Access Television Committee, 111 F.3d 1395 (8~' Cir. 1997). SECTION 11: APPEALS PROCESS 11.1 Unless otherwise stipulated in these guidelines, three (3) violations of the above guidelines will result in a loss of all access privileges for up to one (1) year. A single violation of a more serious nature, in the sole discretion and determination of the BECT Manager, may result in immediate suspension of all privileges for up to six (6) months. Failure to deal with the access staff in astraight-forwazd, truthful, and courteous manner will also be considered a violation of the above guidelines. 11.2 Should anyone, including producer, users and the viewing public, dispute any action taken by the BECT and its staff, and/or their interpretation of the BECT policies, and/or request the censorship of a public access program(s), the following process shall be followed: 11.2.1 Request a meeting with the BECT Manager to discuss the issue(s). 11.2.2 If still unresolved, the matter maybe appealed to the Burnsville/Bagan Telecommunications Commission for a hearing and final determination at the next regulaz meeting. The Commission's decision is final in all matters pertaining to the interpretation and administration of BECT public access policies and activities. Burnsville/Eagan:' 10 Community Television BECT Operational Use Policies ~~ Agenda Information Memo August 10, 2004, Eagan City Council Workshop VI. CONSIDER FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE: FLOWRIDER ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to staff regarding a F1owRider attraction to be considered for addition to Cascade Bay. FACTS: Prior to the start of Cascade Bay's sixth season at the direction of the City Council, staff began looking at enhancement opportunities at the water park in an attempt to maintain high visibility and popularity in the metro area. Also to address the goal of engaging and retaining more of the teen population as active participants at Cascade Bay, a special emphasis has been placed on features that would appeal to that demographic. • A number of possibilities have been investigated with the FlowRider surfacing as potentially the best opportunity available. This particular water feature seems to address the expressed goals and the timing is such that installation would help Cascade Bay stay in the forefront or area attractions. • The City Council has seen a video presentation of the F1owRider and directed its Finance Committee to study the issue in more detail. The Finance Committee reviewed the background material and discussed it at a meeting on July 20, 2004. The Finance Committee made no recommendation, but asked that consideration be brought before the full City Council. At the Finance Committee Meeting there was considerable discussion around the public policy issue, "What consideration should be given to the $1,000,000 of original capital financing with the balloon payment put in place at the time of the original construction?" The following three bullet points, the detail of which was not included in the Finance Committee packet, provide more background information specific to that public policy issue. • While attempting to maintain maximum flexibility as to final funding for construction and its potential related impact on user rates resulting from debt service, the City Council approved a concept funding plan in the fall of 1998. In that plan and in the preparation of subsequent budgets the City Council has worked to maintain user rates that are acceptable to customers and not ~~ unreasonably high as a result of debt service obligations. In attempting to address that delicate balance, even before the facility was completed and before the first user rates were set, the financing plan included options that allowed the City Council to maintain flexibility in setting those original user rates and to be responsive to operational requirements over the life of the facility by paying particular attention to the facility's capacity to pay debt service. That flexibility was incorporated into the financing plan through the use of a $1,000,000 advance from the Community Investment Fund structured with a 20 year-term with a potential balloon payment as one component of the overall financing plan. The Community Investment Fund's participation was separated into the following three components for discussion and was given approval in the financing plan: 1. A grant with no repayment contemplated. ($4,140,000) 2. A structured loan with a structured repayment schedule. ($800,000) 3. A loan (advance) with a potential balloon payment that would provide flexibility in terms of future cash flows. The background memo to the City Council includes the following statement, "Depending on cash flows and other circumstances an escrow account for payment could be set up, the balloon payment could be turned into a structured loan at any time or could be turned into a grant depending on future events." ($1,000,000) The financing package also included a loan from the sale of the Cinnamon Ridge Note in the final amount of $1,200,000. That loan and the structured loan from the Community Investment Fund are being repaid on schedule with the debt service requirements budgeted annually per the plan. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed on pages ~~ through ~_ is a copy of a memo from Parks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator Mesko, and Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke outlining background information and certain public policy issues. Included as an attachment to that memo is a memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke outlining financial information related to Cascade Bay and the F'ltowRider. • Enclosed on page ~`f is a copy of the Finance Committee Meeting Notes from July 20, 2004 when the issue was discussed by the Finance Committee. • Enclosed on page ~.S is a copy of the original financing summary for Cascade Bay as approved in concept by the City Council on September 1, 1998. ,i N; t ~,_ city of eagan MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: CHERRYL MESKO, PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR GENE VANOVERBEKE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE: JULY 8, 2004 SUBJECT: FLOWRIDER -CASCADE BAY BACKGROUND Prior to entering Cascade Bay's sixth season of operation in 2004 staff began looking at enhancement opportunities for the water park in an attempt to maintain its high visibility and popularity in the metro area. The City Council also asked staff to investigate ways to engage and retain more of the teen population. Several options researched appeared to be geared more toward the preschool - 12 year olds, which is currently the largest age group served. Finding options for older youth to keep them coming back was certainly a challenge. Some of the enhancements investigated included: • New sand play interactive toys (preschool/early elementary) • Tumble buckets for the Lazy River (all ages) • Splash pad for the Lazy River island (preschool-12) • Rock climbing wall (8+) • F1owRider (8+ but can be used by all ages) After an extensive review of options available, and given the constraints of the site for future expansion, some type of compact amenity was considered. The F1owRider or "wave in a box" concept appeared to meet the space needs as well as respond to the Council's direction to capture and engage the older youth population. NEED/DEMAND As Cascade Bay has evolved it is apparent that the water park is viewed as a place for "younger kids". Adding programming specific to an older youth population has resulted ~~ in some increased participation however it has not spazked the level of interest and sustained attendance desired. As the water park ages, visitors will want to see what changes or attractions they can look forwazd to. When season passes are sold each yeaz prior to the opening of Cascade Bay one of the most frequently asked questions is, "What's new at the park this year?" To remain competitive and fresh, consideration needs to be given to both short and long-term plans for enhancements. DAILY FEE/SEASON PASS To include an amenity like the FlowRider, consideration should be given to what the daily admission rates might be. There are several options: • Include the use in the daily admission/season pass fee. Some considerations may be: o Increase fee $.50 - $1 for daily admissions over 42" in height. o Do not increase daily admissions under 42" in height. o Increase season pass fees $ I -2/person over 43" in height. o Do not increase season pass fees for persons under 42" in height. • Establish a separate daily fee for the F1owRider only. o Challenges would be keeping track of guests who aze only there for the F1owRider as well as making daily admission guests purchase a second admission. Since Cascade Bay opened in 1999 there have been minimal fee increases: • $.25/daily admission in 2002 ($7.50 to $7.75) • $.25/daily admission in 2003 ($7.75 to $8.00) • $2.00/person for season passes in 2003 ($51/43/27 to $53/45/29) FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS Enclosed on pages ~_ through ~~ is a memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke providing a financial overview of the funding considerations for this project. TIMELINE If the Council chooses to have the F1owRider operational for Cascade Bay's 2005 season it will be the only one of its kind in the state. Interest is growing rapidly and it is expected that some private hotels will be looking at having this attraction operational as eazly as fall of 2005. To accomplish an opening in 2005 the following general timeline is critical: • July 2004 Site feasibility study • August Council authorize prepazation of plans & specs and bidding site work • September 7 City Council awards bid for site work. • Mid Sept-October Site work • October 15 City Council authorizes purchase of F1owRider for delivery March 21, 2005 • March 21-Apri120 Installation ~9 • Apri120 -May 27 Landscaping and "dressing up" • May, 2005 Training on operation and maintenance • June 1, 2005 Ready to open PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES 1. Does this type of enhancement meet the City Council's vision for the long-term viability of Cascade Bay? 2. Would this enhancement "add to" or "detract from" or is it "compatible" with the City Council's existing mission vision for Cascade Bay? This addition at an estimated cost of $1,000,000 is approximately 14% of the original cost of the facility of roughly $7,200,000; is that a reasonable reinvestment? A similar type of issue was addressed when the Lazy River was added at the time of original construction and the decision was made to build both features. 4. What consideration should be given to the $1,000,000 of original capital financing with the balloon payment put in place at the time of the original construction? 5. How important is it to stay ahead of the curve so to speak with Cascade Bay as this F1owRider concept is rolled out across the country and in Minnesota? 6. Assuming a desire to construct the additional feature, is the proposed timeline acceptable? 7. Again, assuming a desire to construct the additional feature, what is the appropriate rate setting and collection mechanism? CONCLUSION We believe that this information provides the necessary background material to allow consideration by the City Council and will provide them an opportunity to give additional direction on whether or not staff should proceed with this effort as well as to provide general direction on how the project should be undertaken, if the decision is to proceed. Please let us know, if you would like any additional information or if you would like to /lSurther discus anv of the material. Cherryl Mesko`, Pazks and Recreation Administrative Coordinator Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services g~ city of eagan MEMO TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke DATE: June 14, 2004 SUBJECT: Cascade Bay Financials Re: FlowRider At your request, I have reviewed various financial information regarding the potential installation of a new FlowRider component at Cascade Bay. Per the information I have received from Cascade Bay Manager Hunter, the current estimated installation cost is $1,000,000 and based on a number of assumptions there is a projected annual operating profit of approximately $70,700 attributed to the added feature. I have done nothing to substantiate either of those projections. Detailed feasibility studies would be required to provide comfort that these projections are realistic. The following is pertinent financial information for Cascade Bay per the 12-31-03 audited financial report and other City records: 1. There is a cash balance of $889,104 in the Cascade Bay Fund with $304,162 of that set aside in the Capital Renewal and Replacement Account leaving an undesignated amount of $584,942. From a working capital perspective, if one subtracts the current liabilities of $109,417, there is total available cash of $779,687 or net cash of $475,525 after subtracting the Renewal and Replacement Account. 2. There is a long-term financing liability of $2,565,000. A principal amount of $1,565,000 is scheduled to be paid off with annual debt service payments of approximately $160,000 including both principal and interest with the last payments in the fall of 2018. The balance of the principal amount of $1,000,000 was set up for a balloon payment after 20 years, subject to the availability of cash reserves. Amortization of that $1,000,000 would require an annual set aside of approximately $85,000 dollars at an interest rate of 5.6% to have the necessary funds including interest available after 20 years. 3. Given the City's policy of funding a Renewal and Replacement Account while not fully funding depreciation, Cascade Bay has operated comfortably in the black each year except for the year one start up. Attached is a summary table showing revenues, expenses, and reconciling items to tie information to the net income (loss) reported in the audited financial reports. From a somewhat simplistic cash prospective, the five year cumulative total of revenues over expenses shown on that page is $547,894. 8~ The following FlowRider operational information was presented by Cascade Bay Manager Hunter: 1. Based on an 82 day season, an incremental increase in operating costs, a daily admissions fee increase of $1.00 per admission and an increase of $1 to $2 to season passes, $80,000 of revenue and $23,678 of expenses are estimated and would result in an annual operating profit of $56,322. 2. An additional annual operating profit of $1,476 could be generated through the sale of Flowboard lessons. 3. Finally, private rentals could generate a profit of $12,950 annually. 4. It is expected the following items may also increase revenues, however they have not been included in the estimated total annual operating profit of approximately $70,700 outlined above: • An increase in daily attendance and in the sale of season passes. • An increase in concession sales. • An extended season. • Revenues from Flowboarding competitions. • Potential merchandise sales. By way of conclusion, I offer the following observations for discussion: 1. The conclusion of the new feature making significant profit is based strictly on an incremental add on feature with all other fixed costs attributed entirely to the existing facility. Aaron's estimated hourly cost of running the new feature is the range of $30 per hour and is very low compared to current hourly operating costs of $1,300, 2003 actual, and $1,467, 2004 budget for the existing facility. 2. With the results of the facility being so weather dependent past financial performance may not be a good indicator of future success and one should certainly expect years that are not as successful as others. 3. A significant amount of the current cash on hand, net of current liabilities, could be used to finance some of the capital costs of adding this significant feature. If any of the Renewal and Replacement Account cash is used, future operations would need to replenish the account. For the most part the equipment replacement is far enough out to allow borrowing some of the cash in the short- term. This process in effect would be a second borrowing component of the overall financing package for facility enhancement. 4. Current Cascade Bay operations could support some additional debt service that would be necessary to retire at least some of the capital costs related to adding this feature. Additional Cascade Bay debt would probably require some sort of relatively formal internal borrowing with a defined repayment schedule. As a point of reference, at an interest rate of 4.0% each $100,000 borrowed over a 20 year period would require an annual debt service payment of approximately $7,600. 2 S~ 5. The FlowRider profit estimates noted above do not include the cost of funding a Renewal and Replacement Account related to a FlowRider. Depending on the exact nature of the infrastructure and other equipment, funding that account may or may not be a relevant additional cost. 6. As a matter of public policy, the $1,000,000 advance from the Community Investment Fund with the indefinite 20 year balloon payment should probably be addressed as consideration is given to additional financing for a new facility component. Currently, in a general sort of way operating cash reserves are first directed toward the future balloon payment. From an operational standpoint there appears to be a trade off between completely servicing that debt and enhancing the facility. Attempting to do both may put significant additional pressure on rates which will potentially affect attendance and revenues. 7. I do not know whether or not insurance would be a special consideration for this type of operation. Nothing has been added to the projected operating costs to reflect any special insurance requirements. It would probably be appropriate to meet with Aaron and whoever to discuss this information and the process by which it will be further presented to the City Council for their consideration. Please let me know, if you would like anything else at this time. Directo o Administrative Services VanOverbeke cc: Chief Financial Officer Pepper Cascade Bay Manager Hunter Administrative Assistant Mesko ~3 Meeting Notes Finance Committee Meeting July 20, 2004 Attendance: Mayor Geagan, City Councilmember Carlson, City Administrator Hedges, Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke, Administrative Assistant/Parks & Recreation Mesko City Administrator Hedges summarized the purpose of the meeting which was to (1) discuss the Proposed 2005 Fire Department Relief Association Pension Agreement, and (2) discuss the F1owRider proposal for Cascade Bay. Proposed 2005 Fire Department Relief Association Pension Agreement City Administrator Hedges briefly summarized the public policy issues regarding the proposed 2005 Fire Department Relief Association Pension Agreement as outlined in the packet of information sent to the Finance Committee. Those issues include, (1) the length of the agreement; (2) the request fora "catch up" adjustment; (3) the annual 4% increase request and; (4) the potential combination of the administrative contribution with the pension contribution into one total sum. The City Administrator was directed to continue negotiations with the Relief Association and to bring a proposed settlement back to the full City Council. Mayor Geagan requested information on current firefighter staffing levels, firefighter availability, the number of calls, and the response criteria by type of call. FlowRider Proposal For Cascade Bay City Administrator Hedges, Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke, and Administrative Assistant/Parks & Recreation Mesko presented background information on the research that has been completed regarding the potential acquisition and installation of a new water feature at Cascade Bay. The proposal results from previous City Council direction to explore ways to enhance the long-term viability of the facility through new features and through appealing to the teen demographic. Various public policy issues were discussed, financial information was reviewed, and direction was provided to staff to bring the proposal to the full City Council. Q~ 8-Jan-99 Aquatic Facility Financing Total Estimated Cost $7,140,000 Approved 9-1-98 Revised 12-17-98 Cinnamon Ridge Note $ 1,150,000 $ 1,200,000 C I F Note 850,000 800.000 Sub-total Fixed Repayment $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Advance From C I F Fund 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cash Payment from C I F 4.140,000 4,140,000 Grand Total $ 7,140,000 $ 7,140,000 Notes: 1. The Aquatic Facility Fund is repaying the $1,200,000 note to the Housing Fund over 20 years per the attached debt service schedule. The debt service is approximately $96,000 per year. 2. The Aquatic Facility Fund is repaying the $800,000 loan to the C I F over 20 years per the attached debt service schedule. The debt service is approximately $64,000 per year. 3. The advance of $1,000,000 from the C I F to the Aquatic Facility is structured as a balloon payment after 20 years subject to the availability of cash reserves. An anuual set aside of approximately $85,000 @ a 5.6% interest rate would be required to repay the loan after 20 years. Copies To: Tom P. Linda F. Ken V. ~v Agenda Information Memo August 10, 2004, Eagan City Council Workshop VII. CONSIDER EQUIPMENT REQUEST BY THE EAGAN FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to staff regarding a request from the Eagan Fire Department for approval to replace two fire apparatus. FACTS: • The Eagan Fire Department through its Appazatus Committee is requesting City Council consideration to sell two existing fire apparatus and to purchase two new pieces of equipment. • The request requires modification to the approve 2004 Part II CIP and includes use of funds for equipment originally contemplated in 2005. • The Fire Department has concluded that purchasing the two units at the same time will result in an overall lower cost to the City and with an expected increase in steel prices in October consideration should be given to making the purchase at this time. • Specifications for both proposed units have been prepared and are being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with the advertising and bidding laws. • If the City Council finds the proposal to be acceptable, it can be scheduled for formal action at the August 17, 2004 regular City Council meeting. • Financing options are included in the enclosed memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed on pages ~_ through ~ is a copy of a memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke summarizing the request and outlining funding options, if the City Council would like to proceed. Included with that memo is a memo from Mike Scott, Apparatus Committee Chairperson, providing additional detail and the Fire Department request for consideration. ~~G ~_ ~; .~ ~~ ~ y ~" - city of eagan MEMO TO: City Administrator Hedges FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke DATE: August 5, 2004 SUBJECT: Financing -Proposed Replacement of Two Fire Apparatus At your direction I am providing this information regarding the material from the Fire Department requesting the replacement of two fire apparatus. Per our previous discussions it would be appropriate for the City Council to give general consideration to this request at the August 10, 2004 workshop and to determine a preferred funding option, if they desire to proceed. Assuming the City Council is in agreement with the proposed purchases and has enough information to proceed at this time, an action item could be placed on the August 17, 2004 City Council Agenda for formal approval to authorize advertisement for bids. Apparatus In general the proposal is to sell two existing pieces of fire apparatus and to replace them with apparatus more suited to today's needs in Eagan. The Fire Department Truck Committee is recommending that Unit 5, a 1996 Freightliner pumper be sold and replaced with a pumper truck that more closely matches other current first line trucks used in Eagan. Unit 5 does not have a crew cab which means due to size constraints firefighters cannot get their gear on en route to a fire scene which may impact response times. Unit 5 also has design and maintenance issues that the Department would like to rectify. Unit 18 is a 1988 Ford rural water tanker truck and is designed for fire departments that do not have fire hydrants in their response areas. With Eagan's development there are very few areas that do not have fire hydrants and this unit is seldom used, especially within Eagan. Unit 18 would be replaced with a pumpeNtanker that would still provide the ability to haul water if necessary, although the capacity would be increased from 1850 gallons to 2500 gallons of water. tt would also provide the flexibility to use the truck as a pumper and more effectively respond to certain incidents, especially those on freeways and in those few areas without hydrants. Financing The 2004 Part II CIP includes an allocation of $134,000 to refurbish two 1988 Peterbuilt pumper fire trucks. The Truck Committee has determined that these two trucks will not require a refurbishment to last the 30-year life cycle programmed for them and that the required normal routine maintenance and upgrades can appropriately be addressed through annual operating budgets. The Committee is recommending that that $134,000 be redirected to the purchase of the two new units. In addition $425,000 has been requested in the 2005 Part II CIP for replacement of Unit 13. That unit under the new scenario would be retained as a reserve pumper. While this item has been requested in the Part II CIP, the cost is beyond the threshold of financing capacity through that process and no funds have been allocated for this purchase. The Committee is also recommending that both units (5 and 18) be sold to departments that can better utilize that type of equipment. Those sales are estimated to generate between $125,000 and $150,000 for Unit 5 and between $60,000 and $75,000 for Unit 18 on the open market. In summary a sources and uses of funds for the total package is as follows: Sources: Reallocation of 2004 Part II CIP $ 134,000 Sale of Unit 5 (Low end of estimate) 125,000 Sale of Unit 18 (Low end of estimate) 60,000 2005 Part II CIP Request 425,000 Not Identified 81,000 $ 825, 000 Uses: New Unit 5 $ 340,000 New Unit 18 425,000 Equipment for New Unit 18 60,000 Total Uses $ 825,000 Additional Funding Requirement: 2005 Part II CIP Request $ 425,000 Not Identified 81,000 $ 506,000 Funding Options Assuming the cost estimates are reasonably accurate, the additional funding that needs to be addressed with this request is estimated to be $506,000. The information is really best estimates at this time and subject to numerous influences. It clearly assumes a market for the sale of the two used pieces of fire apparatus relying on a willing buyer with a need for that type of equipment in that price range. It seems that the following three options are the best available choices to finance the acquisition of these two pieces of fire apparatus: General Fund-Fund Balance The 12-31-2003 audited financial report shows a General Fund-fund balance of $9,532,907 or 43.8% of the 2004 budgeted expenditures. The targeted range is 30 to 35% of the subsequent year budgeted expenditures. An appropriation of nearly $2,000,000 could be made from the balance while maintaining the balance in the targeted range. The new aerial platform which is the most recent piece of fire apparatus purchased at a cost of approximately $825,000 was financed from this source. Given the uncertainty with State revenues and constant operating budget pressure, temporarily maintaining the higher level and 88 using another option to purchase the fire apparatus might be more appropriate at this time. 2. Equipment Revolving Fund-Fund Balance The 12-31-2003 audited financial report shows an Equipment Revolving Fund- fund balance of $1,390,881 that has accumulated in recent years due to favorable purchasing prices compared to the approved budgets, interest earnings, and miscellaneous deposits from various revenue sources. An adequate fund balance would remain in the event financing for the new apparatus were taken from this source. 3. Equipment Certificates Over the years in setting up and using the Equipment Revolving Fund there has been an acknowledgement that certain items like major Fire Department apparatus would exceed the capacity for financing from the annual allocation available in that Fund. Although it has not been used in recent years, the sale of equipment certificates is a logical funding source for these major pieces of equipment. Given the fact that it results in a tax increase to pay the debt service costs it is clearly not the most attractive option in comparison to using reserves that have not been formally restricted for a specific purpose. In my opinion, if the City Council desires to proceed with the acquisition of this fire apparatus, the best financing choice would be to use the Equipment Revolving Fund- Fund Balance. Those resources are available for this type of situation and their use would allow the City to retain the General Fund-Fund Balance as a contingency for potential operating requirements or for some other future high priority one-time expenditures, and finally, there would be no direct tax impact. Summary: The Truck Committee expects that by purchasing the two trucks at the same time better pricing will result. Also, they are anticipating an increase in steel prices in October and would like to award bids before that time, assuming City Council approval. The City Attorney's office is reviewing the Specifications, etc. to ensure compliance with the advertising and bidding laws. Attached is a copy of the complete memo outlining the proposed replacement of two fire apparatus as provided by Mike Scott, Apparatus Committee Chairperson. Please let me know if you would like any additional information or if you would like to discus the information in this memo. Direct r~f Administrative Services VanOverbeke g9 city of eagan FIRE To: City Administrator Tom Hedges DEPARTMENT From: Mike Scott, pparatus Committee Chairperson ROBERT KRIHA Chief CC: Chief Bob Kriha, Gene VanOverbeke DAVE DIIOIA Date: July 14~', 2004 Battalion Chief Re: Proposed replacement of Two Fire Apparatus PATRICK DIIOIA Battalion Chief Administrator Hedges, This letter will summarize the details of the Fire Departments request to replace 3795 Pilot Knob Road two of its current pieces of fire apparatus with two new pieces of apparatus. As Eagan MN 55122 we discussed at our meeting with you and Gene VanOverbeke on July 12~', the Phonc: 651.675.5900 Fire Department has $134,000 in our part two 2004 ClP to refurbish two of our Fax: 651.675.5910 1988 Peterbuilt pumper fire trucks. The Committee has assed each of these TDD: 651.675.508E trucks and feel that these trucks are in very good condition and will not require tivw~v.ciryofeagan.com any refurbishments to make them last for the 30-year life cycle that was excepted out of these trucks when they were purchased. Both trucks have been second-line trucks for a number of years and have not seen the same amount PAT GE.4GAN of use as the Peterbuilt trucks that were refurbished last year. There will be n,a"°r some continuing upgrades that will occur on these trucks over their lifetime. Like all of our trucks, we feel that we will be able to address these upgrades PEGGY CARLSON through our regular fire department budget. CYNDEE FIELDS MIKE MACUIRE The Committee feels that the CIP funds would be better used towards the hfEG TILLEY replacement of Unit 5. Unit 5 is a 1996 Freightliner pumper that is an anomaly Council Members in our department. It is the only fire pumper truck that we have that does not have a crew cab (it has what is referred to as the "rural" cab) that allows fire I-HOMAS HEDCes fighters to get their gear on en route to the fire scene, thus slowing our CiryAdminisrrator response time. This truck's unique design makes it difficult for the fire department to keep all the front-line_trucks equipment located in the same location on the trucks. Unit 5 has had some higher maintenance costs THE LONE OAK TREE associated with the truck partly due to the design of the truck's engine location. The symbol of strength and growth in our Unit 5 cost $199,950 when it was purchased in 1996. The Committee has done some research with fire apparatus builders and reviewed adds for apparatus for communi ry sale. We feel that Unit 5's re-sale value is between $125,000-150,000, depending on market demand. ~' The second piece of apparatus that we spoke about is Unit 18, which is a 1988 Ford rural water tanker truck. This truck is designed for fire departments that do not have fire hydrants in their response area. As you are aware, Eagan has very few areas that do not have fire hydrants. The only purpose of this truck is to deliver water to fire scenes without hydrants; this would explain way our 1988 truck only has 5800 miles on it. It has been used more for other communities more than it has in ours. Unit 18 cost $65,700 when we bought it new in 1988. Today's resale value based on our research is estimated at between $60,000-75,000. There is a very strong demand for this type of truck by rural fire departments. The Fire Department has $425,000 requested in the 2005 part two CIP for replacement of a fire pumper truck. Our proposal is to seek permission from the City Council to advertise both Unit 5 and 18 for sale by a sealed bid process with the right to reject any and all bids if they do not meet a minimum sale price to be agreed upon by the city prior to the sale. At the same time we are asking for permission to request proposals for replacements of both Unit 5 and 18. We have specifications written for both proposed replacement apparatus and have submitted those specifications to Gene VanOverbeke for his and the City attorney's review. We are proposing that we replace Unit 5 with a pumper truck that more closely matches our current first line trugks and replacing Unit 18 with a pumper/tanker truck that will still give us the ability to haul water to a scene if needed (the current truck holds 1850 gallons of water, the proposed truck would hold 2500 gallons of water) but it also gives us the ability to use this truck as a pumper truck and gives us the flexibility to better respond to incidents on the freeway where fire hydrants are hard to access. With the proposed foam system, we can better respond to petroleum based fires. Both of these trucks will be designed to serve the City of Eagan_ for 30 years. They will help to insure the continued low 1S0 insurance rating the City of Eagan has enjoyed. We feel that by purchasing two trucks at the same time, we will get better pricing from the apparatus manufactures, and by purchasing now we will be buying before the anticipated steel price increase in October of this year. ai Summary of estimated funds. 2004 CIP funds $134,000 2005 CIP funds $425,000 Est. value sale of Unit 5 $140,000 Est. value sale of Unit 18 $ 65,000 Total Funds: $764,000 Summary of estimated expenses. New Unit 5 $340,000 New Unit 18 $425,000 '` E ui ment for Unit 18 $ 60,000 Total Estimated Ex enditure: $825,000 * Equipment from the current Unit 5 can be reused on the new truck. The current Unit 18 has very little equipment on it due to its design. In order to qualify as a front-line apparatus, we will need to buy loose equipment for the new truck. We will save the sales tax cost if we buy the equipment with the truck. 9~, Agenda Memo August 10, 2004 Special City Council Meeting VIII. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CITY PROCLAMATION POLICY DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To review the draft proclamation policy and provide additional direction to staff and/or direct the policy to the August 17 Consent agenda for formal Council consideration. BACKGROUND: • Per the request of the Council at the July 13 Special City Council Workshop, the draft policy pertaining to the consideration of proclamations/resolutions has been brought to a workshop for further Council discussion. • The policy was prepared at the request of the Council and states that the City Council will only consider proclamations and resolutions that pertain specifically to local government service delivery. • The Council is invited to discuss the scope of the policy and provide any additional direction to staff as to changes to be made to the policy before final consideration at a regular City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Attached on page is the draft policy regarding consideration of City proclamations/resolutions. 93 DRAFT City of Eagan Policy August 10, 2004 CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATIONS /RESOLUTIONS I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE POLICY The City of Eagan receives numerous requests over the course of the year to approve resolutions and proclamations to promote or honor various public and private organizations and causes. It is the view of the City Council that the City must be consistent in its practice of considering resolutions and proclamations. II. POLICY It is the policy of the City of Eagan that the City Council will only consider proclamations or resolutions that pertain specifically to local government service delivery. Such consideration of resolutions and proclamations pertaining to local government service delivery will take place at regularly scheduled City Council meetings and will be included on the City Council meeting agenda. ~-~ ~`~-~ L III. RESPONSIBILITY ~ ~\ The City Administrator will have the respo ibility of reviewing requests for proclamations and resolutions to determine if there is a c~frect correlation to local government service delivery. If the resolution does pertain to' local government service delivery, the City Administrator shall include the proclamation or resolution on a regular City Council agenda. The final decision on whether to approve a proclamation or resolution ultimately lies with the City Council. IV. AUTHORITY The Ciry's "Consideration ofProclamations/Resolutions Policy" was authorized by the City Council at the Regular City Council meeting. Date of Approval: Approved: (Mayor) 9y Agenda Information Memo August 10, 2004, Eagan City Council Workshop IX. 2005 GENERAL FUND BUDGET UPDATE ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: This is an informative/discussion item and no specific action is required. FACTS: • Staff work is continuing on the preparation of the 2005 General Fund Budget. The City Administrator, Director of Administrative Services, Chief Financial Officer, and Assistant to the City Administrator have met with each department director to discuss the 2005 budget requests they have submitted to be used to deliver services in their areas of responsibility. Those individual department requests have been reviewed in the context of preparation of the overall City budget and an additional round of meetings is scheduled to assist in finalizing a City Administrator recommended budget for consideration by the City Council at its workshop scheduled for August 24, 2005. Per previous City Council direction the proposed preliminary budget will be laid out in a fashion similar to last year in which year to year changes will be drawn out and justification provided. Also per previous Council direction, the estimated Market Value Homestead Credit will not be used as a revenue source in balancing_ the 2005 General Fund Budget but will be set aside with potential uses noted for consideration if and when the State actually makes payment to the City. • A balanced budget will be provided to the City Council with assumptions and public policy issues highlighted for discussion and direction by the City Council. The City must certify a proposed levy to the County Auditor, adopt a propose budget, and select dates for the initial and continuation truth in taxation hearings no later than September 15, 2004. Formal City Council action to comply with those requirements is currently scheduled for the regular meeting to be held on September 7, 2004. Material prepared for that meeting will incorporate direction received at the workshop. ATTACHMENTS: None ~S O ~ o- ~ ~~ o L V _~ U ~ ~ = o ~ ~ ~ -o A~~ ~ U ~ c d ~Qj U ~ O N ~ .~ O j, j U ~ ~ ~ c ca ~ ui :~ ~+ ~ L _~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, . ~_ ~~~~~ ~ ° Q== ~' ~ Lr0 ~~ ~ o ~ N ~ o ~ o o E~ c ~ o o.y ~N ~~ x c Y is cv ~~ o c~ a~ 3 otS ~ 'v .~ - o c~ m ,~ o- 'in otS ~ o c iu ~ rn rn m m ~ ~ ~ -- O V C~3 ~ • . Q ~ d~ ~ ' d~ ~~ y ~ .y . ~ N O N~ N O C v J h~l z O N ~~~~~~ :~ ~ ~~~~ ~. ~~~~ y t ~~~~~~~ p ~ ~Q-~~~~ . .g ~?s .i...~. _..~ a._.. t n. t~ t, ~~ ~~~. ZS~ a 0 r w =g ~ ~~ ter, 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ D r 6 W t 10 Q Q O • ~^ ' W ~,~/ (~ W ~. ~~ T~ ^V, W U ~' 0 L 1`~ \1 ~', ^r ~ .i~;~ ~ F'• ~"~ .' i ! g£a 7'