10-24-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1994
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
I. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 290
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
OCTOBER 10, 1994; AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION OF
OCTOBER 17, 1994
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO WINNERS IN
CITIES WEEK POSTER CONTEST
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 291
AGENDA APPROVAL
0 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS
NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT NO. A01384 WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY TO ALLOW CONTINUED ACCESS TO PROPERTY
INFORMATION SYSTEM C.L. 292
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF LEGAL DEFENSE FEES
TOTALLING $16,919.39 FOR WESTERGAARD LAWSUIT C.L. 293
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF $12,000 PAYMENT TO CONOCO IN
LIEU OF PAYMENT TO SHAFER CONTRACTING FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF
GAS STATION ENTRANCE AT 7700 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 294
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY TO PROVIDE TEN COMPUTER BOARDS TO
OPERATE OPTICOM EQUIPMENT ON FIVE NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG
77TH STREET PROJECT IN PHASES I AND II IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF $17,500 AND PAYMENT TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TWO CONTROLLER
CABINETS TO OPERATE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT NICOLLET AND LYNDALE
AVENUES ALONG 77TH STREET IN AMOUNT OF $20,666.49 C.L. 295
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SALE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 TO
. SHAFER CONTRACTING, INC. FOR SAND MATERIAL IN WASHINGTON
PARK IN AMOUNT OF $14,500 C.L. 296
F. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR SHELTER BUILDING AT MADISON PARK, CP
899; C.K.C. CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $96,207.00
G. ESTIMATE #4 PAYMENT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT OF MADISON PARK,
CP899; BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; $108,198.69
H. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTER BUILDING AT
WASHINGTON PARK, CP897; C.K.C. CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
$95,921.00
I. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT DONALDSON PARK;.EARL F. ANDERSEN,
INC.; $23,095.80
J. FIRST AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE
PEDESTRIAN RAMP; ADVANCED CONCRETE, INC.; $25,779.20
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $8,010,000 MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1994, FOR VILLAGE
SHORES PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 297
6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA TO
REVIEW REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE FOR
• SUPER CASH, 6417 LYNDALE AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 298
0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
7. CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO HOLD A CITY COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 1994
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 299
AIRPORT BUSINESS
8. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
9. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
• 11. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available
upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance
to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702.
0
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the Council approve a license for Super
Cash, 6417 Lyndale Avenue.
Basis for Recommendation :
1. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a
currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota.
2. A background investigation of the applicants finds no reason
to recommend denial of the license.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could deny the license request, however, staff
has determined that there is no basis for this alternative.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approve the issuance of a currency exchange license by the State
of Minnesota for Super Cash, 6417 Lyndale Avenue, is submitted
for City Council consideration at this time.
City g
JDP:ds
Respec y submitted,
James Prosser
M a er
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.298
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for a
renewal of a currency exchange license for Super Cash, 6417
Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
On September 30, 1994, the City of Richfield received
notification from the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce
of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the
name of Super Cash located at 6417 Lyndale Avenue.
A license for this type of business is not required in the City.
However, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04
requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application
for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the
municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business.
This law also requires the governing municipality to render a
decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60
days receipt of the State's notification.
The State requires that the applicant submit the following
• information when applying for this type of license:
? License fees in the amount of $50.
? A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders or
traveler's checks.
? A surety bond in the amount of $10,000.
? Any owner, partner, officer; director, stockholder (owning 10%
or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the
authority to exercise management or policy control over the
company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension.
All of this information has been provided to the State of
Minnesota and a background investigation conducted by the Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants,
Donald E. and Gloria Anderson. The Andersons reside in the City
of Bloomington.
Richfield Public Safety Department has conducted a background
investigation on the applicants. There were ten public safety
contacts with this establishment from October 1, 1993 through
September 30, 1994. They were for six burglary alarms, one
• forgery, one suspicious vehicle, one suspicious person and one
vandalism.
5?
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 297
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution authorizing the
issuance, sale and delivery of $8,010,000 Multi-Family Housing
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1994, for Village Shores Project.
Background:
The City of Richfield is authorized by Minnesota State Statutes
Chapter 462C to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the
acquisition and construction of multi-family rental housing. Under
that authority, the City of Richfield issued $8,025,000 Multi-Family
Housing Revenue Bonds in 1985 for the Market Plaza Housing Project.
This financed a 166-unit housing project located at 6501 Wood Lake
Drive.
On February 8, 1993, the City Council approved a resolution amending
the indentures related to the bonds for Market Plaza and Market
Towers. This enabled the purchase of bonds from the Resolution Trust
Corporation which had acquired the initial bonds from Midwest
Federal. The temporary refinancing enabled the project to secure
more favorable financing terms and to proceed with remodeling and
upgrading of the project.
On December 13, 1993, the City passed a resolution giving preliminary
• approval to the issuance of refunding bonds in connection with the
Market Towers Apartments Project under Minnesota Statutes 462C and
authorized the preparation of necessary documents. The preliminary
approval was for the sale of revenue bonds that were estimated not
exceed $8,010,000 to finance the refunding of the outstanding bonds
Final consideration was expected to take place early in 1994.
However, it took longer than anticipated.
The issuance of the requested $8,010,000 housing revenue bonds does
not represent an obligation of the City. The bonds, when issued,
would be payable solely from the revenues received from the project
and property pledged to the payment of the bonds.
to
The City Council is now considering final approval for the issuance
of $8,010,000 Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Village
Shores Project), Series 1994. Issuance of these bonds would then
complete the refinancing package for the original Market Towers
Housing Project.
As stated earlier, the Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds
under consideration for approval will represent no obligation to the
City of Richfield. The bonds shall be paid solely from the revenues
provided under the loan agreement and other funds pledged pursuant to
the indenture which accompanies the bonds.
• The Holmes & Graven law firm is serving as bond counsel to assist in
the preparation, review and issuance of the necessary bond documents.
In addition, a representative of the Market Plaza Housing Project
(now known as Village Shores Project) will be available at the
Council meeting to answer questions regarding this request.
5-!
One issue that has been raised by the residents of Market Towers
concerns a major rent increase that tenants of the facility were
notified of recently. A number of those residents have inquired as
to what authority the City would have in that matter or if the rent
increase is related to the financing for the project.
Stephanie Galey of the Holmes & Graven law firm has researched this
issue and stated that the City has no authority in the rental
increase issue. She further stated that the action before the City
Council Monday evening has no direct bearing to the rent increase.
Ms. Galey indicated that if this requested tax-exempt refunding is
not approved, it may lead to a taxable or conventional financing
mechanism, which in turn could lead to the need for even higher
rents. A copy of a letter from Ms. Galey on this matter is attached
to this Council letter.
Recommended Motion:
1. Conduct a public hearing and adopt the resolution authorizing the
issuance, sale and delivery of the $8,010,000 Multi-Family
Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Village Shores Project), Series
1994 and authorizing the execution and delivery of related bond
documents.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. According to the law firm of Holmes & Graven, it appears to be in
the best interests of the City to issue these revenues bonds
under Chapter 462C.
• 2. The City Council action on December 13, 1993, gave preliminary
authority for the Market Towers Apartment Project to proceed with
the preparation of bond documents for final approval by the City.
3. The refunding bonds will provide new permanent financing for the
project and help to ensure its financial stability.
4. There is no obligation for the City to back these bonds as they
are backed solely by revenues received from the project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could decline to issue these revenue bonds.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to proceed with a timely sale and issuance of the refunding
bonds, the City Council will need to conduct a public hearing on
October 24, 1994, and adopt the attached resolution in order to
provide adequate time to execute the necessary documentation and
complete the sale. Published notice of the public hearing was done
in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes.
ly submitted,
0
Jame. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
5J
• STEFANIE N. GALEY
Attomey at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9212
October 20, 1994
Mr. Steve Devich
Assistant Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
$8,010,000
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds
(Village Shores Project)
Series 1994
Dear Mr. Devich:
OCT 21 1994
We are acting as bond counsel in connection with a request made to the City of Richfield to approve the issuance
of the above-referenced Bonds for the purpose of refunding certain outstanding revenue bonds issued in 1985 to
finance the construction of the Market Plaza Housing Project located at 6501 Woodlake Drive. The requested
• approval is on the City Council agenda for the meeting of October 24, 1994. You have asked me to address certain
concerns raised by tenants of the Project concerning certain changes proposed to be made at the Project, for the
Council's consideration in their review of the requested resolution.
Apparently, the tenants of the Project have been given notice from the landlord that the rents on their units will be
increasing, and have inquired of the City whether the City has any ability to prevent such rent increases. Nothing
in connection with the outstanding bonds and nothing that is proposed to be entered into in connection with the
refunding Bonds would give the City any authority to control the rents at a privately owned and operated project.
Nor does the approval of a refunding cause the increase in rents in any way; it is reasonable to conclude that if the
Project cannot be refunded on a tax-exempt basis (i.e. if the City refused to approve the refunding), the owner would
seek to refund the Project on a conventional basis which would result in higher debt service costs, and therefore a
need for even higher rents. Under the terms of the outstanding financing, the owners are required to refinance the
Project in the near future, and accomplishing such refinancing through the use of tax-exempt bonds approved by the
City will result in the lowest cost to the Project and, therefore, the lowest rents to the tenants.
A question has also been raised with regard to the need for the tenant income certifications. This is a requirement
for the tax exemption of the Project financing. While it may be viewed negatively by some of the tenants, the
absence of such tenant income certifications would cause the Project to be fail to qualify for tax-exempt financing,
thereby resulting in higher debt service costs and higher rents.
I hope this information is helpful to you and the Council. Please feel free to call me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
Stefanie N. Galey 7
SNG/bjm
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
SNG78049
RC145-262
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, NHNNESOTA
0 RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE
$8,010,000 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
(VILLAGE SHORES PROJECT) SERIES 1994 (THE "BONDS");
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE
OF TRUST, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A LOAN AGREEMENT
AND A REGULATORY AGREEMENT; APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS; AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING
FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF
SAID BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is a municipal
corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State
of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer
is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated
thereby by issuing its revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the development
costs of a multifamily rental housing development, or to refund any such revenue
bonds, and by entering into any agreements made in connection therewith and
• pledging them as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any
such revenue bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has adopted a Housing Plan, pursuant to and in
conformity with the Act (the "Housing Plan"), after public hearing thereon and after
one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the Issuer at least
thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing, as required by the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has adopted a Program (the "Program") relating to the
Market Plaza Housing Project, now to be known as Village Shores Project (the
"Project") pursuant to and in conformity with the Act after public hearing thereon
and after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the Issuer
at least fifteen (15) days before the date of the hearing, as required by the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Program was submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency, which then reviewed the Program and application and determined it to be
complete and did not reject the Program within the 30-day period provided by the
Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the Issuer issued its Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds, Series 1985 (Market Plaza Housing Project) (the "Prior Bonds") in
the aggregate principal amount of $8,025,000, for the purpose of financing the
acquisition and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to refinance the Project by the issuance of its
$8,010,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Village Shores Project)
Series 1994 (the "Bonds") under the Act pursuant to this Resolution; and
SNG77056 1
RC145-262
5-y
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as
hereinafter defined, and will be payable from revenues derived from a Loan
Agreement, as hereinafter defined, between the Issuer and Market Plaza Housing
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Company"), and secured
by a mortgage lien on the Project pursuant to that certain First Mortgage, Security
Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement with Collateral Assignment of Rents and
Leases (the "Mortgage"), dated as of October 1, 1994, from the Company to the
Issuer, and are further secured by a pledge and assignment of certain other
revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture of Trust, and said Bonds
and the interest on said Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged
therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning
of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give
rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or
taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or
equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Issuer's interest in said
Project; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the City Council has held a public
hearing, after publication of notice thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City of Richfield at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. For the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds, and thereby refinancing
the Project, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds
in the principal amount of $8,010,000, the proceeds of which shall be applied to
redemption of the outstanding Prior Bonds. The Bonds shall be in such principal
amounts, shall bear interest at rates, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall
mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form
and have such other details and provisions as may be prescribed in the Indenture
of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1994 (the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and
First Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), substantially in the
form now on file with the Issuer; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Bonds shall be $8,010,000, the maximum interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed
8.50% per annum, the final maturity of the Bonds shall be October 1, 2024, the
average maturity of the Bonds shall not exceed 120 percent of the remaining average
reasonably expected economic life of the Project, and there shall be maturities or
mandatory sinking fund redemptions of the Bonds so as to result in approximately
level debt service throughout the term of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be special
obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided by the Loan
Agreement and other funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Bonds are not
to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the Issuer other than the
revenues pledged to their payment, nor is the Issuer subject to any liability
thereon; no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise
of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay any of the principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Bonds; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer, and each Bond shall recite that
the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged
to the payment thereof and that no Bond shall constitute a debt of the Issuer within
the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The Bonds shall contain
a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act and such recital shall be conclusive
evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance thereof. The Mayor and City
SNG77056 2
RC145-262
Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute by manual or facsimile
signature the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture, to affix the seal of the Issuer
manually or by facsimile and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified
copy of this resolution and other documents required by the Indenture, for
authentication and delivery to the Underwriter (defined below).
2. The City Council of the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor
and the City Manager of the Issuer (the "Mayor" and "Manager," respectively) to
execute and deliver the Indenture by and between the Issuer and the Trustee, affix
the seal of the Issuer thereto, and to deliver the Indenture to the Trustee.
All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein,
shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if
incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of
execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on
file with the Issuer, which is hereby approved, with such necessary or desirable and
appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the
substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the
execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
3. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement (the
j "Regulatory Agreement") dated as of October. 1, 1994 by and among the Issuer, the
Trustee and the Company. All of the provisions of the Regulatory Agreement, when
executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this
resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and
shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Regulatory Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer which
is hereby approved, with such variations, omissions and insertions as do not
materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall
determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of
such determination.
4. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") dated as of
October 1, 1994 by and between the Issuer and the Company providing for the loan
of the proceeds of the Bonds. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when
executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this
resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and
shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer which is
hereby approved, with such variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially
change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine,
and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such
determination.
5. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the Bond Purchase Agreement with Piper Jaffray Inc., the purchaser named
therein (the "Underwriter") relating to the Bonds (the "Bond Purchase
Agreement"). All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed
and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution
as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full
force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Bond Purchase
Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, which is hereby
SNG77056 3
RC145-262
5-(?
approved, with such necessary or desirable and appropriate variations, omissions
and insertions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Issuer
or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine and execution thereof by the
Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
6. The acceptance of the Mortgage substantially in the form on file with the
Issuer, and execution by the Mayor and Manager of an Assignment of Mortgage to the
Trustee, is hereby authorized.
7. The Mayor and the Manager of the Issuer or either of them are hereby
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf .of the Issuer, such other documents
and certificates as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale
and delivery of the Bonds, including without limitation a request and authorization
to the Trustee to authenticate and deliver the Bonds, a Tax Certificate and a Letter
of Representations to The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") for appointment of
DTC as securities depository for the Bonds.
8. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary
Official Statement relating to the Bonds, substantially in the form on file with the
Issuer. The Issuer hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter in connection
with the sale of the Bonds of a final Official Statement, substantially in the form of
the Preliminary Official Statement described above. The Preliminary Official
Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the Issuer
for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not
participated in the preparation thereof and shall have no liability in connection with
the contents of or use of such offering materials.
9. All covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer
contained in this resolution and the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be
the covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer to the full
extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations,
obligations and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. Except as otherwise
provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges conferred and duties
and liabilities imposed upon the Issuer or the City Council, or such officers, board,
body or agency thereof as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such
powers and to perform such duties.
No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or
contained in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant,
stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer,
or any officer, agent or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity,
and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the
Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability
or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned
documents, the :Bonds or in any other document related to the Bonds, and no
obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall
constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon
its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions,
covenants and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not
obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and
revenues derived from the Loan Agreement and Mortgage which are to be applied to
the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture.
SNG77056
RC145-262 4
5-7
Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or
in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be
construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer
or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution, any right,
remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any
provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their
provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the
Issuer and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of
this resolution.
10. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the
aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason
be held to be legal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other
provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds,
but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed
and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein.
11. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital and
such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the
regularity of the issuance thereof, that all acts, conditions and things required by
the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the
issuance of the Bonds and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to
happen, exist and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution,
and precedent to issuance of the Bonds and precedent to the execution of the
aforementioned documents have happened, exist and have been performed as so
required by law.
12. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents and employees are
hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with
this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual
and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in
the Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for
any reason the Mayor of the Issuer is unable to carry out the execution of any of the
documents or other acts provided herein, any other member of the City Council of
the Issuer shall be authorized to act in his capacity and undertake such execution
or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which execution shall be
valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the Manager of the Issuer is
unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such
documents may be executed by a member of the City Council or the Assistant
Manager with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and
delivered by the Manager of the Issuer.
13. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
SNG77056
RC145-262 5
Adopted this day of October, 1994.
•
Mayor
Attest
Manager
is
SNG77056
RC145-262
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 296
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Ratify staff decision for sale in excess of $5,000 for sand
material in Washington Park.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The
same policy applies when the sale of materials exceeds $5,000.
Safer Contracting, Inc. is performing the grading for Washington
Park as part of the 77th Street Phase II contract. As part of
the 77th Street contract, Shafer Contracting, Inc. is responsible
for removing 25,000 cubic yards of excess common excavation
material. Shafer Contracting, Inc. has offered to buy 25,000
cubic yards of sand material from Washington Park and replace the
sand with the excess common excavation material from the project.
This excess material is mostly black dirt. It is adequate for
use in the construction of the planned sliding hill within the
park. The 77th Street construction schedule called for the work
in the park to begin so staff allowed Shafer. Contracting, Inc. to
begin the sand excavation work. The operation can be terminated
if the Council wishes.
The value of the sand material within the park was verified by
comparing the value of the sand on similar projects and by
soliciting competitive quotations. The two quotations received
were:
Shafer Contracting, Inc. $0.58/cubic yard = $14,500
L & D Trucking $0.50/cubic yard = $12,500
Recommended Motion:
Ratify the staff's decision to allow the sale of the 25,000 cubic
yards of sand at $0.58 per cubic yard to Shafer Contracting, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The common excavation fill is adequate for use within the
park.
2. The amount of $0.58 per cubic yard is a fair value for the
sand material.
3. The sand material at the park is no longer needed.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could order that the work cease and cancel further sale
of material.
q E-1
Discussion/Decision Mode:
As stated above, the 77th Street Project schedule calls for the
park work to be done now. If the Council has any reservations
about this course of action, they should order the work to be
stopped.
Respectful submitted,
sser
James D faggrecir
City Ma JDP:cak
9b
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.295
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of authorization for traffic signal equipment for
77th Street Phases I and II.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
There are five new traffic signals to be installed along the new
77th Street: Girard, Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland and 12th
Avenues. Each one will include the Opticom equipment to provide
signal preemption for emergency vehicles to gain priority passage
through the intersection. The signals have been included in the
construction contracts but the computer boards that operate the
Opticom system have not.
Each signal requires two Opticom computer boards and each
computer board costs $1,750. Therefore, a purchase of ten
computer boards at a total cost of $17,500 is needed to purchase
the number needed to operate five new traffic signals on 77th
• Street. The equipment will be funded using 25% Municipal State
Aid Streets (gas tax) funds and 75% Minnesota Trunk Highway
funds.
Hennepin County maintains traffic signals for the City of
Richfield and insists that only one type of signal equipment be
purchased to simplify maintenance. The County also can purchase
the equipment at the lowest cost through its central purchasing
agreement and will install the equipment for the City. The
County has experienced staff to install and maintain Opticom
equipment.
An invoice for two controller cabinets and their equipment to
operate traffic signals at Nicollet and Lyndale Avenues on 77th
Street has been submitted by Hennepin County. The cost of the
cabinets is $20,666.49. This cost is eligible for 80% federal
highway funding, 15% Minnesota trunk highway funds and 5%
Municipal State Aid Streets (gas tax) funds.
Recommended Motion:
1. Authorize a purchase of an estimated $17,500, for Hennepin
County to provide ten computer boards needed to operate the
Opticom equipment on five new traffic signals along the new
77th Street project in Phases I and II.
2. Authorize payment of $20,666.49 to Hennepin County for two
controller cabinets to operate traffic signals at Nicollet
and Lyndale Avenues along 77th Street.
qD-i
i Basis of Recommendation:
1. The computer boards are needed to operate the Opticom signal
preemption system on 77th Street.
2. The controller cabinets house the electronic equipment that
drives the traffic signals along 77th Street.
3. Hennepin County through its centralized purchasing system can
provide and install the equipment at a reasonable price.
4. The requests for authorization are consistent with the City's
request for federal and MnDOT financial participation in the
77th Street Project.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Authorizations are needed so that all the equipment to be
included in traffic signals in Phase I of the 77th Street
Reconstruction Project can be installed this fall.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.294
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Approval at $12,000 payment to Conoco in lieu of payment to
Shafer Contracting for reconstruction of the gas station entrance
at 7700 Lyndale.
Background:
At.the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council
authorized an expenditure of up to $20,000 for Shafer Contracting
to reconstruct the driveway access to the Conoco gas station at
7700 Lyndale Avenue. Since that decision, Conoco has expressed
interest in a cash settlement. The Conoco gas station has been
identified for acquisition in both proposals (CSM and Feldmann)
for the redevelopment of the ILN area. In addition, Shafer
Contracting, although willing to do the work as a partner to the
77th Street construction, has expressed reluctance to do the work
in light of the safety concerns of working around the underground
gas lines. A cash settlement of $12,000 to Conoco averts the
possibility of building the new entrance this year, and ripping
out the same with 1995 development, and it relieves Shafer
Contracting from having to do the work.
Recommended Motion:
• Rescind the authorization of a change order, in the amount of
$20,000, for Shafer Contracting to revise access to the Conoco
Service Station at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street;
authorize, in lieu of the change order, a $12,000 payment to
Conoco as full settlement for the,driveway access at 7700 Lyndale
Avenue South.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Safe and convenient access is to be provided to the Conoco
Service Station at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and 77th
Street:
2. Although reconstruction of the access would provide an
improvement, Conoco has determined that the current access is
adequate for the winter.
3. In the event a cash settlement of $12,000 is paid now to
Conoco, Conoco will be responsible for any future revision of
the access.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not make a cash settlement with Conoco but continue with the
original action authorizing a change order to have Shafer
Contracting revise the access to the Conoco Service station;
however, Conoco and Shafer have both indicated that the cash
settlement, as outlined above, is their preferred treatment of
the driveway access to the Conoco gas station at 7700 Lyndale.
L4 C- -/
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the October 24, 1994 Council agenda. Action is
requested at this time.
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City pager
JDP:ds
LIA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 293
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Authorization of payment of legal defense fees totaling
$16,919.39 for the Westergaard lawsuit.
Background:
In 1992, the City of Richfield received a claim from Ms. Heather
Westergaard. Ms. Westergaard was arrested after a motor vehicle
chase and claimed that she suffered injuries, mental and
emotional stress due to excessive force used by police officers.
Ms. Westergaard ultimately brought a lawsuit against the City in
this matter.
GAB Business Services, Inc. successfully defended the claim on
behalf of the City; the United States District Court granted the
City's Motion for Dismissal of Ms. Westergaard's civil rights
claims in 1993, and the Fourth Judicial District Court granted
the City's Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects in 1994.
The appeal period ran in August 1994. Ms. Westergaard cannot
again bring an action against the City for this incident.
However, the City is responsible for the cost of defending itself
in this matter. The defense costs in this case equal $16,919.39
and are now due and payable to GAB Business Services, Inc. GAB
is the claims administrator of this claim for the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) through which the City
is insured.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the $16,919.39 payment to GAB for the defense costs in
the Westergaard lawsuit.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City was named as a defendant in the lawsuit and took
action to provide legal defense in this matter.
2. Legal defense was provided through GAB, the claims
administration arm of the LMCIT. The fees for those
services total $16,919.39.
3. The amount is below the City's deductible level and, as such,
must be paid directly by the City.
4. Adequate funds are available for this payment in the City's
self-insurance fund.
Alternative Recommendation:
None. The service has been provided and the City now has an
obligation to reimburse the LMCIT through GAB.
?8-1
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is included on the October 24, 1994 City Council agenda
to ensure prompt payment to GAB and the LMCIT.
Respect 'ly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
rI
L
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 292
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council authorization to enter into Contract No. A01384 with
Hennepin County to allow continued access to the property
information system.
Background:
Since September 19, 1978 Hennepin County and the City have had a
contractual agreement which provides the City with access to the
County's real estate tax information. From 1978 through October
1989, the City had access to the County's real estate data via a
leased Hennepin County data terminal and printer. In November
1990, the City Council approved the purchase of the Hennepin
County data terminal, software and printer when the County
announced that it was getting out of the leasing business. After
purchase of the equipment, the City entered into Contract No.
A09689 with Hennepin County to provide continued access to the
County data with the City's owned equipment.
That contract has provided the City with an extremely economical
way to access Hennepin County real estate data. The contract is
• not automatically renewable and must be renewed each year by the
City and County. The City has now received information from
Hennepin County announcing the fees for the contract year 1995
and is asking if the City is interested in renewing this
contractual agreement. The Council action here would be to take
advantage of the renewal.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to execute Contract No. A01384 with
Hennepin County for access to the property information system for
the period beginning January 1, 1995 and ending December 31,
1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The current contract with Hennepin County expires as of
December 31, 1994.
2. The contract is a necessary part of the City of Richfield's
ability to deliver property data to the public through the
on-line connection to Hennepin County records.
3. The County has announced that inquiry fees will be charged at
the rate of $.0218 per transaction, which is the same as the
fee charged in 1994.
• 4. The network support charge will be $27 per month per
workstation. This is a reduction of $12 per month from 1994.
The telephone line charge will remain at $74.60 per month,
subject to rate increases/decreases in phone line charges.
ql?-t
5. The contract with Hennepin County is a very economical way
for the City to provide this data to the public.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could elect not to renew this contract with Hennepin
County. However, if this contract is not renewed, the City
would lose its on-line access to County property tax records,
leaving the City's Assessing Division a very ineffective
function.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item needs to be taken sometime prior to the end
of 1994. However, since City staff finds no problem with the
arrangement proposed by Hennepin County, it is preferred that the
agreement be signed and returned to Hennepin County as soon as
possible.
Respe9. ly submitted,
James rosser
City Manager
U
JDP:ff
0
qA-2-
EXHIBIT A TO CONTRACT NO. A01384
City of Richfield
1995
I. COUNTY will provide inquiry-only access to the following information systems:
Property Information System: Access to this system will permit viewing of current real
estate tax information, including legal descriptions, valuations, special assessments and
other public data retained in the Property Information Systems.
Subject in Process System: Access to this system will permit inquiry into the Municipal
Court System. Information to be obtained includes case-related information concerning
offense, disposition, participants, scheduling and other public data contained in the
Subject in Process System.
Document Recording System: Access to this system will permit viewing of current
information on documents filed with the County Recorder (Abstract) and Registrar of
Titles (Torrens) retained in the Document Recording System since January 3, 1988.
Civil Automated Tracking System (CATS): Access to this system will permit viewing of
index and case status information, including familyi and unlawful detainer matters
appearing in the District Court. The system will identify the case-by-case type and will
provide information on filing and appearance activities, including whether or not the
case is closed. There is also an attorney table which provides information on all known
attorneys on a case.
II. Usage Charge
. A File Inquiry fee of $.0218 per transaction will be charged monthly for each inquiry to the
system.
III. Network Support Charge
The USER will be charged $54.00 monthly for two workstation(s) connected to Hennepin
County's teleprocessing network. The USER will be charged an additional $27.00 monthly for
each additional workstation connected to Hennepin County's teleprocessing network.
IV. Telephone Line Charge
The USER will be charged the monthly cost of the telephone line. The current charge is $74.60
but will be adjusted accordingly to new rate increases/decreases. Charges relating to the de-
installation of telephone lines may be included in a monthly billing or included in a separate
billing.
V. County Owned Equipment on User Premises
User Premises
City of Richfield Assessor
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
City of Richfield Police Department
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
• One LSI 9600 Modem
• One Digital Sharing Device
•
1
RECEI !ZU SL 2 9 1994
qA -3
.. Hennep Iounty
• An Equal Opportunity Employer
C
U
September 27,1994
City of Richfield
Attn: James Prosser
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear James Prosser :
Hennepin County intends to extend the above referenced contract through the year 1995.
Attached is an updated Exhibit A which includes the new rates.
The Network Support Charge is going from the current $39.00 to $27.00 per month. There is
no change in the transaction rate. The telephone charge remains the same as the current
year but will be adjusted accordingly to new rate increases/ decreases imposed by the
telephone company.
The new rates will go into effect on January 1 and remain in effect until December 31 of
1995. If you have any questions about this notice please call Jean Myers at 348-6666 for
assistance.
Ili As required by the contract, please indicate below your intention to extend or not to
extend this contract through 1995 and return this document to Jean at the address
below.
Gary M. Kamp
Division Manager,
Information Services Operations Division of the
General Services Department
cc: Jean Myers General Services
attachment
• Information Services Operations Recycled Paper
A-015 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0005
Sincerel
G
62-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 291
October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Awarding of Certificates of Recognition and congratulations for
winners in the Cities Week poster contest.
Background:
The City of Richfield declared September 25-October 2, 1994, as
Minnesota Cities Week in Richfield, Minnesota. Part of the
celebration of Cities Week was promotion of a poster contest
among elementary school students. The theme of the posters was
"Cities - Where you come home." A panel of judges selected first
and second place winners in two categories: grades K-3 and 4-6.
The prize for each of the winners is a $50 United States Savings
Bond. Each of the first place posters was sent to the League of
Minnesota Cities for judging in the state wide contest.
The winners in the K-3 category were Joslyn Bolson (1st Place),
and Nicole Johnson and Alison Hatfield who worked together on the
2nd Place poster; both are in Terri Monk's Grade 2 at Spartan
Elementary. The winners for grades 4-6 were Neal Greimel (1st
Place) and Nicole Jaunty (2nd Place); both in Lynn Borg's Grade 5
at Richfield Intermediate.
• Recommended Motion:
Congratulate the winners and present them with a Certificate of
Recognition.
Basis of Recommendation:
The winners were selected by a panel of judges representing the
schools, City staff and an elected official. It is important to
encourage Richfield youth to take pride in the community and
learn about the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not congratulate the contest winners.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This resolution is an agenda item for the regular meeting
scheduled for October 24, 1994.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
Cit anager
0 JDP:cak
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 290
Agenda October 24, 1994
Issue Statement:
Meeting with the Richfield Advisory Board of Health.
Background:
The Special City Council meeting with the Richfield Advisory
Board of Health is one of a series of meetings between the City's
Boards and Commissions and the City Council. The purpose of this
special meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for
Advisory Members to inform the City Council of recent and current
issues. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue between
the City Council and the Advisory Board.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action recommended.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Council has provided an opportunity for the Richfield
Advisory Board of Health to meet jointly with the Council to
discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Any discussion
which might ultimately lead to an action would have to be
• considered for specific action at a regular Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This special meeting has been scheduled for October 24, 1994.
Res ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:bac
Copy: Carlene Ulmer, Richfield Advisory Board of Health Chair
0