HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1981 t I
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. AESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 28, 1981
Acting Mayor Reinke presiding.
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2 ] Joint meeting with the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee
a] Discussion of A Request for Proposals (Draft No . 2)
b] Determine how proposals submitted are to be evaluated
c] Decide on hiring outside legal and/or technical consultants
d] Adoption of Res . No. 1828, Amending Budget for Cable Committee
e] Set public hearing for Request for Proposals
f] Other
3] Res . No. 1829, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of A Report -
Fuller Street Laterals Storm Sewer
4] 1981 Sewer Fund Budget (bring 5d of April 7th Agenda)
5] Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission (bring 5c of April 21st
Agenda)
6 ] Other Business :
7 ] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Shakopee, Minnesota
Adjourned Regular Meeting April 13 , 1981
Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall with Committee members present :
Abeln, Christensen, Davis , Gorman, and Kirchmeier. Also present
was Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant .
Davis/Gorman moved to approve the March 23, 1981 minutes as pre-
sented. Motion carried.
The subcommittee which met on Thursday, April 9 , recommended changes
in draft No. 1 of the Request for Proposals . Discussion followed
and additional modifications were suggested. The following is a
summary of changes .
Page 1 - (a) Change $10,000.00 filing fee to $5,000.00
(b) Add the following sentence after the City Clerk' s
address : "The filing fee will be used to offset
expenses incurred by the City in the granting of
the franchise."
(c) Change the sentence "Any additional expenses will be
paid . . . " to read as follows : "Any additional
expenses incurred by the City will be paid by the
successful franchisee. "
(d) The closing date for the receipt of applications will
be July 1 , 1981 .
Page 2 - No changes .
Page 3 - The City Clerk will respond in writing . . . .
Page 4 - No changes .
Page 5 - No changes .
Page 6 - No changes .
Page 7 - (a) Change the sentenceProvisions for awarding a
fifteen (15) year . . . . " to read as follows :
"Provisions for awarding a fifteen (15) year . . .
franchise , will be contained in a franchise
ordinance ."
(b) Change the sentence "The ordinance will incor-
porate . . . . " to read as follows : "The ordinance
will incorporate the successful bidder ' s proposal ."
(Deleted the rest of the sentence. )
Page 8 - No changes.
Page 9 - No changes.
Page 10 - (a) Change "proposal" in line 4 to "propose"
(b) Change "ten dwelling units per one quarter mile"
to "forty dwelling units per one street mile"
Page 11 - (a) Delete "Active" from "Active two-way capability"
(b) Move "one regional access channel" below "one
leased access channel ."
(c) Add "and technical assistance" behind public access
studio
(d) Change 50 channel capacity to 54 channel capacity
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Page 2
April 13, 1981
Page 12 - (a) Delete "In addition, the franchisor agrees to the
following"
(b) Delete "Renegotiation" (Heading)
(c) Delete "Computer Services" (Heading)
(d) . . . . franchisee shall be required to pay to the
City of Shakopee $100.00 (amount added) for each and
every day of such delay beyond the time stated for
completion . .
(e) Performance bond shall be in the sum of not less than
1257 of the bid cost .
Page 13 - (a) The listing of the priorities are as follows :
1 . Cost to subscribers for all services offered.
2. Early completion date of the total project.
3. Number of channels energized immediately.
4. Commitment to provide , and proof of ability to
provide, fast and efficient repair service to
the City of Shakopee and to its subscribers.
5 . Capability for local programming at the date the
system is completed and in operation in the
service territory.
6. Commitment to provide, and plans for providing
equipment and staff to assist local programming
on the access channel .
7 . Early availability of public access studio pro-
vided and supported by franchisee.
8. Availability of Emergency Alert System.
9. Greater channel capacity than 54 channels .
Page 14 - (a) Delete the following paragraph:"The following repre-
sents an attempt to provide . . .
(b) Delete the list
(c) Delete "also" in "The City also requires the
following: "
(d) Delete "County Sheriff ' s office" from free drop list.
(e) Delete the entire last paragraph "All applicants
proposing institutional capacity . . "
Page 15 - Delete the sentence "Preference will be given to the
applicant proposing to provide . . . .
Page 16 - (a) Change "cities" to "City"
(b) Delete "k" from "stricktly"
(c) Change the sentence "The cities prefer. . . . "
to the following: "The City requires that parent . . . "
Page 17 - No changes .
Page 18 - (a) Change "improtant" to "important"
(b) Change the annual percentage rate from 10% to 87
Page 19 - No changes .
Page 20 - (a) Change "Cities reserve" to "City reserves"
(b) Change "cities" to "City"
(c) Delete "proposed by the applicant" and "until such
time as construction is completed in all census
tracts indicated by the applicant on Form H, page 2 ,
for the first , second, and third years of construction."
(d) Insert after "must be guaranteed" , "For a period of
two years from date of providing initial service."
Page 21 - (a) Change "city to "City"
(b) Delete last sentence "Preference will be given to
applicants where there is . . . "
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Page 3
April 13 , 1981
Discussion was held on the changes made to the Request for Proposals.
Davis/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 1 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page . Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to adopt Page 2 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Davis/Gorman moved to adopt Page 3 of the Request for Proposals
with the revision made on that page. Motion carried.
Christensen/Abeln moved to adopt Page 4 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Abeln/Gorman moved to adopt Page 5 of the Request for Proposals as
drafted . Motion carried.
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 6 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt Page 7 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Motion carried .
Davis/Christensen moved to adopt Page 8 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Abeln/Gorman moved to adopt Page 9 of the Request for Proposals as
drafted. Motion carried.
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 10 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt Page 11 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
Davis/Abeln moved to adopt Page 12 as drafted . Discussion followed.
Davis/Gorman moved to table the above-mentioned motion adopting
Page 12 until the Committee can obtain legal consultation requiring
the amount of the performance bond which should be required. Motion
carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt Page 13 of the Request for Proposals
will all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
Davis/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 14 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
Christensen/Abeln moved to adopt Page 15 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page . Motion carried.
Abeln/Gorman moved to adopt Page 16 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Page 4
April 13, 1981
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 17 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to adopt Page 18 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page . Motion carried.
Davis/Christensen moved to adopt Page 19 of the Request for Proposals
as drafted. Motion carried.
Abeln/Gorman moved to adopt Page 20 of the Request for Proposals with
all revisions made on that page. Motion carried.
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to adopt Page 21 of the Request for Proposals
with all revisions made on that page. Discussion followed.
Christensen/Davis moved to table discussion on Page 21 until the
Committee reviewed the material from the League of Cities which
Chairman Foudray distributed to each Committee member earlier in
the meeting. Motion carried.
Davis/Christensen moved that the City staff prepare a revised draft
of pages 1 through 11 and 13 through 20 of the Request for Proposals .
Motion carried.
Gorman recommended that each Committee member review the forms which
were distributed and that the Committee discuss the forms at the
next meeting.
The Committee adopted Gorman' s recommendation.
Discussion was held on the Methodology for Proposal Evaluation.
This discussion was tabled until the next meeting.
The Committee decided to delay the discussion on the proposals of
the consultants ' until the entire Committee has reviewed the proposals .
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to submit the Request for Proposals for pub-
lishing without submitting the same to a consultant . Roll call was
called for.
Roll Call : Ayes : Davis , Gorman, Kirchmeier, and Foudray
Noes : Abein and Christensen Motion carried.
Eileen Christensen requested that the following be incorporated in
the minutes .
I cannot support the motion as it may negate the ability to obtain a
consultant for evaluation of the proposals .
Andre reported that the narrative of the Needs Assessment Report
must be completed before we can publish the Request for Proposals .
Davis/Gorman moved to direct City staff to draft the Needs for
Assessment Report per the tabulation of various surveys which
were taken earlier. Motion carried.
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE
Page 5
April 13, 1981
Davis/Abeln moved to adjourn the meeting to April 20, 1981 at 7 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall . Motion carried. Meeting
adjourned at 9 : 25 p.m.
R. Gene Foudray
Chairman
Mary Arlt
Recording Secretary
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee, Minnesota
Adjourned Regular Meeting April 20, 1981
Acting Chairman Kirchmeier called the meeting to order at 7 :04 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall , with Committee members present :
Abeln, Davis and Gorman. Also present was Jeanne Andre, Administra-
tive Assistant.
Mr. Kirchmeier asked the recording secretary to note those members
present.
Davis/Gorman moved to accept minutes as presented. Motion carried.
Jeanne Andre reported that a presentation by the Committee was placed
on the City Council agenda for the April 21 , 1981 Council meeting.
Mr. Kirchmeier asked concensus on adding two items to the agenda:
1) discussion of the presentation to City Council , 2) discussion on
hiring a consultant . There were no objections .
Discussion was held on the two pages of the RFP (Request for Propo-
sals) remaining to be completed .
Davis/Gorman moved to accept page 12 as presented except that the
dollar amounts for liquidated damages and the performance bond would
remain blank until receipt of advise from Counsel . Motion carried.
Gorman/Davis moved to adopt page 21 as recommended by subcommittee.
Motion carried.
Kirchmeier asked for discussion of questions raised in the "Code of
Good Television Conduct" prepared by the National League of Cities .
He commented on the suggestion in the "Code" that the amount of the
initial franchise fee charged to the selected franchisee should be
established in the RFP. Committee concensus was to delay establish-
ing an amount until a more exact picture of costs to be incurred is
established.
The Committee agreed to delete the closing date for applications
from the draft RFP until the Council is informed and a revised
schedule is adopted.
Discussion was held on the presentation to the City Council . It
was agreed that topics to be covered should include: review of
Committee accomplishments , outline of remaining tasks , request
that the Council schedule a formal work session to review the
needs assessment and draft RFP, the need to establish a public hear-
ing date for Community input to the RFP prior to publication, the
need for the Council to adopt a time schedule and budget for sub-
sequent cable franchise activities. It was agreed that the Chairman
or Vice-Chair would be asked to lead the presentation, with all mem-
bers contributing as the need .arises. The Committee agreed to meet
at Perkins at 7 :00 p.m. prior to the meeting to brief the absent
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE /
Page 2 a
April 20, 1981
members on the presentation.
Abeln/Gorman moved to recommend to the City Council that a consul-
tant be hired to evaluate proposals received and write the cable
franchise ordinance, and that the Council establish a budget for
this purpose. The Chairman asked for a roll call . Ayes ; unanimous
Noes ; None. Motion carried.
Davis/Gorman moved to table selection of actual consultant until
all members are present . Motion carried.
Discussion was held on budget amounts which should be suggested to
City Council . Concensus was as follows : $5000 cost of ordinance,
$5000 in-house staff costs , $2000 consultant , and $30,000 evalua-
tion of proposals (estimate 5 proposals received) . Total $42 ,000
with estimated $25,000 recaptured in application fees for a net
amount of $17 ,000 which would be carried by the City until the
franchise is awarded , at which time it would be collected as an
initial franchise fee.
Gorman/Davis moved to table review of forms until next meeting.
Motion carried.
Discussion was held on evaluation methodology. Mr. Davis presented
his suggestion for weights be to applied to different categories of
the proposals received. Members agreed to consider individually
desired weights and discuss at next meeting when all members are
present .
Future agenda items were suggested as follows :
1 . Discussion of changing meeting nights to Wednesday.
2 . Discussion of Community Showcase presentation to be held on
May 4, 1981 .
Gorman/Davis moved to adjourn until 7 :00 p.m. , April 27 , 1981 .
Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 33 p.m.
Barry Kirchmeier
Acting Chairman
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Communications Franchise Future Activities
DATE: April 23 , 1981
Introduction
The City Council has scheduled a work session to meet with the
Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee and integrate the subse-
quent activities of the two bodies in the cable communications
franchise process . This memo outlines activites taken to date
and those still remaining to complete the franchise process.
Background and Recommended Action
The Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee was formed in 1980 and
has undertaken the following activities.
1 . Recommendation to the City Council the establishment of a cable
service territory (CST) consisting of the Shakopee municipal
boundaries. (Said CST was subsequently proposed by the City
Council and approved by the Minnesota Cable Communications
Board) .
2 . Conducted survey of community needs relating to cable communi-
cations for Shakopee Cable Communications Needs Assessment•
3. Drafted narrative of Request for Proposals (RFP) for City
Council consideration. Committee has reviewed but not adopted
format of forms to be enclosed as part of RFP. These forms
request information in a consistent manner from all companies
to facilitate comparison and evaluation of proposals submitted.
Activities still remaining in the franchise process include :
1 . City Council adoption of Shakopee Cable Communications Needs
Assessment.
2 . City Council review of RFP.
3. Council determination of following policy issues :
a. How proposals submitted in response to RFP are to be
evaluated.
b. Whether outside legal and/or technical consultants
should be hired by City to assist in the franchise
process , and if so, who should be hired.
c . If budget revisions reflecting subsequent revenues and
expenditures related to the cable franchise process should
be adopted.
John K. Anderson
Page Two
April 23, 1981
4. Public hearing soliciting community input to the drafted RFP.
5. City Council adoption of RFP which must include criteria and
priorities developed to review franchise proposals .
6 . Advertisement in one local publication in circulation in the
CST and two national publications in the broadcasting industry
of the availability of the Shakopee RFP. Submission deadline
must be at least 45 days after date of publication. The Minne-
sota Cable Communications Board (MCCB) recommends a longer
period of advertisement in order to receive more and better
proposals , especially given the large number of municipalities
currently franchising. Provide copy of RFP to MCCB and interested
cable companies.
7 . Review by the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee and the City
Council of a draft cable communications franchise ordinance.
Many communities draft the ordinance prior to advertisement of
the RFP and include the draft ordinance as an appending docu-
ment to the RFP. The Cable Committee has decided that the
ordinance can reasonably be drafted during the period of adver-
tisement of the RFP and not be included as part of that docu-
ment.
8. Receipt of proposals.
9. Evaluation of proposals .
10. Public hearing to receive oral presentation by all companies
who have submitted valid proposals for the Shakopee cable
communications franchise and other interested parties . (Must
be held at least 27 days prior to adoption of franchise
ordinance. )
11 . City Council award of franchise.
12 . Incorporation of company proposal into draft cable communica-
tions franchise ordinance and subsequent adoption of final
ordinance (generally done at public hearing) .
13. Submission of ordinance to Minnesota Cable Communications Board
for "State Certificate of Confirmation" . Legal publication of
notice that "State Certificate of Confirmation" has been requested.
14. Construction of cable system subsequent to receipt of "State
Certificate of Confirmation" .
JA/jms
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: Budget for Cable Communications
DATE: April 22 , 1981
Introduction
The Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee made a presentation to
the Shakopee City Council at the April 21 , 1981 Council meeting.
A verbal request was made to the Council to establish a budget
for subsequent activities in the realm of cable communications
for Shakopee. This memo is an outline of that request with
comments on how this request could be handled given the current
City budget.
Background
The current (1981) City budget anticipated $3500 in revenue to
the the general fund from non-refundable application fees charged
companies proposing cable systems for the Shakopee Cable Service
Territory. The administrative budget allocates $3500 for consul-
tant expenses related to the cable franchise process.
The Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee has been meeting since
July of 1980. The Committee has completed many of the functions
required by the Minnesota Cable Communications Board in the cable
franchise process and has now drafted a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for consideration by the City Council . In this process , the
Committee has decided that certain outside expertise is necessary
for remaining tasks , particularly the drafting of a cable franchise
ordinance and the evaluation of proposals submitted by companies
for the Shakopee Cable system. The Committee has received proposals
and quotes from several attorneys and consultants and developed a
budget based on figures provided in those proposals . The budget
is based on the submission of proposals to provide cable service
from five cable companies. (Three companies appear very interested
in the Shakopee franchise, and it is estimated up to two additional
firms may apply) . The budget is an estimate and would change if
more (or less) proposals are received or if there is extensive
litigation regarding the franchise.
The budget is as follows :
Expenses :
Internal staff and printing expenses $ 5,000
Draft of cable ordinance 5 ,000
Consultant to provide forms for RFP 2 ,000
Evaluation of proposals (5 at $6 ,000 ea. ) 30,000
$42 ,000
Revenues
Non-refundable application fee (5 @ $5 ,000)$25,000
Initial franchise fee to winning company 17,000
$42 ,000
John K. Anderson
Page 2
April 22 , 1981
Although all expenditures would eventually be matched by revenues ,
there would be an interim period which might extend into 1982
when the City would "loan" money to cover this cash-flow problem
until funds for the initial franchise fee are received. The City
Finance Director has recommended that money could be appropriated
from the General Fund fund balance for this purpose and should be
placed in a separate division for the Ad Hoc Cable Committee. As
a minimal budget already exists for the Cable Committee operations ,
the amounts involved would include an increase in total General
Fund appropriations of $38,500 in expenditures and $38,500 in
revenues. This increase and the $3,500 already budgeted would
be put in a separate cable television division equalling $42 ,000
($38,500 + $3,500) .
Alternatives
The Council can accept the budget revision as proposed by the
Committee, or can modify the budget as seems appropriate after
further Council discussion.
Recommended Action
Offer Resolution No. 1828, increasing the total General Fund
revenues and expenditures by $38,500, reducing the administrative
division by $3,500 and establishing a separate budget division
for the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee with a total budget
of $42 ,000, and move its adoption.
JA/jms
RESOLUTION NO. 1828
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1706
ADOPTING THE 1981 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the annual budget of the City of Shakopee for the
fiscal year beginning January 1 , 1981 has been formally adopted
by Resolution No. 1706 and amended by Resolution No. 1821 , and
WHEREAS, changing financial conditions require a modifica-
tion to the 1981 Budget as adopted September 16 , 1980 and as
amended April 21 , 1981 to include additional revenues and expen-
ditures for the cable communications franchise process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1 . That said 1981 Budget with total General Fund appropria-
tions of $2 ,084,981 be increased by $38 ,500, and the estimated
revenues be increased by $38,500 for cable fees , and
2 . That the appropriation for the administrative division
• be reduced by $3,500 and a separate division for the Ad Hoc Cable
Communications Committee be established with an appropriation of
$42 ,000.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of
1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981 . .
City Attorney
-77
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - DRAFT NO. 2
I . GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. Filing for Application
Thirty (30) copies of each applicant ' s notorized proposal along
with a non-refundable certified check in the amount of $5,000.00
shall be submitted and made payable to the City of Shakopee, in care
of,
City Clerk
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
The filing fee will be used to offset expenses incurred by the City
in the granting of the franchise. Any additional expenses incurred
by the City will be paid by the successful franchisee. The closing
date for the receipt of application will be at
which time all proposals will be opened. The City reserves the
right to extend the deadline to waive irregularities and to award
the franchise in the best interest of the City. The franchisor is
the City of Shakopee.
B. Form of Application
Please Note: All applications must be on the official forms
provided by the City of Shakopee
The application forms have been designed to furnish all the
pertinent data that will be used by the City in making its evalua-
tion in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Cable Communica-
tions Board. All applicants must use only the pages on the official
application forms (or identical extensions of these pages if, for
example, more room is needed to list equipment or provide manufac-
turer' s specifications) . Alternative proposal forms are neither
desired nor will they be considered. The official forms have been
-2-
designed to facilitate comparison of proposals . Evasive, imprecise,
or incomplete responses can only serve to the disadvantage of the
applicant. The City of Shakopee reserves the right to reject any
and all applications.
C. Clarification of Application Documents
In the event that any applicant may have any doubt as to any
terms , conditions, or provisions of these specifications or the
meaning or interpretation thereof, the applicant may request infor-
mation or clarification thereon by submitting such request in
writing to:
City Clerk
City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Such request for information must be submitted no later than twenty-
one (21) days prior to the deadline for filing application. The
City Clerk will respond in writing to such request as promptly as
possible. Such response shall be sent to only known applicants who
have been supplied applications. No other interpretation by any
other person, whether oral or in written form, shall be binding upon
the City. The applicant , by submitting its application, shall have
evidenced the fact that it agrees that it has no unanswered questions
with respect to these specifications , and shall have no basis for
withdrawal or modification of its proposal on the basis of misunder-
standing.
D. Amendment to Application
Substantive amendments to proposals will not be considered except
to acknowledge involuntary changes such as a change in ownership due
to death. Correction of inadvertent errors submitted prior to the
filing deadline will be considered. Correction of errors submitted
after the filing date may be considered at the discretion of the
-3-
City or its consultant , if the applicant submits with its correction
sufficient information to prove that the error is inadvertent. Addi-
tional information or data may be requested by the City or its con-
sultant if in their judgment this would aid in preparing a fair and
accurate analysis .
E. Application Selection Procedures
The City of Shakopee will evaluate all proposals that have com-
piled with its requirements. All applicants that have met the City ' s
qualifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP) and have submitted
proposals on the required forms will be offered the opportunity to
make a formal presentation to the City Council in support of their
applications. Notice of time and place will be given to applicants
and the public when the City Council is ready to conduct a public
proceeding for this purpose. The City Council will then complete
its evaluation and take final action regarding the grant of the
franchise.
F. Uniform Data Requirement
All proposals are to be based upon the same uniform basic data
supplied by the City. The uniform data appear at the end of these
instructions . A reasonable attempt has been made by the City to
provide as current data as possible.
All pro forma statements are to be derived from this same basic
data. All growth projection, including number of subscribers and
number of dwelling units , shall be justified in detail as to the
methodology used and the specific statistics affected.
G. Cable Communication Ordinance
Provisions for awarding a fifteen (15) year nonexclusive fran-
chise to construct , operate, and maintain a cable communication
system within the City of Shakopee, and setting forth conditions
-4-
accompanying the grant of the franchise, will be contained in a
franchise ordinance.
II. DESIRED SERVICES AND BIDDING REQUIREMENTS
The City is establishing few requirements as it desires that all
applicants have maximum freedom to develop their own innovative pro-
posals .
The City of Shakopee fully expects to enter into a firm contract
with the successful applicant for the timely delivery of all elements
in the applicant ' s proposal . All items being offered by applicants
are considered to be freely and voluntarily offered and will be
included in the franchise and become subject to the enforcement pro-
visions stated therein. The successful applicant must agree to
support any waiver required by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) for any voluntary offer of services or technical standards that
may exceed FCC requirements .
A. Franchise Fee
The City has established a franchise fee of five (5) percent on
all gross annual receipts . In order to eliminate this fee from
becoming a bid item, the City will not consider any fee that is
different than five (5) percent , or any prepayment of fees or lump-
sum cash contributions .
B. Initial Coverage and Line Extension Policy
The City desires to have cable available to all areas within the
entire municipal boundaries . However, if in the opinion of the appli-
cant , service to all dwelling units and commercial buildings is not
economically feasible, the applicant may propose an initial service
area covering less than the entire City. Each applicant must show,
in detail , on a map accompanying the application, the precise bound-
-5-
aries of its proposed initial service area and specifically show
any areas to be excluded. The applicant shall also state the
reason for any area excluded and discuss , in detail , its proposed
line extension policies including minimum density requirements and
cost sharing arrangements for extension of service to dwelling units
and commercial buildings not located in the initial service area.
In no event shall an area be excluded where the dwelling unit
density is greater than forty dwelling units per one street mile.
Preference will be given the applicants proposing to serve the
maximum number of dwelling units within the City.
C. System Design
The City seeks a modern, efficient , and cost-effective system
which will facilitate quality maintenance practices , deliver a
variety of marketable services , and provide the flexibility needed
to adjust a new developments . The City is interested in receiving
proposals for the initial delivery of at least 30 channels to sub-
scribers and two-way capability. Applicants are also encouraged
to propose technical standards which exceed current FCC and Minne-
sota Cable Communications Board requirements .
D. Renegotiation
The franchise document shall provide for renegotiation at inter-
vals in time of no more than five (5) years .
E. Undergound Cable
Agreement to lay all cable underground where other utility cables
are now underground, and, in areas where other utility cables are not
now underground, to lay cable underground at such times as those
other cables are laid underground.
F. Liquidated Damages and Performance Bond
Should the franchisee fail to complete its proposed construction
-6- d
within any of the applicable times fixed in its proposal , due allow-
ance being made for contingencies provided for in the franchise
document , the franchisee shall be required to pay to the City of
Shakopee $ for each and every day of such delay beyond the
time stated for completion as liquidated damages that the City of
Shakopee and the subscribers will suffer by the delay. In addition,
the franchisee shall provide the City of Shakopee with a performance
bond in a sum of not less than $ . In addition, in
the event of delay, franchisee will , unless franchisee can show
good cause for the delay, be subject to loss of the franchise.
G. Services
Applicants shall provide:
1. Five access channels including :
a. one public access channel
b. one local government access channel
c. one educational access channel
d. one leased access channel
e. one regional access channel
2. Two-way capability
3. All broadcast signals required or permitted by the FCC.
4. Access facilities including:
a. video production equipment available for access use
b. public access studio and technical assistance
5. 54 channel capacity
6 . Audio/video emergency alert override system.
7 . Locking device available for rental or purchase which will
allow a subscriber to lock out the movie package channel on
the cable system.
8. Repair services provided in fast and efficient manner to the
City and the subscribers (indicate proposed method of service) .
9. Computer Service Capability in system designed and constructed
to accomodate interactive data communications with network
transmission time of less than one-tenth of a second and the
capability of accomodating interactive communications point-
to-point , point-to-multipoint, and multipoint-to-multipoint
between customers or potential customers.
-7-
Beyond these minimum requirements , applicants are free to
develop service packages based on their own understanding of commu-
nity needs and desires. Applicants are urged to use as reference
the "Shakopee Needs Assessment" conducted by the Shakopee Ad Hoc
Cable Communications Committee.
Applicants might consider various services such as (but not
limited to) :
* access channels dedicated to other identified users ;
* automated and nonautomated local origination;
* national and international news service ;
* financial and stock market information;
* sports channels ;
* weather service;
* children' s programming;
* movie channels ;
* pay cable ; (self-addressed) ;
* origination/access studios and mobil equipment ;
* interactive services ;
* FM radio;
* computer games ;
* alphanumeric character generator; and
* home security packages
H. Institutional Capacity
The City is interested in having an institutional network serve
various locations within the franchise area. Applicants are en-
couraged to ascertain the cable needs for institutions whose services
would be valuable to a community communications network.
The City requires the following:
1 . Return lines from Shakopee Senior High School to the head end.
2. Free drops to be provided at the following locations : Senior
High School , Junior High School , Sweeney Elementary School ,
Pearson Elementary School , Central Elementary School , SACS
Elementary School , SACS Middle School , and Shakopee Women' s
Correctional Institution.
All services offered in excess of the minimum City requirements
must be guaranteed and within the financial capability of the system
-8-
as demonstrated in the financial pro forma statements. All pro-
posals shall be within the guidelines of acceptability as defined
by the FCC' s description of extra service packages.
I . Priorities and Criteria for Evaluating Applicant
The City of Shakopee will consider the following factors as
especially important when awarding the franchise to an applicant.
1. Cost to subscribers for all services offered .
2. Early completion date of the total project .
3. Number of channels energized immediately; andaet4Ne two-way
capability.
4. Commitment to provide, and proof of ability to provide , fast
and efficient repair service to the City of Shakopee and to
its subscribers .
5. Capability for local programming at the date the system is
completed and in -operation in the service territory.
6 . Commitment to provide, and plans for providing equipment and
staff to assist local programming on the access channel .
7 . Early availability of public access studio provided and supported
by franchisee.
8. Availability of Emergency Alert System.
9. Capacity for more than 54 channels .
J. Legal Qualifications
Evidence must be presented to assure the City that the applicant
complies with the applicable rules , regulations and statutes of the
FCC, the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Cable Communications
Board regarding ownership and control of regulated franchises and
businesses. The selected applicant will be expected to strictly
adhere to all federal , state and local requirements governing dis-
crimination, equal employment and affirmation action. The City
requires that parent companies guarantee commitments of their local
subsidiary corporations.
-9- V
K. Character Qualifications
Evidence shall be presented by applicant as to whether or not
the applicant or any principal has ever been convicted in a criminal
proceeding where felonies or misdemeanors were charged.
Evidence shall be presented as to whether the applicant or any
principal has ever been a party to a civil proceeding in which it
was held there was unfair or anticompetitive business practices ,
antitrust violations of securities laws and false/misleading adver-
tising. Evidence shall also be presented as to whether applicant
or any principal has either initiated civil litigation against a
franchising authority or has been the subject or litigation by a
franchising authority.
Evidence shall be presented as to whether the applicant has
ever had a business license (including FCC licenses) revoked.
L. Financial Plan
Pro Forma
An important feature of the application is an adequate demon-
stration of the financial capability to perform in accordance with
the ordinance, this Request for Proposals (RFP) and the applicant ' s
proposal . Failure to provide the detailed pro forma requested may
be interpreted by the City as evidence that the applicant is not
property qualified to receive a grant of the franchise. The pro
forma data submitted should include plans and terms for debt and
equity participation, terms of local ownership participation (if
any) , financial goals as well as financial projections and assump-
tions . Complete detail is required pertaining to equity partici-
pation of local ownership and the equity of lenders , now and
envisioned for the future. All understandings for equity partici-
pation are to be provided in detail , whether written or oral ; and
-10-
if equity is provided by the company in exchange for services , the
extent and nature of the services are to be detailed.
Tiered-service structures , if offered , must be factored into the
revenue projections.
For purposes of the financial pro forma, Year 1 begins on the
date the franchise is awarded. Further, an average annual inflation
rate of 8 percent shall be used by all applicants in preparing finan-
cial projection.
Implementation
Applicant should present evidence of financial resources that
assures the company' s ability to complete the entire proposed initial
service area within the construction period specified in the applica-
tion.
Rate Schedule
The rates initially proposed by the applicant must be substan-
tiated in the pro forma statements by use of realistic levels of
penetration. The City reserves the right to regulate rates for
basic services , and such other services as may become subject to
local regulation. Applicants may indicate projected increases in
the pro forma projections . In order to assure the City that the
rates proposed are realistically calculated to meet the applicant ' s
financial goals , initial rates proposed by the applicant must be
guaranteed for a period of two years from date of provision of
initial service.
M. Demonstrated Experience in Operating a CATV System
Information will be solicited concerning the applicants ' cable
television franchises in other cities . This information will be
used by the City to inquire into the applicants ' experience in other
communities in which a franchise is held.
462,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Proposals Evaluation Methodology
DATE: April 28, 1981
The regulations of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board (MCCB)
require that the franchise authority include in the Request for
Proposals (RFP) those criteria and priorities developed to review
franchise proposals submitted for its consideration. At its
April 27 , 1981 meeting, the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee
adopted the attached "Evaluation Methodology" and recommended to
the City Council the inclusion of this information in the RFP.
JA/jms
•
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of franchise applications is a complex task, since a
large number of factors generally are involved, such as financial capability,
services, rates, system technical design, etc. In many cases, "tradeoffs"
are necessary, since some factors conflict with others (e.g. , the desire
to offer an excellent program package conflicts with the concurrent desire
to keep subscriber rates low) .
To reduce the complexity to manageable terms, a formal , objective
evaluation procedure will be utilized which is designed to minimize the
difficulties involved in comparing voluminous proposals, either against
each other or against some industry standard.
Furthermore, not only should like items be compared, but judgement
must be exercised as to the degree of importance of each item. One appli-
cation, for example, may offer advantages in five relatively minor areas,
which could be completely outweighed by a second application' s advantage
in a single major area.
This leads to the need for weighting, or "degree of importance"
criteria. Obviously, there may be disagreement as to the appropriate
weight to be given to each criterion. Here the opinion of the franchisor
must be final since it is its responsibility to determine which criteria
most affect the public interest, with respect to a cable system franchise.
Consequently, the criteria and weighting factors are those approved by
the franchisor.
The evaluation methodology provides results that are auditable, and
relatively free from being clouded in semantics or ambiguities. Some
subjectivity is unavoidable on the part of any evaluator (e.g. , in evaluating
the benefits of specific programming, which is a subjective area in itself) ,
but this subjectivity can be identified and critiqued more easily.
The evaluation technique consists of the following:
° Selection of evaluation categories, so that similar
items can be compared (e.g. , system performance
capability may be one category, proposed programming
and services a second category, etc. ) .
° For each category, a weight or quantitative degree
of imoortance, is assigned, expressed as a percentage
or fraction of the whole. All categories considered
in the evaluation would total 100%.
° In each category, the information contained in each
franchise application is then ranked, on a three-
level scale, (A = Above Average, B = Average, C =
Below Average) , or a five-level scale (Excellent,
Good, Acceptable, Marginal , Poor) . This ranking,
expresses, as appropriate, either of the following:
-- Level of quality, as compared against state-
of-art standards (for technical design and
performance characteristics) .
-- Relative comparison, if no external standards
are used (for example, in a relative comparison
of proposed local programming).
o The combination of the rankings and weights provides
a comparison, on an equalized basis, of the applica-
tions, essentially indicating how well each application
was ranked for each item, and the relative degree of
importance of each item.
o The weighted rankings for each of the evaluation
categories are then added, to provide a total
evaluation score for each application. These totals
indicate the relative overall evaluation results,
on a quantitative basis.
For this evaluation, the following criteria and relative weights
have been established.
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS
Experience/Background 7.5%
Financial Resources & Commitments 10
Proforma Projections 5
Franchise Territory, Construction &
Service Schedule 20
System Design 10
Programming and Services 15
Rates and Charges 20
Consumer Complaints and Employment
Practices 5
Response to Local Needs 7.5%
TOTAL 100
These evaluation criteria and weights will be utilized in the formal
evaluation of franchise applications. The franchisor reserves the
right, in addition to this comparative evaluation, to impose minimum
requirements in areas such as ownership and legal qualifications,
financial capability, etc.
• C;?
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: Selection of Cable Consultant and/or Attorney
DATE: April 28, 1981
Introduction
The Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee made an oral presentation
to the Shakopee City Council at its April 21 , 1981 meeting. At that
time the Committee recommended a budget change which would allow
legal and technical consultants to be hired to assist the City in
the franchise process .
Background
At its April 27 , 1981 meeting , the Ad Hoc Cable Communications
Committee selected a consultant and an attorney to recommend to
the City Council . The proposals submitted by the persons selected
are enclosed for the review of the City Council . The Committee
would like to promote prompt action on this request so that profes-
sional assistance can be brought in prior to advertisement of the
Request for Proposals , while still moving ahead quickly in the
franchise process .
The persons recommended are:
1 . Attorney Adrian Herbst . Mr. Herbst was previously City
Attorney in Bloomington and is now in private practice.
He has served as attorney to the Northwest and Southwest
joint powers groups in the cable frachise process . His
estimated charge to draft a cable ordinance is $5000.
2 . Consultant Anita Benda works cooperatively with CTIC Asso-
ciates , Inc . (Cable Television Information Center) of
Washington D.C. CTIC Associates , Inc. offers evaluation
services to municipalities in the cable franchise process .
It was developed as an off-shoot of the non-profit CTIC in
Washington. Ms . Benda serves as the local representative
and tailors the CTIC evaluation process to the local needs
and policies . It is estimated that it will cost $1000-2000
for consultant services necessary prior to advertisement of
the RFP and $6000 for each proposed submitted for evaluation
to CTIC Associates , Inc.
JA/jms
Anita 1J. Benda
Communications Projects C.,
1403 Jefferson Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105
(612) 698-9621
April 6 , 1981
Ms . Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Ave .
Shekonee , Minnesota 55379
Dear Ms . Andres
On behalf of CTIC Associates , Inc . , Mr. Adrian Herbst , and
Communications Projects , I am happy to respond to the City
of Shakopee Ad Hoc Cale Communications Committee 's "Invita-
tion for Contract Services -- Cable Com -.unications . "
Following is a brief summary of our proposed services and
fees .
Task 1 -- Review of draft Invitation for Applications (IFA)
This task will be completed by me . 3ased on my
experience , three meetings will likely be necess-
ary to discuss my review. I recommend the
Committee use application forms developed by
CTIC Associates, Inc . in the IFA. The total
estimated cost for completion of this task is
$2950 , which includes fees for : use of the a-nli-
cation forms ; the costs of three meetings ; the
review of the draft IFA and preparation of recom-
mend-tions ; preparation of `iiscussion documents
regarding certain policy i ,sues ; a review of the
draft ordinance to insure that it corresponds to
the IFA ; and , co ,yi.ng and typin • expenses .
Task 2 -- Writing a draft franchise ordinance
Task 4 -- ``lriting a final franchise ordinance
i
These tasks would be completed by Mr. Adrian
Herbst. He estimates that his fee would not
exceed $5000, which includes his attendance at
two Committee meetings .
Task 3 -- Evaluation of proposals
This task would be completed by CTIC Associates ,
Inc. and me . Detailed information about the
evaluation technique is enclosed. The fee for
this task would not exceed .6000 per proposal
evaluated.
7,
Ms . -Jeanne Andre
April 6, 1981
Page 2
All parties are willing to assist the Committee in other
tasks should the need arise. For any additional work the
following charges would be made :
Adrian Herbst -- $55 per hour plus expenses ,
CTIC Associates , Inc . -- up to $60 per hour plus
expenses , and
Anita Benda -- $25 per hour plus expenses .
Information abolzt CTIC Associates , Inc. , which is closely
associated with The Cable Television Information Center of
Washin :ton, D.C . , is enclosed. Details of my experience
in the Twin Cities area and elsewhere are enclosed. Mr.
Herbst is sending you information about his backround under
separate cover.
If you or members of the Committee have any questions about
this offering of services , feel free to contact Adrian Herbst
(835-7000) , David Korte of CTIC Associates , Inc . (202/872-
8888) or me .
Best wishes in your endeavors --
Anita Benda
encs
•
ANITA BENDA
Experience
Anita- Benda is affiliated with The Cable Television Information
Center (CTIC) and •CTIC Associates, Inc. as a consultant to assist in
nationwide municipal advisory assistance services and is a contributing
editor to CTIC ' s CableReports, a monthly newsletter.
Anita is the local consultant for The Center' s projects in the
North Suburban area (Arden Hills , Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little
Canada , Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks , Roseville, Saint Anthony,
and Shoreview) and in Columbia Heights and Hilltop. She served as the
local coordinator/consultant for the Southwest Suburban CATV Study
Commission (Eden Prairie, Edina , Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield) .
She conducted The Center ' s work in St . Paul, Manitowoc, Wisconsin,
and has assisted in numerous other projects in cities across the
United States . Anita has been retained as the consultant to the City
of Chaska and the City of Hastings .
Her five years with the Minnesota Cable Communications Board as a
cable communications specialist was largely devoted to coordinating the
Board' s services and programming for Minnesota municipal officials,
cable operators, audio visual directors, librarians, etc. She has had
extensive experience in consulting and assessing client needs for
cable and related media services . She has organized and conducted
many workshops and conferences and conducted feasibility and needs
assessment studies for communities.
Anita had previously been in charge of the Austin, Texas Community
cable channel, and she has served as an instructor at the University
of Texas and Michigan State University in video and audio production
courses . Among her other previous assignments she has served as
station manager, continuity director, program director and announcer
at KUMD-FM Duluth, Minnesota .
Anita holds a BA in Speech/Journalism from the University of
Minnesota and an MA in Television/Radio from Michigan State University.
?/8l
I
g
V
OTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL EVALUATION TECHNIQUE
In evaluating the applicants ' proposals for cable television
service, CTIC Associates, Inc. classifies, compares, and interprets
1 the information supplied by the applicants on the application forms .
We use three evaluation techniques:
1) Comparison of individual line-item data (such as homes
passed, subscribers served, channel usage, and staffing)
to industry references and to our file information. This
type of analysis is called "horizontal-sectioning comparison"
and the resulting data are presented in comparative tables
throughout the report .
2) Internal comparison of each proposal for self-consistency,
completeness of answers, responsiveness to the desires of
the cities, baseline assumptions, and the reasonableness
of the offering. This is called "vertical-integration
comparison" .
3) Development of interpretative narratives on each topic and
requirement, which entails identifying areas of concern and
non-compliance .
All of CTIC Associates Inc .'s professional resources are brought
to bear on the development of a proposal evaluation report. For each
applicant, our report presents the applicant ' s ownership structure and
evaluates its ability to obtain financing; analyzes the applicant' s
financial projections; evaluates the system design and engineering
details of the proposal; describes the program package and proposed
services; and summarizes our findings and recommendations.
In short, CTIC Associates Inc . ' s evaluation of proposals will
help you to identify the elements of each application that exceed,
equal, or fail to meet your standards and instructions . Moreover,
our evaluations often pinpoint issues that may need to be discussed
and resolved by the cities during negotiations with the winning
applicant . It is our conviction that the better informed and knowl-
edgeable local officials are about the cable system and its operators,
the more reasonable the atmosphere will be for negotiations .
As proposal evaluators, we do not presume to make decisions for
or on behalf of the cities. We see our role as analysts with the
technical expertise to guide you in making an objective decision
regarding the award of the cable television franchise.
Due to the complexity of proposals now being submitted to cities,
we have found it necessary to prepare both a preliminary and final
evaluation report. The preliminary report would contain our analysis
and list questions to the applicants regarding aspects of the proposals
that require further clarification. Three to four months is normally
required for the preparation of' the preliminary report . Applicants
-2-
should be supplied a copy of the preliminary report and be given three
to four weeks to respond to the questions asked in the preliminary
report . Thereafter, CTIC Associates, Inc. will prepare the final
report to the cities.
After we prepare the preliminary evaluation report and the
applicants have had an opportunity to respond to it, our staff will
meet with the city officials to discuss the findings in the report .
If desired by the cities prior to the award of the franchise, a staff
member will participate as an advisor in any public proceeding in
which the legal, character, financial or other qualifications of the
applicants are reviewed.
BACKGROUND OF THE CABLE, TELEVISION INFORMATION CENTER
AND CTIC ASSOCIATES
The Cable Television Information Center of The Urban Institute
was created in 1972 to advise and assist local governments on public
policy issues pertaining to cable television. A nonprofit organiza-
tion funded by grants from the Ford and Markle Foundations and by
consulting contracts with client communities, the Center helped more
than 2,000 local governments understand and make objective decisions
about the complex questions surrounding cable television.
Upon completion of the grant program, the Center -- in a major
decision to continue its educational mission -- became an independent
nonprofit corporation on January 1, 1980 . During this past year,
the Center was supported by member communities, educational services
and contract work performed exclusively for local governments .
Due to a decision by the Internal Revenue Service that the Cable
Television Information Center could no longer continue its nonprofit
status while it receives most of its financial support for consulting
services, the Center has recently reorganized into two groups .
The Cable Television Information Center will continue as a non-
profit membership organization of local governments dedicated to pro-
viding educational and informational services to local governments
and the general public about the public policy issues pertaining to
cable television.
CTIC Associates , Inc. has been organized by the professional staff
of the Center as a private, for profit, organization to perform all
consulting and technical assistance work for local governments .
The major distinction between the two organizations is that when-
ever there is a contract to perform work for local governments, the
contract must be performed by CTIC Associates, Inc. and any earnings
will be subject to income taxes.
CTIC Associates, Inc. will continue to provide high-quality,
objective, technical and consulting assistance to local governments
in the same spirit and dedication as evidenced in the past nine years
of The Cable Television Information Center.
CTIC Associates, Inc . is staffed by 20 highly experienced pro-
fessionals with many years of service working in and for local and
state governments . This type of background provides local officials
with expert assistance grounded in a full understanding of local
issues and the local decisionmaking process.
z
-2-
CTIC Associates, Inc. also has some of the top talent in cable
engineering, cable finance, communications law and community program-
ming whose sole objective is to represent the interests of munici-
palities in these highly complex matters .
Because the Center and CTIC Associates, Inc. have no ties with
the cable industry and because they work exclusively for local
governments, they have acquired a unique status as being highly
objective and well-regarded by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) , local officials and members of the cable industry itself.
In addition to helping individual communities, the Center has
worked with several state municipal leagues by serving on panels, con-
ducting seminars and preparing articles for league publications . In
a similar role, the Center often has appeared on conference programs
for the National League of Cities, the International City Management
Association and the National Association of Counties . Center personnel
assisted the National League of Cities in the preparation and review
of a pamphlet for public officials on the local regulation of cable
television, and served on the FCC' s Federal, State, Local Advisory
Committee on cable regulation. The Center regularly is asked to
testify before the Senate and House Subcommittees on Communications
on local officials ' views with regard to cable regulation and local
policy issues.
The Center and CTIC Associates, Inc. offer several levels of
service to local officials. The Center 's information service consists
of a monthly newsletter to member local governments which analyzes
issues of immediate interest, plus a variety of publications containing
basic information on cable, including: federal regulation, how to plan
an ordinance and how to select a cable system operator and reports on
the technology, economics, uses and technical standards of cable
television.
THOMSEN, NYBECK, HERBST & JOHNSON, P.A.
LAW OFFICES
SUITE 102-7250 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS (EDINA),MINNESOTA 55435
(612) 835-7000 OF COUNSEL
ADRIAN E.HERBST
GORDON V.JOHNSON RICHARD D.WILSON
GLENN G.NYBECK
HELGE THOMSEN April 2, 1981 A, ,,
JOHN K.BOUQUET Qe1 � �,�
JACK W.CARLSON ...,. r.. 4,`
DANIEL D.THUE ii4111
Ms. Jeanne Andre A i R 6 13 81
Administrative Assistant
City of Shakopee CITY OF tAHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Ms . Andre:
Thank you for your letter dated March 23, 1981 in which you contained an
outline relative to consultant and attorney assistance in your cable communications
franchising process.
I have reviewed your outline. Also, I have spoken to Anita Benda, who I
understand you also contacted with regard to providing consultant services. Anita
Benda was a cable consultant who worked with the Southwest Suburban Communities,
together with me, in preparation of the various franchise documents and assisting
those communities in the franchising process.
I understand Anita Benda will be submitting a proposal to you and she has
asked me if I would be willing to work together with her as a team in your com-
munity. I indicated to her that I would. Basically, I feel that I can provide
the legal services to you and a lot of the various items that are included in
your Item No. 1 and Item No. 3, but due to the fact that I am not an engineer
of financial consultant, it would be best that you do retain the services of a
consultant to provide those services to you. Therefore, whether you hire me in
conjunction with Anita Benda or individually, my services would best be related
to your Items No. 2 and Items No. 4.
Based upon the outline you have prepared, including my understanding that
attendance at meetings with regard to the legal work would be limited to a meeting
in connection with the preliminary ordinance and also a meeting in connection with
the final ordinance, it is my estimate that the legal fees would be approximately
$5,000.00.
Basically, the work on the basis of time, and I keep a record of my time, you
will be billed on that basis. If you wish to have a flat fee arrangement, it is
my estimate that $5,000.00 would be satisfactory to cover the time that would be
involved.
Ms. Jeanne Andre -2- April 2, 1981
You may know that I did assist the Southwest Suburban communities as the
attorneys for that cable commission. I also worked with all of the attorneys for
each of the cities that were involved since in those cases , the city attorneys from
five separate cities also participated due to the fact that their individual cities
adopted the ordinances.
At the present time, I am working for the Northwest Suburban Group, which
includes nine cities and also for the Ramsey-Washington group of cities which
includes twelve cities . Despite those assignements, I do not feel that that would
be any problem for me providing service to you and would very much appreciate the
opportunity of assisting you in this process.
From my experience of having been a full-time City Attorney of Bloomington,
for a number of years as well as currently a councilman, I have had an opportunity
to work with city governments from different vantage points. I believe that that
background and experience has enabled me to provide a good service in the com-
munities I have represented in cable television and I am sure it will be a benefit
to you as well .
I would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and I look forward to
the opportunity of being selected as your attorney. Kindly let me know when I
might meet with you.
I have enclosed my resume for your review.
Sincerely,(i
(;) - /cl 1
A,.�L .,- v
Adrian E. Herbst
AEH:can
Enclosure
RESUME OF ADRIAN E. HERBST
EXPERIENCE
Private Practice: 1972 - Present
Experience in municipal and governmental work,
litigation - both civil and criminal , real estate
and development work.
City Attorney For Bloomington, Minnesota: 1965 - 1972
Experience in criminal and civil litigation,
legislation, ordinance and resolution drafting,
government grants, condemnation and real estate,
advisory opinions and work with City Council and
commissions and supervision of staff of six.
Control Data Corporation: 1961 - 1965
Contract administrator, negotiated and drafted
contracts for the sale and lease of computer
equipment.
EDUCATION
William Mitchel Law School , J. D. , 1965
University of Minnesota, B.S.B, Business Administration 1961
Washburn High School , 1957
Special Education:
Have regularly attended and taught at Continuing Legal Education seminars on
litigation, municipal law and criminal law for the past ten years.
GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE
Minnesota League of Cities Board 1980 - Present
Councilman for Bloomington 1976 - Present
Housing Authority, Bloomington 1977 - Present
Legislative Committee 1978 - Present
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 1978 - Present
Referee, Hennepin County Court 1973 - Present
American Arbitration Association 1975 - Present
Served for the Hennepin County Court as a
Commissioner on Condemnations 1973 - Present
Grants Committee 1976 - Present
Metropolitan Council Land Use Committee,
Vice Chairman and Chairman of
Grants Committee 1976 - 1977
Metropolitan Council CATV Committee 1970 - 1972
Minnesota League of Cities CATV Committee 1970 - 1972
Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council 1969 - 1972
Advisor: Governor's Crime Commission 1968 - 1969
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
American Bar Association
Minnesota and Hennepin County Bar
Member of Governmental Law Committee
National and State Trial Lawyers Association
1 ) . Chairman of State Appellate Advocacy Committee 1975 - 1976
2) . Chairman of Legislative Committee for State
Association 1976 - 1978
3) . Officer and Member of Board of State
Association 1976 - Present
4) . President 1980 - Present
CURRENT AND PAST CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
Lions Club, Jaycees, Chamber of Commerce, Toastmasters , Rotary Club and the
Izaak Walton League.
PERSONAL DATA
I am married to Barbara Herbst. We have our home in Bloomington at 200 Norman
Ridge Drive. Barb and I have four children, David (17) , Paul (16) , Leslie (13)
and Adrian (10) .
I am in good health and enjoy many recreational activities . I am 41 years of
age.
(g
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson
City Administrator
t
FROM: H. R. Spurrier ,
City Engineer
RE: Redevelopment of Block 57, iginal Shakopee Plat
DATE: April 23, 1981
Pursuant to your request, I attach a resolution ordering a feasibility study
which will include the redevelopment of Block 57, for parking and necessary
storm sewer facilities required for the redevelopment.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 1829.
HRS/jiw
Attachment: Resolution No. 1829
RESOLUTION NO. 1829
A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report
Fuller Street Storm Sewer Laterals
WH6 S, 't is pro.s es to improve Blo . Original Shakopee Plat,
by parking lot; . d
WHM1 ' , • her publ' - abilities m : be •nstructed orer to develop
B ck 57; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is considering making an improvement to
Block 57, Original Shakopee Plat by developing a parking lot on said property;
and
WHEREAS, a drainage problem does exist in this area and it would be
advisable to consider the construction of a lateral storm sewer in conjunction
with the development of the said parking lot; and
WHEREAS, it is, therefore, proposed to improve Fuller Street from 2nd
Avenue to 3rd Avenue; 3rd Avenue from Fuller Street to Atwood Street; Atwood
Street from 3rd Avenue to 4th Avenue and 4th Avenue from Atwood Street to
Fuller Street by lateral storm sewer and to assess the benefited property for
all, or a portion of, the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the proposed improvement be referred to Henry R.
Spurrier, City Engineer, for study, and that he be instructed to report to
Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as
to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should be
made as proposed, or in connection with some other improvement and the
estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Adopted in Adj. Reg. Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day 4
of , 1981.
City Attorney
410EH44`p CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: John K. Anderson, City Admr.
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Cler
SUBJECT: Appointment to Police Civil ervice Commission
DATE:
I spoke with Mr. Stan VonBokern, last night, advising him
that his term on the Commission has expired and that he was not
goil to be reappointed.
jc