11-14-83 agendai~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 375
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members
Subject: Canvass of Election
Attached to this council letter is a resolution providing
for canvass of the results of the city's general election of
Tuesday, November 8 , 1 983 .
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, certifying these election results.
JGC/ej a
Respectfully submitted,
. /~
J n G. Car ~wrig
City Manager
-~
RESOLUTION N0.
•
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF CITYWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1983.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the council having
received and considered the tally of votes by the judges of the General Election
held November 8, 1983, the results are determined to be as follows:
Votes cast for Candidate:
Mayor At Large:
John Hamilton 4238
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those
certifying returns of said election:
•
•
Shirley Gisselquist (D)
Ralph Roberts (R)
Louise Carlson (R)
Bernie Lais (R)
Bernice Utter (D)
Elayne Gilhousen (R)
Ellen Brandon (R)
Jan Bray (D)
Ione Waller (D)
Jan Anderson (R)
Lois Awes (D)
Rose Hoppenrath (R)
Pat Toney (R)
Linda Bloomgren (D)
Lois Johnson (R)
Donald Waller (D)
Catherine Alfano (D)
Mathew Kasinkas (R)
Carolyn Walker (D)
Ethel Hommes (R)
Phyllis Reinmuth (R)
Barb Vinge (D}
Maxine Evans (R)
Eunice Johnson (D)
Eunice Aulwes (R)
Pat Brenner (D)
Muriel Bernstein (D)
Betty Halloran (R)
Donna Vidas (R)
Pauline Huber (R)
Fay Sullivan (D)
Emily Day (D)
Gertie Herll (D)
Audrey Winslow (R)
Ann Mullerleile (R)
James Jungels (D)
Corrine Cosgrove (D)
Barb Cook (D)
Joan Schaefer (R)
Susan Lewis (R)
Passed by this council of the City of Richfield this 14th. day of November, 1983.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 374
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Legislative Policy Statement Concerning Limitations
on Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
In recent years there has been greatly increased use of
Industrial Revenue Bond financing throughout the United States.
Concerns at the federal level regarding lost tax receipts and per-
ceived abuses of IRB financing have led Congress to consider lim-
iting the amount of IRB financing authority available to state
and local government.
Recently, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a
measure that would impose state-by-state volume caps on IRB finan-
cing, except for certain pu blic-purpose projects such as hospitals.
The volu me caps would be $150 per capita per year.
This action has caused concern among various local government
organizations. The Municipal Finance Officers Association (MFOA) ,
while it favors some limit on IRB's, believes the volume caps are
an arbitrary and undesirable limitation. The League of Minnesota
Cities (LMC) is officially opposed to any limitation on IRB's.
Since Minnesota has one of the top three state dollar vol-
umes of IRB issues, the volume caps would constitute a severe
reduction on the issuance of IRBs in the state. States would be
allowed to set up their own procedures for IRB allocation author-
ity, but if the per capita limit were passed through intact,
Richfield would be limited to less than $5.7 million per year in
IRB. However, because state IRB issues for student loan programs
an d other purposes would be included under the limits, it is likely
that even less than this amount would be available.
Staff has reviewed this matter and is of the opinion that
while certain limitations on the issu ances of IRB's may be desir-
able, the volume caps as proposed would likely be detrimental to
Richfield's interests, particularly as they would affect the city's
ability to issue IRB's for redevelopment purposes.
For this reason, the attached Legislative Policy Statement
has been prepared for council consideration. It is recommended
Council Letter N o. 374 -2-
November 14, 1983
that the council approve the statement at its meeting of November
14, 1983.
Re spectf~u'~lly/. submitted,
~JOhn G. Cartwr;.ight
City Manager
JGC/ej a
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENT
NO.
November 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Authority to Provide Industrial Revenue Bond Fin ancing
The purpose of this statement is to discuss the position of the
City of Richfield regarding authority to issue industrial revenue
bond (IRB) financing.
Current Legislation
There is presently legislation before the Congress to limit IRB
financing via state-by-state annual volume caps of $150 per capita.
Included in this limit would be state issues for student loan
financing and other purposes as well as local issues for industrial
development financing.
Because Minnesota has one of the largest annual volumes of IRB
financing, the per capita limit proposed in the legislation would
significantly reduce the amount of such financing available for
issuance by state and local governments in Minnesota.
Impact on the City of Richfield
Because states would be allowed to formulate their own procedures
for allocating IRB financing authority under the federal caps,
the precise impact on the City of Richfield is not known. However,
if the per capita limits were passed through to cities, P~ichfield
would be able to issue less than $5.7 million of IRB's per year.
This amount would likely be even much less if applicable state
tax exempt issues are included.
The impact of such a limit would be to severely restrict the ability
of the City of Richfield to facilitate the economic redevelopment
of the community. Most of Richfield's efforts are directed to re-
development activities and the availability of IRB financing is a
particularly significant tool in making redevelopment projects
economically feasible to developers. Man y recent projects bene-
fitting the community would not have occurred or would have been
delayed if adequate IRB financing had not been available.
Position of the City of Richfield
Richfield recognizes that some abuses of IRB financing have occurred
throughout the country and also that the overall volu me of tax-
exempt issues may have a detrimental effect on state and federal
tax receipts. In this regard, the city does not oppose specific
measures to curb abuses or to limit tax exempt issues where the
Federal Leg'slative Folicy Statement
net overall effect is to reduce state and federal tax receipts.
The City of Richf field supports the continued availability of IRB
financing authority to local government, particularly for projects
in redevelopment areas, without arbitrary restrictions on the
amount of such financing.
•
•
league
minnesota
November 2, 1983
T0: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks
•
FROM: Don Slater
RE: Industrial Development Bond Authority Attacked in Congress
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
At this hour, the continuing struggle in Congress to restrict and, eventually, to
eliminate local authority to issue Industrial Development Bonds hangs precariously
in the balance. The situation is complex. Procedural maneuvering and clever
efforts to enact these limits without a fair discussion of new restrictions have
moved the threat closer than ever before. The bottom line remains the same.
Minnesota city officials must immediately contact their members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and both our U.S. Senators urgently requesting that they support the
continued authority of cities to issue IDBs without new restrictions, state quotas,
or other measures which discriminate against M{nnesota cities, and, potentially,
frustrate local economic and redevelopment efforts by city governments.
WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED
On October 24, the House Ways and Means Committee reported out a tax bill, H.R.
4170, a comprehensive measure dealing with a great many tax policies, but also
containing a chapter on IDBs. Final consideration of the restrictive IDB provisions
was completed in secret. The final bill eventually had 24 sponsors from among
committee members (including Congressman Frenzel), including committee chairman, Dan
Rostenkowski and senior Republican member, Barber Conable. The anti-IDB provisions
include the following new restrictions:
1) A $150 per capita limit on the amount of IDBs which may be issued
annually in each state. The state volume cap would be allocated
50% to the state government and 50% to local governments on the
basis of population. The Governor, on an interim basis, and the
Legislature would be able to revise the allocation.
2) New, severe,and confusing limits on artitrage.
3) Limiting the use of small issue IDBs for a principal user not to
exceed more than $40 million of IDB debt outstanding after issuance.
4) A prohibition on the use of IDBs for the purchase of land or
1 B3 university avenueieast, st. paul, minnesota SS'4 01 [O1 2) 227-5800
-OVER-
5) Denial of tax exemption for bonds issued with federal guarantees.
6) Other limitations.
The House ways and Means Committee bill went to the Rules Committee with a request
that no amendments to the bill be permitted er. the House floor, including the IDB
provisions. A coalition of Rules Co~*~ittee members insisted that the IDB provisions
be debated and amended when the bill was on the House floor for a final vote.
Rather than face the possibility of amendments to the IDB provisions, Congressman.
Rostinkowski withdrew his request for floor consideration of *_he bill. (He hopes
that pressure from other beneficiaries of the tax bill, particularly the insurance
industry will pressure the Rules Committee to force a "closed rule" i.e., no
amer..dments, in order that the other provisions of the tax bill be enacted before
Congress recesses on November 19).
'.v HAT THE SENATE :"L4Y DO IF THE BILL IS APPROVED iN THE HOliSE
Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Finance Committee is working toward a tax package. It
appears, however, that the Senate bill will not have an IDB section. Senate tax
Committee Chairman Dole has not developed a consensus with regard to the final shape
of a Senate tax proposal, but if the House passes a tax bill, the Senate could act
on short notice and send a tax bill to a conference committee with representatives
of the House Trays and Means Committee (who support iDB restrictions).
DANC-EROtiS POSSIBILITIES FOR THE FUTURE OF IDBS
The dangers at play here include the possibility that Congressman Rostenkowski will
ultimately succeed in getting the tax bill to the House floor with no opportunity
for significant amendments to be offered to the IDB provisions of the bill. The
comprehensive tax proposal could then go to conference where representatives of the
Senate Finance Committee might well agree to the entire House IDB proposal and
hammer out other compromises as well. Then both the House and the Senate would be
faced with approving a final tax package of which the IDB portion is only a small
part, with enormous pressure to vote approval. In this event, the Congress would
never have considered the IDB provisions in open session, Cities would simply be
handed the final set of regulations and restrictions.
STATE VOLUME CAPS AND ARBITRAGE SPELLS TROLBLE
Perhaps the most damaging feature of the new IDB restrictions is the state volume
cap. Enactment of this regulation would mean that the Governor and the legislature
would decide how to allocate the limited authozity to issued IDBS, first between the
state and the cities, and secondly, zmong and between cities, counties, and urban
townships. Minnesota already exceeds any of the proposed annual volume caps and
would face extraordinarily difficult problems of how to cut back IDB programs
throughout the state. It is also arguable that the new restrictions on arbitrage.
(which. are patterned on restrictions in ttae Housing Revenue Bond legislation of a.
year and a half ago) would prevent many cities from issuing IDBs at all.
t~`1TY IT IS IMPORTAlvT NOT TO DELAY ACTION TO CONTACT M~IBERS OF CONGRESS
Ever. though the proposed tax package would remove the sunset from Housing Revenue.
Bonds, it is difficult to see that this gain is worth the immediate loss and potential
long-term struggle at the state level which would result from the enactment of th.e
federal legislation.
Cities should immediately inform their Congressmen. and Senators of their opposition
to the IDB regulations proposed in H.R. 4170. Please provide the League office
copies of your correspondence and any feedback you receive.
M~.~~i~..~, %-~~~~ J,
~~ ~ I~,~~<S ~J~uL.;,ti; ~~,
.'T,'.' ~x (.d / ,
~~ ~ ;mil"L`~C~"
-~-: ''
s
p•- s: _ .
i. +.'
~. r_
t'' ! ~
THE ISSUE: STATE-BY-STATE `.OLl1~1E ~aPS FCt=t I`'LC'STRI:IL DE~ELpP`,iH~'T ~XX~IDS
I:ti'I;C4i~SID BY HCX;SE P~yEi,. in a closed door session. [he L.S.
House Says and `.leans Ccnmittee approved a 5150 per capita
voltrne limit on tax-exerrot industrial develo~?ent bonds (IDBs).
This restrictio on the annual level of bond issuance will
a Iv to Ills issued for rental housing, po u !on control.
srrnll rssue us rra arks and such public-purpose facili-
tres as ports and airports. Excluded fran the lrst are s u en
loan bonds, rrort a e revenue bonds and bonds issued by
501(e) 3) or zations (hospitals and educational facili-
ties Restrictions on cost recovery for IDB-financed propecty
are also included.
?CI'ICN NEF•?JED: Contact your Congressional delegation especially those ller*bers
that serve on tax-writing ecrrmittees (see list below) to oppose
volume caps. Encourage your Congressmen to speak to their
col leagues on SVays and deans and Senate Finance. If you have any
questions concerning the legislation, do not hesitate to
contact Cathy Spain or Cathie Eitelberg in the ':IFQ1ltiashingter.
office at (302) 466-'ZO1~1, Ib not delay. House action may occur
as early as the week of October 24th.
BAQiC'?GL7,~: tinder pressure to limit [L~ volume and raise revenues to
finance the popular `.lortgage Revenue Bond Program, the House
4Yays and 1leans Carmittee approved a volume cap beginning in
1984. The proposal provides fora tsvo-year phase-in adjustment
for those jurisdictions whose 1983 volume exceeds the 1984 cap.
Each state's cap will be allocated 50 percent to the state and
SO percent to local issuers on the basis of population, unless
the state legislature or the governor determines an alternate
method of allocation. A special allocation for hone-rule
cities will be available. Refinancing of outstanding issues
(so long as maturity is not extended) and rollover of short-
term construction financing will not count towards the cap.
Other changes include the extension of the depreciation period
of se~,vage. and solid waste disposal tfacilities and air and
pollution control facilities. The use of [CX3s for the purchase
ot" land or existing facilities will be eliminated unless:
purchaser is using proceeds for substantial rehabilitation,
or
proceeds are used by a first-tune farmeriranchers ~.vhere no
more than 3250,000 in ti~3 financing per principal user is
outstanding after issuance.
The bill will also:
Limit the amount of small-issue [L~s outstanding after
issuance to 3-40 Till ion:
-over -
-- -- _,l. - _ - - -_ - -- --- _ - - _ ~
^-'% /r%''~i ~ / ,%' ~'-~' `ter ~~, _ -,~~~ - r-' 7 ~fv ~-
~ ~
_~ ,
'C=`" i~ny tax exer?ption `ior bond issues ',vith Federal guarantees
such as FSLIC-andrDIC-insured bonds, but excluding ~':~., Flip
and student loan guarantees;
1,ppty limits on snu11-issue Ids to ant ire projects, rat.h,er
than each user (e.g..:rulti-stork: buildings):
i=rtend mortgage subsidy bond arbitrate rules tc Ills; and
Eliminate use ot" tax-exempt bonds for Liquor stores, sky-
boxes, airplanes and gan,~l ing establ isl7rer,ts.
:as a natter of policy, the.'.~1 supports Congressional efforts
to restrict the issuance of tax-exe^pt, a.all-issue conduit
bonds and [L~s issued for exempt facilities that do not serve a
public purpose. Hocnver, the association has said it opposes
federal legislative proposals ':vhich v,ould i;;pose state-by-
state volume limits on the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. .:';e
object to this policy option and, in particular, the current
proposal before Congress becsuse
State-by-state volume ceps do not distinguish bet~.veen those
bonds issued to serve a public purpose and those that
provide lower cost financing for private purposes. There-
fore, public-purpose, exerrot facilities such as ports and
airports ecrne under the cap.
:~s the years go by, nesvCongresses rray further reduce the cap
and include other types of tax-exerpt bonds under the cap.
Score jurisdictions in need of ecorcmic developrt~ent .;ay be
denied the opportunity to issua IrBs while others with
lesser needs night be encouraged to use their portion of a
limit and issue the bonds,
•
Setting state-by-state volume caps at the federal level is a
relatively simple task. ijovrever, the allocation of that cap
within a state among state and local issuers L+rouId be
extranely difficult. :allocations determined by the state
legislature may place politically unpopular pro}ect.s at a
competitive disadvantage.
. Caps impose additional reporting and administrative re-
quirements on state and local officials.
., _ . , n::cce C.xrr~i t tee House 1~avs and ".eons t~~i t tee
ao•,_.
=3rs
~MbCrdt]
=eRtOGrdYS
Fe^uoiicans
~-~?'• =cle '[a•. - 'ha'~*tar
Russelt 9. :ong !La.! - Oan :.os :entorski ,;1' -
Ghatr•ran ~~
gd rher a_ -crap le, „ ty
+a nt irs Ni r~o rt ty NdRtper 2dnt ins Minori!v w.r,p e,
t ~a.lr,GO ~~rP.~.
d not vei ~
_IOYd en SC ;''e tdS~ SLR: M_ Glp~pnS (F!3.~
J .. ~;ck'e 7esd5i
•Oh ^'u nCdn ('e^n.t
,nr ar t.,~ JDd rk K. rdQY^r8n8 ~Hd rd ii) :ltd PlnS ~ Rdn^. et ~N Y
1 gil ]. '.7 d
r
,;o nr ^~ds^^ ~
.. ;7antel v. N aan lk.t.; ^orine ~. 'o t
y ~ ete 5
a rz
:alit
' $uy 'ra er
Jag ru _. :
:cn^ ,e~rz '~d.
Naz 9aucus 'Man *,.)
6a rid ; _
.
~
James 2. !ones i0kla.) _
?ht •^ N ~ ar.e '
Bil' F
^
~
~•
~
r ^In _~
a•C. ~d' nrC.' . Bcren (Gk'a.)
Bi'1 9ra d'er 'k
J
) Andrer ,;aceDZ, .r. d
l:n re
zel
N,n.~
~
.
.,dines G Na rt r !
~., .,• e..ce• a N:^
r<s "_to ,
.
.
George .., N.^cne " 'qa ire;
!ia r IC r brd '`enn.;
t' Je^k~ns 'Ga
1
G
H
Ri Uare ,c uize !~d.)
ire .-rs ~
^ Gar,e -•yor Arz.) .
;cried ;e cna •dt 'wo
l Jr. (C
G~ M
ra.e zor
~ "..
~
~r3•' _. ~'3S
'!ba~ .
•h Or1d5 ~ GorneY (h Y. o
2
e
z
nar^ A
eC'~ {~eC' Meftel !4drdii) .d J1
Ir
.~•6 ~
yi',1 dT M -li
Wyche Foster, Jr, iGa.;. a
anas
Front J Gua^ini (k.,;_1
111 -r'~t~e a ci c'on~re ~s ~~n be i Jd^rs r ;Hannon (Noss.!
rcachc^ ... '0° ??~ -31'I. ' Nor,y o~sso ,...
Ccra.c ,;. lease i^nicl
Ken! Hance ~7esas;
4coe rt r. Natsut 'Cal+'.'
Beryl F, Ar:nony, Jr. (Ark,)
Rar n.e G. F'toco 'A'a.)
Br ron ~ Oo roan i4.G_
3a rpa ra ?. Kennelly (Conn,;.
~eapoiis Star and Tribune
wed., opt. is, 1ss3 17x1'-
;'
~~~ ~ ~.
~~~ ~
`;-
~~ :~b_
,u i
By Richard Meyer "?
Washington ~ .t
Closing a tax loophole is often like
pulling a sugar cube out of a horse's: =
mouth. You don't want to be bitten,;.
yet there is no way to convince the ,
horse that the sugar is bad for him, -.,
That's the lesson beta learned b ' ~
8 Y,~
th ministration and by Rep, J.J.
D-Texas, as they try io curtr:.~
~e and abuse of industrial-level-~ •~
oAment bonds. „;r.
These tax~xempt bonds provide tow- .~-,;
interest financing for just about any
business project except massage par- ~ '~
Iors, hot-[ub spas, suntan lounges and'.--'.
other ventures Congress has deemed
unworthy of federal subsidy. ~ ..:r
tise of the bonds has exploded In ~;
recent years: 540.9 billion worth Y
were issued in 1982, compared wi[ri . -
+4.9 billion 1975. This growth has
meant large revenue losses for the -
Treasury, estimated at 310.1 billion -' `
in 1984, although the bond program. -
ro longer serves sound public-policy
purposes,
The bonds' initial popularity was due= ~-='
to !heir usefulness in attracting bust-
verses to cities and Counties shrewd
enough to offer them. Every munici- _.
pality can now offer them, so their. - .+
availability is no longer an important , _.
factor in business-location decisions. '
4toreover, the bonds are not target= ~ ~-
ed for distressed urban areas or spe- i°
cific industries. -• -~
The bonds have come back to haunt
local governments. Public-purpose,
tax-exempt bonds were traditionally
used to finance public projects. But
with the growth of industrial devel-
opment and other private-purpose,
tax-exempt bonds, there has been
increased competition in the bond
buyers' market. This has forced taar-
exempt bond interest rates up, mak-
ing it more expensive to finance pub-
lic services that truly attract busi-
nesses - a good school system. a
sound infrastructure, ]ow local taxes.
'_ Despite 1982 attempts to channel the
bonds into certain types of projects,
they still finance dubious work, such
` as an Atlanta law firm's a ehas obe~
lion. Tax-exempt financing
come a standard practice for compa-
nies such as K Mart Corp. and Wal-
" :dart, each of which has been issued
more than $100 million in the bonds.
With industrial-development bonds , - :
exacerbating local and federal fiscal , ,
problems, politicians across the
country are beginning to question
their value. However, trie bonds
have a vocal Zan Club of lawyers and
bankers who get a nice cut from ,-;
deals they put together and business- -
men who want io retain access to
federally subsidtzed loans,
They ail argue that with the long= •. .-
term-loan market in shambles be- ;°
cause of enormous federal deficits --
and pressure on banks to pay high ;~
interest oa short-term accounts, in- ~;,
dustrial-development bond financing .;
is the only cheap money available.
With the capital-allocation market
failing them, generally promarket •
businessmen are alt too eager for -
federal subsidies. "
The bonds' defenders also c'.aim to-.
be protecting two political sacred
cows -jobs and industrial develop- . ,
meat. The "reflow" of cash into the
Treasury, in the form of new income . .,
taxes, lower unemployment and ,
more business in general, supposedly . ,,.
mitigates any revenue loss. Thus the
- bonds, i[ is said, create new jobs at . ;
no expense. This is questionable, for
there are no reasonable estimates of .
just how many bond projects would ,
have gone ahead even without the. .
tax-exempt financing.
.-
As subsidies go, the bonds are very
ineificien~ according to the Treas- ~„
ury Department, which forgoes ; .
three dollars in tax revenue for ev-
ery two dollars in interest-cost sav _ ,
ing5 to a business that is issued a
development bond.
As a House Ways picklefehas ~on
mittee member,
been aware of the iamfiHi nsolution,
abuses of the progr
backed by the admtnistsation, is to
make private tax-exempt financing
less ar~racti.ve, primarily by making -
companies use unfavorable dePreci- ,.
align methods on bond projects.
Developtnent bonds are ao longer
effective tools for industrial growths
Whst matters most in business-loca-. ~',
lion decisions is an area's long-term Y::
business climate.
if Congress is concerned that cities . :,
with crutnbiing streets and Poor , ,
schools will not attract new d velop- ,
it should consider allowing to those . ,~
went bonds to be issued only ~ ,
blighted city zones. But if it wants to , ,.^
cut interest costs for alma not just ::~
-public and private -
for companies that use tax-exempt.. ;ti
financing, it must limit the use of '
industrial-development bonds. •~L
.___-- ~
Richard Meyer writes periodicall,~ ~ ,~,
. ~~
on tax policy.
t'
- -~•- --
. - 'r--- ~--rr-c
ik-
/ p~.
• ~ ~ ~ ~ SECTION ~..
•
•
growth of ~'ax-exempt Financing
Stirs Battle on Revenues and sights
By LY'.~` Asi\'OF
S[OfJ RPTJOT(PT OI THE WaI,L STAEF.T JOI'R~'?.L
Scenes of Washington, D.C., flash on the
screen as sinister music slowly builds. The
Feds clearly are the bad guys. Local gov-
ernments are wearing the white hats.
The scenario comes courtesy of a Public
Security Association slide show, presented
at the organization's annual meeting. It was
shows to give members a preview of the as•
sociaiion's 5500,000-a•year campaign to tout
the benefits of tax exemption for local gov-
ernment financing. The volume of tax-ex-
empt bonds has more than tripled in the
past 10 years, and Treasury officials and
some member of Congress want to cut it
back; they accuse local government of abus-
ing tax exemption, and draining federal cof•
fern. But to dealers and state and loco! gov-
ernments that issue bonds, these efforts are
an attempt to undermine basic Constitu-
tional righu.
"They are reaching out to tamper with
T'tings in otr~er people's back yaars,'° says
William J. Janklow, governor of South Da-
kota. The Public Security Association, a
trade organization of municipal and govern-
ment bond dealers, has adopted the cam•
paign slogan: "Loss of tax-exemption,is loss
of local contmi."
The stakes are particularly high for local
governments. Investors are willing to accept
lower yields on municipal bonds because the
tnterest is tax free. Over the past decade,
yields on muntcipa! bonds have typically
ranged from 60% to 90% of those paid by the
federal government on its securities. That
can translate into millions of dollar in sav-
ings. On a S10 million bond issue, for exam-
ple, each percentage point of interest costs
the issuer5100,000 a year in debt service, or
53 million over the Iife of a 30-year issue.
L"nderiying Legal Concepts
The legal concepts underlying tax exemp-
tion have deep roots in federal case law,
going as far back as 1819. In one notable
case, [he courts ruled in 1895 That govern-
ment couldn't tax interest collected on state
and local securities. ~ _
But that hasn't stopped the Internal Rev-
enue Service from ruling on what is or isn't
tax-exempt. And in recent years, Lhe Trea-
sury and Congress have moved to limit the
definitions.
For example, Congress has banned,
starting Dee. 31, mortgage subsidy bonds,
which are tax-exempt securities used to pro-
vide low,cost mortgages for first-time home
buyers. Congress has required Social Secu-
riry recipienu to start including their inter-
est fmm municipal bonds as income when
determining whether their benefits will be
taxed. And now, Congress is debating a limit
on industrial-revenue bonds, which are used
by states and cities to subsidize local indus-
tries and-thereby spur economic develop-
ment.
The reason for all this Legislative activ-
ity, critics say, is the huge federal deficit.
"There wouldn't be so much activity if all
members of Congress weren't looking so
hard for additional revenues," says. Heather
Ruth, executive director of the Public Secu-
rity Association.
Financing Hamburger Stands
But Treasury officials say the change in
the bond market itself is responsible. They
say that tax-exempt financing has spread
into areas where it doesn't belong, thanks to
clever underwriters and issuers who have
found ways to "loan" tax•exemption to local
Tax -Exempt Financing
Maturities longer than one year
80,.,>:
70
~~/5 ~~ mil,"//j~y~~"'!"%~/%%/~%
~/
l /Y xY~
~;~~ ~~
d0~', yy _
30 '`
20 ~ M bi~loris of doltax~}
10 '
•.,~._..
0
'73 '74 '75'76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82'83
Sovrm Pvblis SruriHee Aasociatiae bt
industry, first-time home buyers, hospitals
and even students in need of tuition loans.
As a result, municipal bonds are financing
everything fmm local sewer systems to
hamburger stands.
"Due to the recent explosive growth of
private purpose tax-exempt bonds, the term
`municipal bond' has become a misnomer,"
John E. Chapoton, assistant Treasury secre-
tary, told a congressional committee this
summer. "Since 1979, over one half of all
long-term tax-exempt bonds issued have
been far the direct benefit of private busi-
nesses, organizations or individuals, rather
than for use" by local governments.
l~ir. Chapoton views these bonds as "a
backdoor means of obtaining federal subsi-
dies," particularly for hospitals and student
loans-areas in which federal funding has
been reduced. He maintairs that such subsi-
dies are highly inefficient. For every 52 of
interest savings, he says, 53 of tax revenues
are lost to the federa! government because
an additional dollar ends up in the hands of
underwriters or investors.
Moreover, he says, the traditionally
lower rates on municipal bonds are being
washed away in the flood of new bond is•
sues. The huge supply of these bonds forces
issuers to entice investors with hi.^.er
yields, thus increasing ti•,e cost of borrowing
for states and cities across the country-a
cost ultimately borne by the taxpayer. For
example, for last year's record 575 billion of
new long-term municipal debt, rates offered
by local and state governments were so high
that in some cases the difference between
interest rates on taxable government and
tax-exempt securities virtually disap-
peared.
Finding 'Desirable Projects'
"We aren't attempting to cut out all tax-
exempt bonds," .lir. Chapoton says. "Our
whole point is that there ought to be rules to
make sure that somebody at the local level
is making the decision that it is a desirable
project."
The most commonly cited example of
abuse is a hamburger stand funded with in•
dustrial•development bonds. But South Da-
kota's Gov. Janklow says that while that
may be an abuse, a community should be
able to decide for itself whether something
serves the public purpose.
And l~ir. Janklow asserts that if the at-
tacks on tax-exempt bonds are successful,
people will simply find other tax•advantaged
investments. "So I don't understand what
the lass to the Treasury is," he says. "The
rich have never paid taxes in this cou.~t-
try.'
The Public Security Association isn°t
alone' in protesting recent congressional ac•
tions on tax exemption. The state of South
Carolina, for example, is suing the govern-
ment over a new law, effective last July, re-
quiring that all municipals be issued in reg-
istered form. Those that aren't lose their
tax exemption. The state says the federal
govenment lacks the authority to require
Thak
'°The centerpiece of our case is the con-
stitutionality of tax exemption," says Grady
I. Patterson Jr., treasurer of South Carolina,
noting that 27 states have ;pined the suit as
friends of the court. "What we are trying to
preserve is the federal system."
Some of the most enthusiastic defenders
of states' rights have turned out to be the
bond dealers and underwriters who have
profited from the boom in municipal bonds.
They maintain that it's not a pocketbook is•
sue for them: t'nderwritets are needed
whether municipal bonds are tax-exempt or
not, they say.
But others say that without the tax ex-
emptions, some borrowers might not be able
to afford the bond issues at all. and those
who have benefitted most from the surge of
bond issues, says Rep. J.J. Pickle of Texas,
are the underwriters, bond dealers, lawyers
and banks. "Let's not kid ourselves," he re-
cently told a gathering of bond attorneys.
"With all these hands in the federal till,
there is just not much left for the purpose
originally intended."
~2esolution needed
to clear bond issues
by Frank 5hafroth
Under intense opposition from cities,
states, developers, and investment bank-
ers, House Ways and Means Committee
_ Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.)
abruptly withdrew the administration-
committee omnibus tax bill, H.R. 4170,
last Wednesday from consideration by
the House Rules Committee-delaying
any full House consideration at least until
this week..
The action was taken when it became
clear that a majority in the Rules Com-
mittee were opposed to the industrial
development band restrictions in the bill.
(See The Weekh; ~t_ 24).
The setback for Rostenkowski, came in
response to his efforts to seek a closed
rule. It does not, however, mean a victory
for aties. It complicates an already com-
plirated situation. Unless it is resolved
before Congress adjourns, it could be the
worst of all worlds, for cities. If the Con-
gress does not act on the bill, dties will
no longer be authorized to issue single-
family mortgage subsidy bonds after
Dec. 31, 1983, and cities will be effec-
lively restricted by all the leasing and IDB
provisions of the bills as long as the
Legislation is pending.
The closed rules supported by Rosten-
See p. T,-col. 1
~, ?r '' ~ c ~ C c ~ c c. c
p_ "~, 'n :~ `i O -nf_~.• 'n 'C ^. : r, .^... n S r~ ,-~1• ~ tD ~ :r.
1 ; Y~ ~ U G s L• .< <- C ~^ T ~ o ~ y n~ ~' cxi ~ -nom, N T `~ ~ 2
i Y'~ J j 'J. V~ ~ f J 'S V1 ni. ~ u ~ P~ V ~ ~ 'S. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'G W r rJ
U C,, ', ~ ~' n C .- ~ 6' co C 0- -~ ~ f J p rOp ~ r N ~ m < < OO ? c!.
n r R ~ '~ G ~ z QQ R' O ~ ~' -^~i "~ O. T ~ n - ~ f~ y .`-`. w -' 7'
< `< in v, G r -p v. Cr to fd c, Y .r... r '~ ~ v r,) G. ~ O ~ c, r v,
1 n ~ -"i T ' ~ r~ ~. ~ '' ..NU'. vpi vim' .^~ p n T c7i ;~ N G. ~ G ~ ~ c.~ r:.- J.
..a ~' ~ Q: :. ra ~ `< a n, ~ ^. ~ C.. ~ T n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ p ~ ,d C =~ ~ C.. ~ ,.+ ~. ~. ~..~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ro tSS ;~ j' ~ n n
F ~ ~ fD ti ,`~, ~ r; ~ r s c' ~ ~ ~ (7 ~ ~, `~ '~` v, c"o ~ ^'~ x x ~ r ~? ~ ~ ~ s '' ~ ~ ~ .. ~ -; C ~ ~_
" T ~ ~ ? ~ 2 C, ? T. -i ~ - __ .~ L 'C cnn ~ ~ = L t, ~ C' O cn r~ ~ f~ ,~ v~ ~ rD ~ O ~, 'z ~
N ~ y ~ 'O _ N ~ I ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ n (D p C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QO ryD_° ~ y ~ n C10 ~ rp O rna N' "„J `< u j y J'
£ ~° ~ ~ O ~ ;c o .. ~ = ~ c as _= = ~,` ~' ~? ...~ _ ='° ~, ~ -+ ~ ~ ~ '~ =' ~ ~ ~a x ~ v, `~ y ~ <' a° -; ~, ~
n n ,t., e n _ Ga a r ~ r .. ^ ..o ~ -_~ ~_ L, ~„ ~ < p ~ x e ... ~ ~ ~' ~° " ~ £. ~ ~ c ~ r„ ~ n < p
7C° n -< ~ (n~ C ,- b 7 ~ r r G _ ~" r~ r° .._~ " ~ ~ :~ C... ~a =t -1° ~ r,-° Gi n i ?. ~ Ce ~ fp ~r'a _ ~ .~. ~ ,'A` ~ ~ n
~ vai O ;n ? ^_-ai y° u; y r L "J~ n ~_ ~ :~' ~ ~ r '~ "3 .. r,' = :a n ~ ~. rU ~ p X ^ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ T ._
'< ~ 'n `~ e, ~ -^ r° P ^ ~ `< s C -'~, crn• r~_ a rr° ic' .- w~ X .q ~S. J C ,. ~- ~ p a;, ~, y n ~.
~ cn -~ ~ ~. ~ '~ .,,C ra ~ ~ .i a y ~ ^ '~ :: ~ P v: < ~ .-'iq QC ~< ~ rC ~ ~ n .~ ~• ~ ~ v. a G. ~ ~ a ~ t ~ O .
O °3 ^ ~ C~ J ~ - ~° 9. 'nJ'+ .- C ~ ~G'.,, °` O' fir-,. ~-, y O y~ d O ~ ~"~~„ ~ CC~ C y ^' rp ~ v „^ ~' ~ `° Q U
C ~ " i ~ ~. < n O J r ~ '~ `< r j ^' V% ~ - ~ ~ r' =~, n ° _ O ~ ~ ry G Jam. C S n' 't N [^~, `< L~ °_' ~ -
~ = m n v - ~' ~.r-'. `n C ~ _ G, O ~° .n -, T. 7 r, '3. v, ~' °`+ in _ n ~ n. ~
• .,e r _ ..' ^ ~ rJ ~ r~ -s r7 R; C ~ .,» O y ~ y vi O n ^- ~
"_ u: '' '~ T j -~' '~' ``: ~ J r .~ ;~ ? C :~ 5 cn T n ^.. ~ ~ C O O J. ,-. ~_ ~ Q~G ~ :. ~ ~ ~ ~ - N =~
^' ti ;n -+. .. Iv ~ ^ ~ r . e w Oi ..I . r i~ r cn ~ `< Q. .~-. ~ " ~ -•, ., G. O L` QOv 0a ~ rD v 7. ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ :+ m R.
r G L F J 'O ~ '~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ S~ ~ V f CA
~ _ ~ /w _ ~ _
r 'JJ ~'. ~ O G. X °- ~ r<`. ~~.. `< Ste.. ^fpi
T ~ ^ `° r n ~ _ ~ ~ ^ ~
T~ p ,- "a ~ (V ~ "• .. `~' ra r, x ~ ~ r. ~3 PD '+ P tJ ...m ~,
-r
~ ~ ~ ~ L'e ~ n4 U ~ T ~_ ~ _ ~ ~ ^ J 5_ J C ~ - t..y
~ ro r; x n ~ ~ ~ T~ O n g '"_ r ~' ~ C
_
°~
•
•
•
Voters Across I`~ation to Decide ~'omorrozu
On ~ Billion of 7'ax-Exempt Financing
A WALL STREET ,iOL'ANAL .Yf1173 ROUTIdllj7
Voters across the country tomorrow will
t;e asked to approve an estimated 54 billion
of tax-exempt financing for projecu ranging
from a tail in Santa Clara County, Calii., to
a downtown convention center in Houston.
But the biggest bond issue on the baifot is
the 31.25 billion "Rebuild New York" infra-
structure proposal, designed to restore that
state's highways. bridges, waterways and
airports. Municipal finance and band ex•
ports say the New York issue is significant
because it will test the waters for future "ih•
frastructure" financing.
"It is the biggest this year-a major
state with a big dollar price tag on it," says
John E. Petersen, director of tl:e 1~Sunicipal
Finance Officer Association's government
finance research center. If infrastructure
programs such as the New York proposal
are approved by voters, he says. "it will be
taken as a signal that the public wants to
change direction."
State officials have been campaigning
hard to persuade New Yorkers to loosen
their purse strings, but they concede that it
will be difficult to overcome voter resistance
to government spending. New Jersey, for
example, is asking voters to approve 5135
million for bridge repairs..~.nother 550 mil- I
lion will be on the- state ballot for shoreline-
erosion projects and 5135 million is being
sought for parks and recreation.
Rhode Island's Plans
F~ ode Island's 5x5.6. million in bond pro-
posals includes 545 minion for transportation
projects, 510.1 million for construction of wa-
ter•transmission systems, and 55 million to
finance coun•ordered improvements of the
state's only adult prison. Another 58.5 mil-
lion issue. seeks funds primarily for con-
struction of community group homes for the
mentally ill. '
Likewise, Maine's 559 million bond pro°
posals include funds for bridge and highway
improvements, upgrading state prisons, a
variety of airport and port projects, con-
struction of two state district courts and
work to make county court houses accessi°
ble to the handicapped.'
On local ballots, infrastructure repairs
also are an issue. Seattle residents will be
asked for the second time this year to ap-
prove a 597.1 million bond package to fi-
nance avariety of city repairs and improve-
ments. Although the package was approved
in the September primary, the election was
declared invalid because too few people
voted. A heavier turnout is expected tomor•
row because of the special election to fill the
U.S. Senate seat Of the late Henry AZ. Jack-
son.
One of the more controversial local refer-
endums is in St. Louis where voters will cast
their ballots on a 563.5 million school bond
issue. The vote was ordered by a federal
judge in .connection with his July approval
of aschool-desegregation plan. The money
would be used to improve city schools and
bring them closer to the Level of those in the
suburbs.
' I don't see how a good learning atmo•
sphere can be fostered in buildings that are
dingy and literally falling apart." says the
Rev. Paul C. Reinert, chancellor of St. Louis
University and co-chairman of the commit-
tee backing the issue. This school bond vote
is more controversial than most because it
is tied to the busing issue, and St. Louis vot-
ers have rejected the past nine proposals for
school-bond issues.
Houston Seeks Tourists
A close vote is expected on Houston's
proposed 5175 million downtown convention
center. Proponents say the center, to be
built and operated from a 6co tax on hotel
rooms, would bolster tourism. Fortner
?mayor Jim ~tcConn, vice president of the
Houston Sports Association, suppotted the
project during his administration, but now
says the center. can't be built without using
general tax revenue.
In Baltimore, 10 bond issues totaling 533.5
million are on the ballot. Funds would be
used for projects from sidewalk repairs to
renovating the ci~1c center. These bond is-
sues "represent the bread and butter of the
city's improvement, not just the fancy des•
serfs," says `~t.J. Brodie, commissioner of
the department of housing and community
development.
Alaska is asking voters to approve 5500
million in bonds to finance a •reterans' home
loan mortgage program. In Texas. voters
will decide whether to approve a similar
5500 million package for veterans' home
1oars and a 5300 million land loan pro-
gram.
The Daily Bond Buyer, a trade publica°
lion, estimated that 54.36 billion of bonds
would appear on tomorrow's ballot. How
ever, several referendums included in that
estimate have been canceled, including a
5300 million North Carolina water issue,
axed because of lingering problems of un•
employment and recession.
----
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 373
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Lincoln Hills School Site
On Wednesday, November 9, 1983, the city staff met with Dick
Krier and Jerry Kjorlien about the possible development of the
Lincoln Hills School site.
The city proposal seeks acquisition to retain the playground
as a park/open space site and to demolish the school building and
replace it with a housing project.
Several total development cost schedules have been prepared
dealing with the Lincoln Hills site.
The housing project would utilize five acres. The units per
acre would range between 16-20 units per acre. The zoning ordin-
ance for multi-family dwelling districts may permit as man y as 22
units per acre. The housing proposal consists of 60 two-bedroom
units and 20 three-bedroom units.
The land cost per unit would range from $5,000 to $8,000.
The sale price may range from $72,000 to $80,000 depending upon
the cost paid for the site.
The course of funding for the project could be from one or
more of the following possibilities:
1. Tax increment financing;
2. Special revenue fund for the park site;
3. Sale of the land to a developer; and
4. Community Development Block Grant funds.
City staff received encouragement to proceed. Final data
will be obtained on what amoun t would be generated from a 12,
15, or 20-year tax increment financing plan.
Council
-2-
A separate memo dated November 9, 1983, entitled "Develop-
. ment Scenerio Preference for Lincoln Hills", sets forth the
staff's opinion on the types of housing most 'in need for Rich-
field. The highest priority is alternative type housing for
young families (i.e. , townhouses, condominiums) . Moderate cost
ownership is important. Housing for senior citizens is another
high priority. One scenerio suggests that if Richfield senior
citizens were to purchase a condo (LSD), the city could possibly
use MHFA mortgage revenue bonds for below market rates to Rich-
field first time family home ownerships if they purchased the
home from a senior citizen who has relocated to the Lincoln Hills
condo project.
An alternative approach could be to have the school system
implement the above program. However, without a land write down
feature, the dwelling units would be priced too high to meet the
modest home ownership purchase price of $70,000 to $80,000.
Re pectf submitted,
John G. Cartwr~ht
City Manager
JGC/ej a
•
•
•
November 8, 198
Development Scen-l_~ =~Qference for Lincoln Hills
Assumption
Approximately t__-_ _~Yn ~ of the site would be utilized as oven
space.
The followi;.~~ _ ~~n~rics f_or housing are presented with the
understanding tha_ ;~~ =ore a final selection is made, the market-
ability of the cc_~.,~ ._' :s ~.~-ould be evaluated. The arguments for and
against eac". scer_~~... ~ .ollows . -
1. Owner-occur..=__. ~~••;r:~ouse type units for young families (2-3
bedrooms) wi ~_ .~ sales price of approximately $72 ,000. The
FiRA and schoc~ ~._strict would jointly participate. in providing
the necessar-,~ ~.~~istance (i.e. land writedown, delayed land
payment, tax i__ ~r~mer.t financing) .
Since 19"~, tie majority of public subsidy has been directed
toward ~.rc-:-_~_ng hcusing for the elderly (Richfield Tower
-149 units, ~~D Condc i78 units and Section 8 existing
about 60= ~- amts cr 144). This suggests that it would
be appr~_.- .~ to now focus public development assistance
on hous-._ _ : ..-Dung ~ anvil ies .
Townhou~==
operatiD~_
~_~ efficient type of dwelling unit thus
__, _re 1D~:~, a.^ advantage to first-time
.~
-2-
::oiT1e .^.ll`l~cr S .
~JJ
~_J
I- a 1984 program objective is achieved, (i. e. construct:i_on
on 30-48 owner-occupied townhouses for young families
market ~' ace for she sa:~e buyers as tc~an~o~~ses at
~incol,~ Mils.
Richfield is a community of owner-occupied 'Housing (66% of
units are owner-occupied).
Richfield is a community of moderate income fa_7nilies and
rouseholds suggesting that moderate cost housing is
appropriate. Trie median household's income in 1980 was
$20,42?, the median family income was $24,941. The house
hold_ income level is about the same as the County and regic~r:.
The family income is slightly less than the County at
$25,133 ar_d the region at $27,931.
In 1980, 920 of the housing was valued at less than $80,000
The site is r_ot close to supporting retail facilities
and is better suited for younger fal-nilies who are more
mobile.
Presumedly t~"ie aC~01?"':1'_^_g open: space :ti'1l1 'Je Lor more
physically active recreatior:al purposes, more compatible
.
__T_ _ - _ - __-- - - ---- - _ - - -
_~ _
•
•
with family housing.
2. Owner-occupied townhouse tv~oe units for elderly linked tc a
"roll over" (below-market mortgage) croaram Urovidir_g for the
_, ~_° 'J_ ..? lam. '~~ ---`'-e-~~..~~' 1C`!e =:~ ~ ':~u?"!~ =?'".!_'
The u~;ber c- persons per household is declining
_r~om 3 . ~9 ; ~? 19 ~ C ~0 2 . 4? ~~. ly 80 . T'_.is surges `s
underutilization of the existing housing stock.
Providing access to the housing for young growing
families would be desirable.
Older home .owners are often equity rich and cash
poor. The sale of their home could result ir. an
improved life style. As .well as allow more physically
able young families to maintain the existing housing.
The elderly benefit from congregate housing.
The marketing of the 'LSD Condo project suggests that
Richfield elderly home owners are reser-aed when offered
a high-rise condominium housing alternative, and may
have similar reservations about a townhouse develop-:lent.
•
By using ~-IHra as the source =or "roll ever" mortgage
financing, a cash resource for nor.-bond proceeds
would be needed.. ;with housing on Lincoln Hills
requiring subsidy, there may not be much additional
_~_
case resource available for this _ rogra:<<.
According to :Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors® the
average sale price of Richfield homes was 571,273 in
i9c2, y~.e -?u.;~_~:~_._,~ sale price =o~ :-TPF~~ eYisti:.g housir_g
programs is $75,00 indicating a ma~°.'{et may exist for a
,~
roil o~~ er" ~roa-~ ~;.
3. Owner-occupied townhouse tyae units priced at market based on
an agreement between a developer and the school district.
The supply of housing for middle to upper irbcome should
be increased.
City resources would be utilized in a manner typical
for private development.
With the limited land and financial resources, the
very few opportunities to provide moderate cost housing
would be lost.
A rental project is not acceptable because a large subsidy would
onl~~~ result in units priced at about a market rate. Richfield.
•
•
already has al^. ample supple, of rental units that :•rould compete with
suca nev; units . (An 89 ~~~lit development with 25 a 3 bedrooms and
$600 rents, ar.d 75% 2 bedrooms with $500 rents could "afford" only a
$200,000 °up front" land.cost.)
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, N?INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 372
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Ricrf field
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation
to Election Judges
As previously discussed with the city council, past and present
election judges who have provided service to Richfield were in-
vited to the November 14, 1983 city council meeting to receive
certificates of appreciation for this service. To date, 55
election judges have said they would be present (see attached
list).
~ J
A brief cookie and punch reception has been planned to immed-
iately follow the presentation.
pect ully
i;
~~~~ . C
ohn G. ar
City Manager
JGC/ej a
fitted,
,~ ZZt-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 371
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 1984 Alley Paving Project - City Project 793
Ordering Preparation of Preliminary Engineering
Report
In November, 1980, the City Council established a policy pro-
viding for the improvement of the city's alleys by concrete paving.
This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved only upon re-
ceipt of a petition, signed by property owners representing more
than 50 percent of the abutting footage requesting such paving.
• The alley improvement projects are to be initiated on a yearly
basis. Those alleys not paved, or scheduled to be paved, are
subject to special assessments for the cost of ongoing maintenance.
In the first three years of this policy, 46 of the city's graded
alleys have been paved as a result of the petition process.
The engineering division has received eleven valid (50% or more)
petitions for 1984 alley paving. In addition, one petition for the
short alley, 68 Street - 68 1/2, Penn Avenue to Queen Avenue, was
received with 38% of the abutting footage represented ors the pet-
ition. This petition (copy attached) represents three of the six
property ovm ers abutting the alley. Signatures were not received
from the following addresses: 6801 - rental property; 6800 Penn,
Insti Print; an d 6810 - owner occupied. The signers of this
petition asked the staff to present this petition to the City Council.
According to state statute, a 35% petition is needed to allow the
council to order a special assessment project with a simple majority
vote. Without a 35% petition, 4 of 6 votes are needed. Because this
petition meets the statutory requirement, staff recommends that this
petition be included in the preliminary report and be considered by
the city council at a public hearing.
It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution
ordering the preparation of a preliminary engineering report for the
petitioned alleys. The preliminary report will be presented to the
city council in January, 1984, at which time a public hearing date
will be set for the proposed improvement project.
sp ct ull~ mitted,
f
j
John G. C ~ twright/
City Manage
' ~
PETITION FOr2 PERMANENT ALLEY IMPR.O~'EMENT
C 1~TY OF R ! CHF I ELD , ~'~ I NNESOT.A
Date Received~~ ~ :3
C
TO: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
We, the undersigned, owners of more than SO percent in frontage of the real property abutting
on .~,, a 1 1 ey bet~•leen and ~ ~ Streets and f~ z ,-, ;,,
and ~ ~ .~ ~:-2 va enues hereby petition that s ur_f-, ,;ub i i c a 1 1 ey be i m~roved by
~rmaner~t Paving of its surface. We are aware tf•~at the costs of such a project will be
wholly or in part paid for through special assessments to the abutting property owners.
SIGNATURE OF OWNERS AGGRESS
1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .~ _".. s U
3 . C.~r~.~~z-~~^ X ~~.z,,.cc~z--~a-c_-r~
4. ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ - ~^ U ~-~-,v G~ .1 c =• ~ d
5 __
6. ._
9. -
1 O . _ _ _ _. _ . __ __
1 1 . .. _ _ .. __ - ___ _ . _ _.. _. --_ -
12.
1;.
14. --- - _. ... _-
15.
i6.
17.
18.
19. >
2
Ex~ined, checked, and found to be in".,proper form and to' signe by the required number of
owners of property affected by the making of the improv pe itioned for. ~
. ~ ~ Percent
see v~'~' s~ ~ ~ y Clerk
Note: Additional forms available from the EngineE"ring ,.^ivision. 869-7521. Fxr. S~f1
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY
REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING, CP 793
WHEREAS, Petitions requesting the permanent paving of the
following alleys have been received:
Alley Between From To
Clinton Avenue and Fourth Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Xerxes Avenue and Washburn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Xerxes Avenue and Washburn Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Washburn Avenue and Vincent Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Augsburg Avenue and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
Blaisdell Avenue and Nicollet Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street
Grand Avenue and Pleasant Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Bryant Avenue and Aldrich Avenue 63rd Street Mildred Drive
Sheridan Avenue and Russell Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Sheridan Avenue and Russell Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
*Penn Avenue and Queen Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
And the petitions have been signed by the required percentage
of owners of abutting property necessary to proceed under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that
the city make the assessable public improvements of permanent
surfacing of the above mentioned alleys, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable
public improvement is required by law in the event that said
improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against
the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is,
therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary
report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to
the City Council at the earliest convenient time;
3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed
improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement
is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or
in connection with some other improvement;
•
-2-
4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated
as City Project 793.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of November, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
•
,~.~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
~~
Council Letter No. 370
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Charter Amendment Adjusting the Dollar Amounts.
of Contracts Subject to the Open Bidding Law.
First Reading.
At the July 11, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
reviewed amendments made by the 1983 Legislature to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.345, subdivisions 3,4, and 5, setting the
dollar amounts of contracts subject to the open bidding law. The
city council referred this matter to the Charter Commission for
their review and recommendation.
This item was reviewed by the Charter Commission at its
October 18, 1983 meeting.
Charter Amendment Provisions
Specifically, the proposed ordinance would provide the follow-
ing
-changed the amount of contracts that must use the sealed
bidding process from contracts estimated to be in excess
of $10,000 to contracts in excess of $15,000;
-changed the estimated contract amount that may use either
the sealed bidding process or direct quotations from
$10,000 to $15,000; and
-changed the contract amounts requiring quotations only
from $5,000 to $10,000.
At its October 18, 1983 meeting, the Charter Commission voted
to approve the charter amendment bringing it into conformance with
the state statutes, and to refer it to the city council for action.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment and Charter Commission
Transmittal Form is attached to this council letter.
i
Council Letter No. :370 -2- November 14, 1983
This charter amendment has been placed on the November 14, 1983
city council agenda for first reading consideration. If first
reading is approved, the second reading and public hearing caill be
scheduled for the December 14, 1983 city council meeting.
spectf 11~ mitted,
~! j ~
' ~
;,~~ ~ ~~~ G~~`Z~ ,r.
John G.~Cartw fight
~- City Manager
JGC/ej a
•
TRAIVS~~LITTAL ORDER
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of
the Charter Comanission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby
respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance
amending Section ~~ _. of the City Charter of the City of Richfield.
We hereby respectfully proposed, reccrr~~nd and submit for adoption,
by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the
City, the attached proposed ordinance this -'~`" day of
•
;/
•
^HARTER AbIEND'~IENT OPDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE AWARDING OF
CONTRACTS BY THE CITY, AMENDING SECTIOiv'S
6.05 and 6.06 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Sections 6.05 and o.06 of the City
Charter of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota are amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City
Manager may make or let contracts for the purchase of mer-
chandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construc-
tion work when the amount of such contract does not exceed
X5;889 $10,000. If such contract exceeds the last stated
amount but is less than X19;999 $15,000, same may be made or
let by the City Manager after first obtaining the approval
of the city council. All other purchases shall be made and
all other contracts shall be let by the council.
"Sec. b.06. Contracts: How Let. Every contract for
the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment,
or the rental thereof, or for the construction, alteration,
repair or maintenance of real or personal property, where
the amount involved is more than X18;998 $15,000 shall be
let only by the council upon the recommendation of the City
Manager to the lowest responsible bidder, unless, the council
shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by a vote of a
majority of the council and published once in the official
legal newspaper of the city. The council may, however,
reject any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the
Charter, the council may by ordinance adopt further regula-
tions for :Waking of bids and letting of contracts."
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective
capon passage and publication in .the manner required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pichfield,
Minnesota by unanimous vote this day of
1983.
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
~l iy
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 369
Agenda November 14, 1983
Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Pathway System Plans for Richfield
Lake and Authorization for Advertisement of Bids
The 1983 Capital Improvement Budget, as adopted by the city
Council allocates funding for the Richfield Lake Redevelopment
Project. This project is separated into two phases, a small
neighborhood park and a pathway system for the area. The funding
sources for this $300,000 project include $180,000 from the L/H/N
Redevelopment Area Project, $15,000 from special revenues, and
$105,000 from what is known as the federal "jobs bill", appropri-
ated through the L and and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON).
The two phases of the project -- park development and path-
ways -- will proceed simultaneously, but separately. The first
neighborhood meeting related to the planning and design of the
park area, to be located in the northwest sector of the area, was
held November 7, 1983. Once the design of the park area is com-
pleted, it will be reviewed by the Community Services Commission
first and then it will be presented to the city council for re-
view and approval.
The second, larger part of the project, is the pathway system.
This concept was discussed during the public hearings on the L/H/N
Redevelopment Area Project. As each phase of the L/H/N Redevelop-
ment Area has been reviewed and approved by the city council, the
pathway system at Richfield Lake has been reaffirmed.
On November 8, 1983, the Community Services Advisory Commission
reviewed the pathway system plans as presented by staff and
recommended city council approval. Timing of this project is im-
portant because the best time to do much of the work is over the
winter months when conditions allow equipment into the site for
muck excavation and to allow sufficient time for settling prior
to the placement of asphalt. Also, the terms of the federal gr ant
requires the city to complete major portions, if not all, of the
pathway work by September 15, 1984. The eight-foot wide pathway
• system not only includes construction of the multi-use trail for
bicycles and hikers, but provides for open vistas for enjoyment
Council Letter No. 369 -2-
November 14, 1983
of open space and wildlife. A drawing of the pathway system will
be available at the :~lovember 14, 1983 city council meeting for
review and discussion.
It is recommended the city council approve the attached
resolution which provides for the following actions:
1. Approval of the r~ath.~3ay system plans for Richfield
Lake as outlined by city staff; and
2. Authorization of the advertisement for bids.
Bids will be opened December 14, 1983, with council action on
award of contract(s) scheduled as soon as possible thereafter.
Respectf ly/~s miffed,
~n ~ ~ ~
~\
ohr. G. Cart fight /
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
JGC/ej a
RESOLUTION N0.
• RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS FOR CP 7055 - RICHFIELD LAKE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the city staff has prepared plans and specifications
for the improvement of Richfield Lake and has presented the plans
and specifications of the pathway system to the city council for
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted
in the Richf field Sun , official newspaper of Richf field ,
and the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for
bids upon the making of such improvement under such
approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published November 18, 1983 in the Construction
Bulletin and November 23, 1983 in the Richfield Sun, an d
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids
will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 a.m. on
December 14, 1983 at which time they will be publicly
opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the
City Clerk, will then be tabulated, will be considered
by the City Council at the first possible Council meet-
ing to be held following the bid opening, and that no
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with
the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid security pay-
able to the City of Richfield for five percent of the
amount of such bid.
Passed by the-City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of November, 1983.
Johr. Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST.'
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
#a~ E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, M~INESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 368
Agenda November 14,1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650
By resolution of the city council, the council approves the
purchase of merchandise, materials, construction or equipment
when the amount exceeds $2,650. There are several such items on
the agenda for November 14, 1983.
Heat Pump
With the creation of the water meter shop an d office space
for water and sewer utility employees at the city garage, it has
become necessary to install a separate heating/cooling unit for
this space. This improvement is required by the building code
because the occupancy is primarily far people rather than for
storage.
Vendors were contacted for quotations on equipment and in-
stallation, and quotes were received as follows:
Del Aire No Quote
Air Systems Heating & Air
Cond. Co., Inc. $3,800
Midland Heating and Air Con. $3,400 (A)
$2,890 (B)
Staff has evalu ated the proposals and found that the less
expensive units (B) quoted by Midland cannot be installed due
to the lack of an appropriate location for the unit. The $3,400
unit proposed by Midland is a Carrier Split System which could be
installed in an adjacent "bay" area with minimum construction and
without reducing the intended use of the "bay".
Staff recommends that the city council authorize the purchase
and installation of the Carrier Split System, fan coil, and heat
pump as quoted by Midland Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. in
the amount of $3,40C. These funds have been included in the re-
• wised 1983 budget.
Council Letter No. 368 -2- November 14, 1983
Dredging
• The revised 1983 budget includes $7,000 for the dredging
of the south end of Norby's Pond, in the vicinity of 70th
Street and Second Avenue. Quotations for this work were solicited
and subsequently received as follows
Mobilization Manpower/Equipment
Bolander $750.00 $340/hour
G & L Contracting $332.00 $315/hour
Turner Excavating $114.00 $320/hour
Dependable Excavating $112.50 $270/hour
As noted, these quotes included costs for mobilization and an
hourly rate for all manpower and equipment. The work would begin
as weather allows, typically after the ground is frozen enough to
allow equipment onto the site without undue damage or extra cost
for set up and operation. If necessary, work will be performed
up to the $7,000 budgeted for this project.
It is recommended that the council authorize the work to be
performed by Dependable Excavating as proposed above.
Fertilizer
Each year, the golf course orders a variety of fertilizer.
Through the joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin County,
prices have been obtained for 1984 orders. The low bid was sub-
mitted by Turf Supply Company at $690/ton for 24-4-12 Nitrogen
Source IBDU and $790/ton for 20-0-16 Nitrogen Source IBDU.
The golf course will use 19 tons at $690/ton ($13,110),
and three ton at $'i90/ton ($2,370) for a total purchase price of
$15,480. However, if the order is placed prior to December 10,
1983, a 9°s discount can be realized, a savings of $1,393.20.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase
of fertilizer from Turf Supply Compan y for a 1984 purchase to be
ordered prior to December 10, 1983.
Agreement for Engineering Consulting Services
The city has had a Master Agreement with Orr-Schelen-Nlayeron
& Associates, Inc. for a number of years to provide engineering
consulting services. Typically, each individual project is arranged
through a memorandum of agreement or supplement to the Master
Agreement .
The 1984 Capital Budget includes a filter console project at
the water plant. OSM was the original engineering firm on the
water plant project and has since been involved with projects
at the plant requiring engineering consulting services.
The city wishes to enter into a memorandum of agreement, not
to exceed $6,000, for engineering services related to the filter
Council Letter No. 368 -3- November 14, 1983
console project. This is a maintenance type project for replacement
of the filter consoles in the filter wing of the plant. The con-
soles control the flow of water to each filter. Because of their
age, the city is experiencing ..problems obtaining parts for the
present consoles. The budget for the project, which includes the
replacement of six consoles, is $80,000. Services to be provided
by OSM include preliminary measurements, detail drawings, bidding
plans and specifications, distribution of plans and specifications
to contractors, taking of bids, recommendation for award, prepar-
ation of contracts, review of shop drawings, and limited field
observation during installation/construction. Bidding plans
and specifications are to be complete and approved by staff by
January 1 , 1934, and the entire project, including construction
and final, acceptance, is to be complete by December 31, 1984.
It is recommended the city council authorize this memorandum
of agreement .
Respectfully,- submitted,
.. _.._
/~ ~~ r,'~
~,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
JGC/ej a
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
~i9
Council Letter No. 367
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization of Amendment to Lease Agreement
for Certain Data Processing Equipment
The city council, during its consideration of the 1984 budget,
reviewed the plans of the Data Processing Division, Administrative
Services Department, for upgrading the city's data processing
system. This upgrading is necessary to provide increased system
capacity for additional word processing use, the new meter reading/
utility billing system, increased liquor operations use, and other
demands on the overall system.
The upgrading of the system will increase memory from 424K
(kilobytes) to 1440K. This additional memory is necessary to serve
more users (from a maximum of 16 to a maximum of 32), and to accomo-
date new software features (for example, the new VISION software to
be used for accounting, utility billing, police information, and
other uses requires more than 309K of memory). The system memory
is also dynamic in that it allocates space as needed, rather than
dedication space to special uses. This system upgrading as proposed
is expected to fully serve the city's needs for the next three to
five years.
The following chart demonstrates how memory might be allocated
at a given time for the present and upgraded system:
Machine Functions Present tpgraded
1. Operating System (basic all- 22K 60K
ocation for the system to operate)
2. Print System 0 60K
(consolidation of printing
functions)
3. System Maintenance (alloca- 0 96K
tion for mgmt/maint. of
. system functions)
4. VISION (data collection/re- 204K 309K+
trieval for police, accounting,
utility billing, liquor oper-
ations, and others)
Council Letter No. 367 -2-
November 14, 1933
Machine Functions Present Upgraded
• 5. FOREWORD 153K. 225K
(word processing)
6. BASIC (micro-computer equiva- 0 90K
lent for users)
7. TERh1INALS (allocation of 39K 72K
3K per each terminal used)
TOTAL 418K 912K
NOTE: All of the functions listed above are available on the pre-
sent system, however, memory is not available for them to run con-
currently. New features available in upgraded software (such as
electronic spread-sheets) will also require additional memory.
Since hardware is only available in 864K and 1440K configura-
tions, the higher amount is necessary for the functions and also
provides capacity for future growth.
Staff has evaluated the hardware necessary to accomplish the
upgrading and the corresponding costs from the manufacturer, Four
Phase Systems, Inc. This evaluation included a review of various
leasing and purchase options, as follows:
IV 90 Current System
Monthly Charge: $ 6,072
Months Remaining 38 (lease ends 2/87)
Total lease pay-out $230,736 (actual dollars)
$208,914 (pf~ation)value at 5% in-
Purchase price: $250,760
(includes 35% discount, and maintenance costs for 38 months,
does not include software upgrading costs*)
IV 95 Upgraded System with Current Lease
Monthly Charge: $ 7,554
Months 60 (lease ends 12/88)
Total lease payout $453,240 (actual dollars)
$392,452 (present value at 5% inflation)
Purchase price $343,176
(includes 35% discount, and maintenance costs for 60 months,
does not include software upgrading costs)
IV 95 Upgraded System with New Master Lease
i Monthly Charge $ 7,706
Months 60 (ends 12/88)
Council Letter No. 367 -3-
Total lease payout $564,648
$484,341
November 14, 1983
(actual dollars with
10% rate increase per
year)
(present value at 5% inflation)
Purchase price $343,176
Iincludes 35% discount, and maintenance costs for 60 months,
does not include software upgrading costs )
*Software upgrading means improvements made to software pack-
ages by the manufacturer .
As shown, the upgraded system, if leased, has the lowest cost
under an amendment to the existing lease ($392,452 in present value
dollars at 5% inflation). This is because the city is able to "lock
in" current lease rates for many system components.
The purchase price of the upgraded system is $343,176, includ-
ing a manufacturer's discount and estimated maintenance costs for
five years. It does not include the cost of software upgrading
services that are received without charge under the lease arrangement.
Staff believes an amended lease for the upgraded system best
meets the city's needs, even though it appears a cash savings of
about $50,000 would result from purchasing the system hardware.
Staff's reasons for this belief are:
1. Under a purchase, the city would have to bear the cost
of any hardware replacement due to failure; a potent-
ially expensive risk. Under the lease, replacements is
the manufacturer's responsibility.
2. Under a purchase, the city would be responsible for the
cost of upgrading software, while the amended lease con-
tinues this as the manufacturer's responsibility.
3. Money is not budgeted for a purchase. If borrowed from
another fund, interest costs alone over the five years
would amount to approximately $82,000
4. The hardware is expected to have little, if any, residual
value in five years. This is~ due to the rapid obsolescence
of hardware technology.
For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends the amended lease
agreement with Four-Phase Sytems. If the city council concurs, the
city manager should be authorized to enter into such an amended
agreement.
i~pectfu~~.y,~ s ' fitted,
,,
' ' ~'
~" lr~Z~- %. ~~~ ,
ohn G art ri `ht
g
`'~ City Manager
/`---
cc: A~ministrative Services Director
JGC/ej a
.~ /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
•
Council Letter No.366
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: D-Day Proclamation (Support of Non-Smoking)
Members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health have
requested that the City Council promote D-Day, November 17,
in Richfield. November 17 is the day designated in Minnesota
to encourage persons to stop smoking.
Attached to this council letter is a proclamation re-
flecting the council's support of encouraging persons to stop
smoking, and designating November 17, 1983 as Richfield D-Day.
Respect
~ ~ ,~
_~~~;
uL G
ohn G.
City Ma
Cully,' bmitted,
Cart right
ager
cc: Chairperson, Advisory
Board of Health
JGC/ej a
•
RICHFIELD D-DAY PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, smoking is injurious to a person's health, an
expensive habit and an annoyance to others, and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health and the
Richfield City Council do encourage persons to quit smoking
and do support "Quit Smoking" programs, and
WHEREAS, Thursday, November 17, 1953 has been designated
as Minnesota D-Day on which date all persons are encouraged to
"break the cigarette habit".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton,
Mayor of the City of Richfield, do hereby designate Thursday,
November 17, 1983 as Richfield D-Day, and to join with the
Advisory Board of Health Members to encourage persons to break
the smoking habit.
DONE at the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day
cf November, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
•
71 //
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 365
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain
Capital Improvements. Second Reading.
In April, 1982, the city council approved public improvements
for 1982, consisting of: city hall parking lot improvements and
certain energy improvements for city hall, the nature center, and
the city garage. These projects were authorized by loaning money
from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to the Special Rev-
enue Fund to be repaid in 1983 from normal revenues of the Special
Revenue Fund.
Resolution No. 6594, approved April 12, 1982, authorized the
transfer of $48,000 from the PIR Fund to the Capital Improvement
budget of the city for purposes of financing costs related to
the city hall parking lot and city facility energy improvements.
The 1983 revised budget for the Special Revenue Fund pro-
vides for $48,000 to be repaid to the Permanent Improvement Re-
volving Fund. First reading of an ordinance authorizing repay-
ment of these funds was held on October 14, 1983, and the public
hearing for the ordinance was scheduled for November 14, 1983.
It is recommended that the city council hold the public
hearing and approve the attached transitory ordinance, which re-
turns the loan of $48,000 to the Permanent Improvement Revolving
Fund from the Special Revenue Fund.
sp~ ct~~y ubmitted,
/ r'C
~~,~ ~ ,~~ -~l L
John G. Car Wright
City Manager
JGC/ej a
• cc: Administrative Services Director
'T'RANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PRGVIDING FOR THE
EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE
SPECIAL F.EVENLTE FUND FOR CERTAIN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDED BY
TEMPORARY FUNDING FROM THE PERNIAI~TENT
IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
•
City of Richf field does ordain
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for the City to expend money from the Special
Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed
in Section 2 hereof.
Section 2: The Capital Improvements a.nd amounts of expendi-
tures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid
from the Special Revenue Fur.d under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of
the City Charter, are as follows:
Energy Improvements
Parking Lot Improveme:
(city hall)
TOTAL
Section 3: The expenditures herein
pursuant to contracts authorized by
$35,000
zts 13,000
$48,000
authorized have been made
council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of November, 1983.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
~ id
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 364
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Authorizing the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Of the City of Richfield to ~,stablish and
Administer Programs for the Financing of Various
Housing Projects
At the October 24, 1983 city council meeting, the city coun-
cil gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would auth-
orize the HRA to establish and administer programs for the financing
of various housing projects authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chap-
ter 462C. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to the
council letter.
With the adoption of the ordinance, the HRA could issue tax
exempt housing revenue bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 462C. The reason for seeking this authority at this time
is because the HRA wishes to apply to the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency {MHFA) for the authority to sell tax e tempt bonds which
would provide funds for the construction of owner-occupied housing
for moderate income first-time-home-buyer families at the Portland
Avenue Development Area (PADA) site. In the future, there may
be additional sites for which this type of financing may be appro-
priate. Adoption of the ordinance would permit the HRA to seek
tax-exempt financing for those sites as well.
On October 17, 1983, the HRA authorized staff to prepare a
housing bond plan for the community and a program for the PADA
project. They also requested the City Council to set November
28, 1983, as the Sate of the public hearing on the plan and the
program. Permitting the HRA to exercise the authority to issue
mortgage revenue bonds would make a complex process more manage-
able and require less staff time. Tracking and assembling the
necessary documents would also be simplified. Favorable consider-
ation of the ordinance at the November 14, 1983 council meeting
will make it possible for the HRA to pursue this financing after
the effective date of the ordinance, December 16, 1983, as indica-
ted on the attached schedule. Successful completion of the public
hearing on the housing bond plan and program scheduled for November
28, 1983, will permit the submission of the documents to the
Metropolitan Council and MHFA.
i
~pec~.full 'ti fitted,
-' ~ _
~ ohn G. Cartw• fight
~~
City Manager
SC :EDUT,~ ~ OR
P~~A 'r.OL'SItiG DEv~=;OP_~! :v^_
•
•
•
Octecer 17 ri~ board ~„eeting, evaluati cn of bcr:d plan/
procrz~t cor_ceot, reca~.::1e_'iCGi.'_cn to City Council
to sctedule public tearing a.^.d First reacnc
o~ ordi^arce con~erri ng pon ._?.~ tie _ ccaers o~
462C.
Cctcber 24 City CGL'i:C11 .«eeting, ccr_sideration Lo al.:ttor;ze
:ublic tearing, Tirst reading o~ ord_na.:ce.
Octc:.er 25 PLblic Fearing notice published. 30 day notice
rea-uired on plan, 1S day notice cn ~rocra*.t.
~ove_::ber 7 Preli:-ai nary Plan/progr~-n s•~mit ted to t~.e
yietronolitan Council for recuired 45 day review..
Changes made at recuest e~ C_ty Council, LEA,
Metropolitan Council.
Vcve~.ber 14 City Council ::eeting, secord reading of ordinance.
Vc~,e:-::oer 16 Orci^.ance published. .
~Ja~i e:".:er 2Q J01nt ~ 3oard anC C1ty COL2r:C11 iTieet? na, SC~";Edliled
public hearing and review a bond plan/progr~-n.
Cecam :er 8 :~!etroPOl=tan COL:*~C? 1 Cor~un~ tV Develocment Cc.~-~lttee
review of bond plan/progr~-n.
Dece~.:~er 16 4rdirance e*=ective.
7eoe_ per 22 Metroooli tan Council review o~ band olar./progra:-n.
DeCeinber 28 t~Di71? Cat' C.i reC~CeSt~r:g Share Oi bCP_d1nC all~iCr;ty
and bond plan/prccr:~~, subrlitted to ti,~~ ~ °or ' ~ day
review oer~cd.
"~=!L'c.:~7 25, 1984 i'T~~a ~oar~ r°V1CT.J5 DC^d ~rCC_r~^.I a:'?d C1Str=~llt°S
banding a12~.:Or~tyT ~.hat-1uSt .^.e lltlli~eC CLr?ng .,.Q~-,
ebrua~ ~ 1 ~~ir^a nevi ew Cc:.tpleted
Febr::arv-rune Develaoer Solicitation and Selection
august 3ond Sale
`~Tove-': ;er Con structicn Star t
ca11, 1985 Construction Camcleticn and Unit Occucancv
i ORDINAI~ICE N0. 1983-38
TRANSITORY ORDINAN CE N0. 17.10
AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO HOUSING: AUTHORIZING THE
HOUSING AND P.EDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO EXERCISE THE PO[ti~~,RS
GRAl~,'TED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHA_pTER
462C ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
CITY ~JF RICHF IELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Findings. Subdivision 1. The City of Richfield
is authorized by Min o a Statutes, Chapter 462C (the Act) to
establish and administer programs for the financing of various
housing projects in the City.
Subd. 2. Section 46X.02, Subdivision 6 of the Act provides
that the City may authorize the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Richfield (HRA) to exercise, on behalf of the City,
all of the powers conferred on the City by Section 46X.01 to 46X.08
of the Act and the HRA has requested that the City grant such
authority to it.
Subd. 3. The City Council has investigated the facts and finds
and determines that it is necessary and desirable to the sound
management of the City and the achievement of the City's housing
goals to authorize the HRA to exercise the above listed powers.
Sec. 2. Authorization. The HRA is hereby authorized to exercise
on behalf of the City the powers conferred en tre City by Section
46X.01 to 46X.08 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th
day of November , 1 98 3 .
b Mayor John Hama ton
Attest:
Cieric Sylvia K. Bergh
•
y ~ ~ ~ ii ~
Washington, D.C.
Tens of thousands of first-time home
buyers around the country can final-
ly breath a sigh of relief about 1984
mortgage rates.
•
® It's now virtually certain that Con-
gress not only will allow continuation
of cut-rate "housing bond" programs,
but will add a new option of tax-
credit certificates to aid consumers.
Mortgage rates for as many as
150,000 home buyers next year -
® one of three first-time purchasers -
sAer +~.i ~ v~J' .~ ~+
~y4 .~ad .a ~ ,Ay .~.,~,~ .,~,r :3 .._~sy, ~ ~ maw
could be kept in the 10 percent
..*ange or lower as a result. That's the
result of one of last •xeek's hectic,
closed-door debates in Congress over
a 1983 tax bill.
When the House Ways and Beans
Committee reported out legislation
preserving the popular housing
bonds and tacked on a new "mort-
gage-credit certificate" plan to boot,
it sent a sarong political message to
the Reagan White House: The 1983
tax bill will raise federal revenues
and plug a few loopholes in the tax
~~~~
Continued from page 1S
fought tooth and nai! for the past
year to kill the tax-exempt housing
concept.
r_ The efiort flopped.
•
•
The bonds, legally a form of munici-
pal financing, are issued by state and
local governments to attract inves-
tors' dollars 'nto gpitat pools aimed
at fitst-time purchasers. Since inter-
est on the bonds is exempt from
federal taxation, they carry signifi-
cantly lower rates -and produce
home mortgages 2 to 3 percentage
points cheaper than those generally
available in the marketplace.
- (When you read about droves of buy-
ers gimping out overnight at lend-
ers' doorsteps to get 9 and 10 percent
.,loans,, the mortgages almost invari-
ably are financed by tax exempt
bonds. In many communities they
account for over half of ail pur-
... chases by first-timets.)
The T7eesurY doesn't like housing
bonds because they cost the federal
governttlent money - as much as
5300 million ayear, according to
estimates prepared by budges offi-
cials. Proponents of the bonds, how-
ever, call those estimates hogwash.
They calculate that the loans are
actually net revenue.. producers for
Untie Sam because they help sell
teas of thousands of dwellings a year
to people who'd otherwise be frozen
out of the market.
The ripple effects of these purchases
- roughly 50,000 mortgages worth
S8 billion -put thousands of people
to work in construction, manufactur-
ing.and other key industries.
Although th'e final details of the 198#
housing-bond plans won't be nailed
down until Congress passes its major
tax legislation sometime in the next
- several weeks, the inclusion of the
new tax-credit-certificate option
' seems assured. Originally proposed
by Senate Finance Committee Chair-
man Robert Dole, R•Kan., the House
version of the plan would work like
this:
code. But it won't do so at the ex-
pense of the most ~nalnerable seD
went of the American home-buying
market, The modest-income family
that wants a chance [o own a house
rather than rent an apartment ad
infinitum.
Although the president never got'
personally involved in the bond
brouhaha, his Treasury Department
- and even the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development -have
Harney continued on page 65
. States or localities could decide to
put a portion (or a!1) of their tax-
exempt housing-bond issuing author- ,
sty into "mortgage-credit certifi-
cates." The certificates would be dis-
tributed through local lending insti-
tutions to qualified modest-income
buyers who apply for and obtain con-
ventional mortgages at prevailing
market rates.
The borrowers would get a nonre-
fundable federal-credit certificate
allowing them to subtract a fixed
percentage of their annual interest
payments -say 15 0~' 20 percent =-
right oft the bottom line of their
annual federal tax bill. They'd a~~o
get to take We regular deductions for
I interest and property taxes, less the
amount of the credit.
1`, In•effect, the certificate-pl'an would
' cut the after-tax mortgage costs for
the buyers through ayear-end ta~t~
credit bonus, rather than through
subsidized interest rates all through
the year.
Under the House plan, states or lo-
calities could give some buyers tax
credits as deep as 50 percent of the
interest they Paid. That would open
home-buying opportunities to people
who'd never qualify under regular
tat-exempt bonds.
Who's going to be distributing these:
certificates and when in 1984? It ~~ill
be the same local and state agency•~;
that currently offer cut-rate housing
bonds - pravided they choose to ta~;e
this optional approach. Check wiflz
your county, city or state housing
agency later this year, once the tax
b111 completes its tortuous passage
through Congress.
Keaaeth Harney is editor and pub-
lisher of the Harney Washington
Real Estate Report, a biweekly
newsletter.
~z~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 363
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Conversion of NSP Owned Street Lights from
Mercury Vapor to High Pressure Sodium
Earlier this year, Northern States Power Company informed the
City of a program to convert the NSP owned street lights from
mercury vapor to high pressure sodium. There are 667 NSP-owned
street lights in the city, mostly located on the east-west streets.
This voluntary conversion program as proposed, was rejected by
the city staff for the following reasons:
1. A $5.00 per light conversion charge;
2. The HPS monthly rate per light (energy and maintenance)
was higher than the mercury vapor rate.
Thus, the conversion as proposed would have had an ongoing
negative effect on the city's operating budget. Subsequently,
NSP has informed the city that on September 8, 1983, it filed with
the Public Utilities Commission a request to lower its rates for
high pressure sodium street lights so that they are the same as
those charged for mercury street lighting of an equivalent light
output. They have also filed to eliminate the $5.00 conversion
charge-and to no longer offer mercury vapor lights for new in-
stallations .
Provided the commission approves NSP's filing, NSP will begin
converting all mercury vapor street lights owned by NSP to high
pressure sodium at no charge for conversion, provided the conver-
sions are made according to NSP's schedule. Because this will be
a large conversion program (NSP owns more than 70,000 street lights),
the work will be scheduled over several years. Any mercury lights
that require maintenance during this waiting period will be con-
verted to high pressure sodium at no charge. If conversion is
desired prior to NSP's schedule, a charge of $20.00 per light
will be assessed.
A representative of NSP has indicated that the east half of
Richfield is scheduled for conversion in 1984; the west half of
Richfield is scheduled for 1985.
Council Letter No. 363 -2- November 14, 1983
NSP has asked for the city's written concurrence with this
• conversion program. The city staff recommends concurrence with
this program, and requests council approval to direct the City
Manager to submit written concurrence to NSP.
R~spectf~rlly submitted,
~ ~.
^~ ' C l /
/ / L ~ C~ C . r! /
,~ /John G . Cart lght
'~,~/ City Manager I'
~/
cc: Community Services Director
JGC/ej a
L~
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 362
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation Concerning
Definition of Lot and Property Line, 1325 W. 68th St.
On September 12, 1983, the city council in its role as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, conducted a public hearing on
an appeal filed by Mr. David Johnson, 1401 West 68th Street,
concerning the staff determination that the property located at
1325 West 68th Street would meet the city's minimum lot area
and lot width standards. The city council also reviewed the
matter of a proposed reconveyance of a portion of a highway ease-
ment by the State of Minnesota to Mr. Mark Ban wart, the owner
of the property at 1325 West 68th Street. The council deferred
action on these matters until vovember 14, 1983 and referred these
matters to the planning commission for their review and recommenda-
tion.
The city ordinances are somewhat unclear concerning whether
lot area, width, coverage and setback are to be determined by
using that part of the parcel which is not covered by street and
highway easements or by using the total underlying fee ownership.
The determination being appealed to the council is that the lot
area, width, and coverage should be ascertained by using the
legally described property lines, irrespective of street or high-
way easements.
The specific case in point involves a lot which originally
had an area of approximately 10,250 square feet. Of this total
area, approximately 8,190 square feet is included in an easement
owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for highway
and drainage purposes for Interstate Highway 35W. The remaining
2,060 square feet does not include highway easements, and is the
area for which the property owner has surface rights. If the
10,250 square foot lot is used for determining lot area, lot width,
and lot coverage, then development of the lot could occur without
variances being issued. On the other hand, variances would be
required if the 2,060 square foot area is used.
• Additional information has come to light since staff's init-
ial determination on -this matter. First of all, it is staff's
Council Letter ~o. 362 -2- November 14, 1983
opinion that while the ordinance definitions of lot and property
• lines are unclear, the intent is to consider only those areas out-
side of street and highway easements. The reasons for lot area,
lot width, lot coverage and setback requirements are to provide a
decent living environment by ensuring that there is sufficient
light, air, and open space and that separation of structures from
each other and from sources of pollution. If street and highway
easement areas are included in the lot area definition, then there
would be no way tc guarantee that there would be sufficient separ-
ation of structures from roadways because in many cases, the set-
back requirement would be less than the easement width. Houses
could then be constructed with zero setbacks, close to the street,
and with very little open space.
If street and highway easements are included in lot area de-
terminations, it would be difficult to meet the intent of the goals
and policies of the city's comprehensive plan. The existing resi-
dential areas in the community have developed with lot areas (which
are free and clear of street or highway easements) of 6,000 square
feet or more. The comprehensive plan indicates that a land use.
goal for single family residential areas is that "city plans and
policies should be designed to enhance the existing low density
residential environment and encourage the continuing mainten ance
of neighborhood character." The comprehensive plan land use poli-
Gies also indicate that the policy will be "to preserve and en-
hance the predominately residential character of the community
and to maintain compliance of all development with the intent,
if the not the letter, of regulations established by the city
council, to guide and direct the development within the community."
The development of a single family residence on a 2,060 square foot
lot is clearly not in character with other development in the area
or within the community as a whole.
The lots in the neighborhood surrounding 1325 West 68th Street
have widths of 60 to 75 feet, depths of 135 to 225 feet, and areas
of 8,775 to 13,500 square feet. As far as staff can determine,
the smallest developed single family residential lot in the entire
community is 40 by 127 feet and has a lot area of 5,080 square
feet. This lot is clearly substandard in size and would not be
consistent with the existing character of that single family
neighborhood or with other single family neighborhoods within the
community.
The city's zoning ordinance is the regulation established by
the city council to guide and direct development within the
community. The property in question is located in an "R" resi-
dential zone and the zoning ordinance requires that a minimum lot
area of 6,750 square feet, a minimum lot width of 50 feet, a maxi-
mum lot coverage of 25 percent, a minimum front setback of 30
feet, a minimum rear setback of 25 feet, and minimum sideyard set-
back of five feet be maintained. As indicated previously, the lot
would have a total area of only 2,060 square feet, which is only
• 31 percent of the minimum lot area required by the zoning ordinance.
The site would have a lot frontage of 37 feet, again below the
minimum required by the zoning ordinance. The specific building
Council Letter No. 363 -3- November 14, 1983
plan has not been filed at this time so compliance with setback
and lot coverage requirements cannot be determined. The develop-
ment would not meet the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance
and, therefore, would not be consistent with the above mentioned
policies to maintain compliance of all development with the intent
of regulations established by the city council to guide and direct
development within the community.
Another source for clarifying lot and property definitions
is what is considered when the city specially assesses properties.
Special assessments are typically based either on lot frontage
or lot area. Areas of lots subject to street and highway easements
are not included when special assessments are determined. This
indicates that lots have been defined as the area excluding street
and highway easements.
Finally, staff investigation has determined that the tax de-
scription of the lot in question at 1325 W. 68th Street specifically
excludes the state highway. City assessor's records also indicate
the market value, assessed value and taxes are determined on a
lot which is 2,400 square feet, rather than on the total original
lot area of 10,250 square feet.
It is the staff's opinion that the above additional informa-
tion indicates that the proper interpretation of the definition
of lots and property lines in general, and as it specifically re-
lates to the property at 1325 West 68th Street, is the area unen-
cumbered by street or highway easement. The unencumbered area
should be used when determining if minimum setback, minimum lot
area, minimum lot width and maximum coverage requirements are met.
The planning commission reviewed the proposed reconveyance of
a portion of the highway easement at its September 27, 1983 meet-
ing and found that the reconveyance would not be in compliance
with the city's comprehensive plan. A copy of the resolution
passed by the planning commission concerning this matter is attached
for you r information .
The planning commission consider the question concerning the
proper interpretation of the definition of lots and property lines
and unanimously advised the council that the proper interpretation
of lot as used to determine lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and
setbacks, is that tract which is unencumbered by streets, highways
and public rights-of-way.
It is recommended that the council consider this information
and an y testimony presented at the November 14, 1983 council meet-
ing, and subsequently take action concerning the appeal of Mr.
John son .
ectfu,~ly'~ matted,
~ _-~
~ ,~~~~, ~~ctiUV ~~~
John G. Car~~,right~
City Manager ~~
JGC/ej a
RESOLUTION No, 48
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT RECONVEYANCE OF
HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the reconveyance
of a portion of highway and drainage easement described as follows:
That part of Tract A described below:
Tract A: Lot 19, Block 1, Wood Lake Highlands Addition,
according to the plat thereof on file and of record in
the office of the county recorder in and for Hennepin
County,, Minnesota; which lies westerly of line 1
described below:
Line 1: Beginning at a point on the west line of
said lot 19, distant 112.29 south of the northwest corner
thereof; thence run east at right angles to the west
line of said lot 19 for 11 feet; thence run northeasterly
to a point distant 42 feet easterly (measured at right
angles) of a point on the west line of said lot 19,
distant 25 feet south of the northwest corner thereof,
thence run northerly to a point on the north line
of said lot 19, distant 44 feet east of the northwest
corner thereof and there terminating; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
reconveyance would serve no public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
reconveyance would encourage development of a substantially
substandard lot which would not be consistent with the
comprehensive plan land use goal of enhancing the existing low
density residential environment and encouraging the continuing
maintenance of neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
reconveyance would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan
land use policy of preserving and enhancing the predominately
residential character of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the
reconveyance would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan
land use policy to maintain compliance of all development with
the intent,, if not the letter, of regulations established by the
city council to guide and direct the development within the
community;
•
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission
finds that the reconveyance of the above described portion of
highway and drainage easement to the owner of the property
described as lot 19, Block 1, Wood Lake Highlands Addition, to
not be in compliance with the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield
this day of September
Mark Ahlquist, Chairman
Richfield Planning Commission
AT`.I'EST
Connie Hoverson, Secretary
•
•
;i
~..
~', S1CQ'~'G~-} ~ ;' ~o ~t to ~l-~ 2 ~ t.J 2i C, ~ --
j ~~.
,;
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ _ R
b tl~ ~
10-2'7-g3
TD ,S po,Nr ~L~NC - - -
Pr oPo~~ u, any
l ink ~. eL~~ _ _.~Joo ;sg. f-~ . / .. .~ 35 ~1. : , . . ~ . •
..5,~e. o~ house ~
~S2e. I So h~'`2 tL
of S,-re.) ~ ~ .. NOga~,
.. _
.. ~ .,_
..
. t ..
.. ...
eX~STtN~ Ric
~~ ~~~
~a~hW
yw h y '.fir- _•C :''fir
•
. .. _ . .
....
... _ .. .:
. ..
.__
~/oi Tl~ SCE ~~
~C
~~
BQULEVARD
1c~
AREA
~~ <4 1
~J - -- ~ J - - `I 2
~. ,\::
~'~<~:
~. "
Y..'. .
:.
°•
4(~ .'~
•.:} .
~~
t
L^
Y.'
:~'•~.:
. r.
!~. ~~,. .a..
~::
'~.
.r'
d.'
.~'~
i'
. L' ~:~! i
zC:~ :j:~
~~ L'
:~.•
~y:;~
~'
:~:
~•.~
' W . - ~+...~ .
i 1 .
:; i.:+
-1.' :.1 •~1.'rt 'wilr.t.
... •~... ~• - ~; .~;4.
~~.•.•.. •.y •.~ ..... .. ..... .,.1`vi+~°.v/7i .•'.+,~ {ii~l~.',~i4i~lL°•... 'i1'~L.1.1.:..:•(~.'.
•'~~. .
• p •~;• '.a..:
~'~~
.~.• '~~'
2
~ ti' _~ :~ .
;~.
~~.
:~:
.`r.•
::~•' o
•,:r. _
77~~'~~ :a :.
: s-!r~:: ~ ' -ea
..,~..
r
~~
~~. ~.. _~.: .~. •x.
~ .C° 9e'y. a'F.
T '.i`.
°.
~.
:fie, ~~.a~;°.°,°.°:•:-.-:•:•.•'z°,•.•.•.'.°.•.•.•.~.°....°.•......:
f .1L .............x.........°....°.......°.......;:~:::::::::~:a°:.
::~:.::~ ~'-:~:~:~:~°~'`'~'~:`:`:°'~~ '~'~'~'~'~°~'~'~°~°~'~°~°~°~'~•'•~°:°:•:•-'' GU~fz~1T LOT
ri'. .'tr l.'.'~ ~'. °~
~; ;>
~~. . .~,~
~•• ~~`
~~ = ~ i
:., .
::~~::~:::~F c ~ ~~~ ~ c u ~ 1~,1.~
.'.'Y .'.'."/
1
('. ~
7_ _-
- . ~ to
1~.1 ~
N
t~
a
~~
.~
o \
_. _ ~
O
-4-
Com-nissioner Luettinger said that he would vote against the special
use permit, because as a member of the HRA, he was concerned about
the future development of the Cedar/66th area, and did not want to
see any new development in that area till HRA plans were firmed up.
M/Jensen, S/Kaugh, to recommend approval of tree scecial use permit
rec:uest at 6405 Cedar Avenue South since the oronosal would not
adversel'v af=ect the area, ar~d is otherwise compatible with the other
uses in t:~e zone .
Potion carried 8-l. Voting against: Luettinger
\ ITEM -s 5 , INFORi`dATiON LETTER r, 22 , REVIEW OF RECONVEYAt~7CE OF HIGHTVAY
/ EASE'4IENT IN CONFORb1ANCE PiITH THE' CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLA~~1
Rick Jopke presented the information letter and staff report.
Mark Banwart, 5912 N. 83rd Parkway, Brooklyn Center, applicant,
appeared. He said that when he acquired the property at 1325 W. 68th
Street, he had fee ownership of a parcel which according to his
definition of lot size, was within the guidelines for development.
However, the issue before the Planning Commission is not whether develop
went of the property is li:~ely to occur, or whether it could occur on
either the lot as it row exists or after the pro"posed conveyance,
Banwart said. The only issue facing the Commission is whether or net
reconveyance of the easement area currently held by the state would be
in compliance with tY:e comprehensive plan He said that in 1982,
the Minnesota Depar'~-ment of Transportation sent a letter to the city
requesting review of the property and its easement, and the city's reply
was that there was no objection to the easement reconveyarce as long
as the drainage over the lot remains unchanged. Banwart said, again,
that he felt it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to make
its decision about the reconveyance based cn future development plans
for the site--since that development is a separate issue to be
considered in October.
David Johnson, 1401 W. 68th Street, stated that if Mr. Banwart's
planned grading and development restricts water flow on the street,
residents would probably have to take legal action. He also disagreed
with Mr. Banwart's contention that alleyway arld other easements be
included when determining lot size.
Ralph Leben, 6845 Hul~nboldt Avenue South, appeared. He said he questic~ne
whether the site ir_ question would be compatible for single family
development. If the land is reconveyed, he felt it would imply that
it was all right to build. An alley easement and a freeway easement
should be considered as two different things.
•
-5-
Omer Lindeberg, 1407 ;+T. 68th Street stated that if the Planning
Commission allows the reconvevance, the r.eichbors would still
fight proposed development. Sven with the easement, he said he
didn't consider tre iot as buildable.
Community Development Director, Dennis Kraft, said that the lot,
as he considered it, was substandard. The purpose of the
conveyance would be, to make it less so, but it would still be
substandard. The comcrehensive plan i.«clies that a house on that
size would still be inconsistent with single Lz:~ri1y residential use.
Commissioner Hoverscn stated that she be lieved the conveyance in
and of itself is not inconsistent with tie comprehensive plan, and
y~.hat granting it would not mean that the Planning Commission was
approving the e:cisting or proposed site for a single family
residence.
Commissioner Kauth stated that he was totally against building on a
lot of substandard dimensions, and agreed that the conveyance had
nothing to do with the issue of a "buildable lot."
Commissioner Quam stated that the role of the Planning Commission is
to look ahead, and ~~.hat any action taken cannot be separated from
its possible consequences. Building on that lot would be detrimental
to the neighborhood, according to the neighbors. Therefore, the
possible consequences of the conveyance would not in compliance
with the purpose of the comprehensive plan.
/Qua.*n,
reconve
wz-~, to -th
S/Jensen to adopt the Resolutior. X48, findi
t.~.at the
•
Commissioner alquist said he would oppose tr.e resolution as presented
for the reasons noted by C. Fioverson.
Commissioner Jensen said he he found it difficult to separate tine
reconveyarce from the proposed use of the lot.
Commissioner McDermott stated trat the purpose of tine reconveyance
:night be to allow the construction of a structure on the site, which
would not involve future appearances before --the `Planning Commission.
Therefore, she would vote for t~`~e resolution presented by staff.
Co.:L-nissiorer Luettinger Stated that he felt voting against the resolt?cn
lion would indeed by encouraging development on the site. He stated
that a lot divided by a sound wall should definitely not be considered
buildable.
•
- __ _
--
_-
-6-
Motion carried 7-2. Voting against: ~hlquist, ~?overson.
Cor:mtissicners Ahlquist and Eoverson voted acai nst the r ~ ,~-;
_eso_li~_cr_ as
presented because in their opinions, the reso luticn was a completely
separate issue from question or lot size and whether or not the lot
would be buildable.
ITE..4 =b, Iti;:OR;`L~TIOy LETTER =23, DISCliSSTOV CO~iC R7I`iG DEr I~iITIO`1 0.
LOT AND PROPE~T~ LIME
Rick Jopke presented the letter cor_cerning the definition of lot and
property-lines to the commission. ~e said that the matter would be
further discussed at the October 25th Planning Commission meeting,
and instructed commissioners tc contact City Staff with questions or
comments they have on the issue.
- - -"- IT r:'~i ~ i , I,tr OR~`~1ATION LETTER ,r 2 4 , EY-LAWS Ccir~~iGE ...-
Changes in the Planning Commission bylaws, which would allow the City
Council to request special meetings and would delete the power of the
chairman to waive the time schedule for special meetings were intro-
duced at the P.ugust 23rd Planning Commnission meeting. In accordance
with the bylaws, the Planning Commission will vote on these bylaws chan
at the October 25th Planning Commission meeting. (Copy of bylaw
changes attached)
LIAISON REPORTS
•<
Scrool Board, HRA and Community Services Liaison reports were
given.
M/McDermott, S/Quail to adjourn.
Motion carried 9-0.
:iagcrie "^_cDermott, Secretary
Richfield Planning Commission
•
31`/~
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 361
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Cable TV Legislation In Congress:
Cable Telecommunications Act of 1983
WHAT COUNCIL ACTION IS PROPOSED
In the att~cl:ed communication from the League of Minnesota
Cities (LMC), council members can read an excellent summary of
HR 4103, the Cable TV legislation which is extremely harmful to
local governments which support home rule powers.
The City Manager concurs with the LMC that the proposed legis-
lation must be opposed as strongly as possible and on several fronts.
Richfield can take the following steps to support the LMC, the
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, members of the National League of
Cities and local governments concerned about home rule. Richfield
can inform:
1. Our congressional representatives by resolution;
2. The U. S. Conference of Mayors who are vigorously
opposing cable legislation;
3. The National League of Cities by instructing our
delegates to either oppose outright federal legislation
or support amendments to the NLC policy which will re-
tain regulation of cable tv at the local level;
4. Our Southwest Suburban Cable Commissicn sister cities;
and
5. The League of Minnesota Cities.
Also, it would be recommended that our congressional repre-
sentatives be contacted to learn if they are supportive of our home
rule position, and, if so, urge our congressional representatives
to write a letter to us. We, in turn, can provide copies of the
Congressional letters of support to the organizations listed above
(This procedure is recommended by the U.S. Conference of Mayors).
• OBJECTIONS TO CABLE TV BILL
The key points which are objectionable in HRA 4103, and its
Council Letter No. 361 -2- November 14, 1983
Senate Companion S. 66, are:
1. Rates (basic, installation, rental reconnection, etc.)
will be deregulated for most communities, including
Richfield;
2. Franchise renewal becomes almost automatic;
3. The annual franchise fee shall not exceed 5% of gross
revenues derived from operation of the system.
The policy position proposed by the City Manager as a governing
body policy statement rests upon the support for retaining home
rule. Each city should retain the authority to determine if rate
regulation should be retained in the local franchise. For cities
which favor deregulation let these cities make tre decision. The
objection is having Congress decide a local issue. This violates
the principle of home rule.
For many cities, especially cities with few channels and an
old system, rate regulation remains as the single most important
power the city has to negotiate with cable companies to upgrade
cable services.
In communities where cable tv penetration reaches more than
70%, and the customer cannot receive television broadcasts with
an antenna, cable tv is very similar to a public utility (telephone,
gas, electric). City councils in these communities need at least
the choice as to whether rates should be regulated or deregulated.
• On the question of franchise renewal, the more authority the
city retains to evaluate and open up franchises for new bids, the
greater the negotiating position will be for cities.
Lastly, if a city and a cable company operation wish to nego-
tiate a greater franchise fee than 5%, this option should be de-
cided at the local government level.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES POSITION ON CABLE TELEVISION
The October 24, 1983 issue of Nation's Cities Weekly, a NLC
publication, said on page one that "in a letter to Rep. Timothy E.
Wirth (D. Colo), Chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee
and sponsor of cable legislation (HR 4103), NLC President Charles
Royer, Mayor of Seattle, outlined in detail NLC's opposition to
numerous provisions of that bill."
The NLC position has changed dramatically from 1982.
In 1982, a NLC Committee negotiated a compromise cable tv
bill with the cable industry which became S.66. When cities across
the nation learned about the loss of local authority given up by
the NLC Committee on Cable, a movement was started by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors (cities with a 30,000 population or greater),
to present to Congress the objections to the NLC/cable industry
compromise.
Council Letter No. 361 -3-
November 14, 1983
The Royer letter (see above, 10/24/83), now advises Congress
that the ".... NLC position in support of compromise cable legis-
lation would be reassessed by the full membership at the annual
• meeting in New Orleans, November 26-30." Our City of Richfield
delegates to the NLC annual convention can help local home rule
by supporting amendments to, or repeal of S.66 and HR 4103 when
the conference votes on the NLC position on cable legislation.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of the Companion Resolu-
tion to this letter.
STATUS OF HR 4103
Although hearings on HR 4103 may be held by the end of October,.
the subcommittee has made it clear that it will address cable only
after two other measures on its current agenda, telephone service
and broadcast deregulation, are completed. Thus, subcommittee
markup of the bill could occur as early as November or could be put
on hold until next year. Rep. John Dingell announced in a recent
speech that no cable legislation would move through his full committee
until the cable industry and municipal governments "get together",
stating that "every mayor and city council in my district" has vowed
to oppose any legislation similar to S. 66.
Enhanced services and common carrier issues will continue to
play a controversial role in the proceedings. Telephone interests
are likely to oppose RH 4103's exemption of cable from common
carrier status as vigorously as they opposed previous common carrier
related measures in S 898, S. 66 and other bills. Opposition may
also materialize from SMATV operators unhappy with the multiple
dwelling provisions, local governments which opposed S 66, local
institutions and community programmers who may lose equipment,
facilities or funding support, municipally owned utilities concerned
with pole attachment changes, or minority groups seeking EEO-affirm-
ative action support.
~^ J
pectf~ally ubmitted,
~ ~%~ // ~
(, , ~.
ohn G. C Wright
-~' City Manager
JGC/eja
7t,~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MII~TNESOTA
Office of City ~-tanager
Council Letter No. 360
Agenda November 19, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Variance to the Zoning Ordinance to Con-
struct An Overhang to Project Four and one-
Half Feet out From Dwelling, 2028 West 68th
Street.
Proposal
Mr. Scott Sharpe has requested a variance tc permit construct-
" ion of an overhang on the front of the dwelling at 2028 ~~?. 68th
• Street. The existing house has a 30 foot setback and the applicant
wishes to construct an overhang which projects four and one-half
feet out from the house and is two feet more than permitted by the
city ordinance. The stated purpose of the overhang is to help
alleviate a wet basement problem and improve the appearance of the
dwelling.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a 30-foot
front yard setback be maintained;
2. Section 3.2?, subdivision 3, paragraph 3~, indicates
that non-accessory building eaves may extent'. into the
required front yard not more than two feet, six inches;
3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 cites three conditions that
must be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
which must be present and found the following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties
or similar districts. It is staff's opinion that no
special circumstances are present on this particular
• lot. The lot is similar to other lots in the area and
the community as a whole.
Council Letter No. 360 -2- November 14, 1983
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
• the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance
would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The
property owner can continue the existing single family
residential use on the lot.
3. That the granting of the application will not materially
and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re-
siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materiallydetrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to improvements in the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion
that the proposed addition would not be detrimental to
public welfare. The aesthetic impact of the proposal
would be minimal because the proposal involves the exten-
sion of a roof overhang and not a wall or extension of
living space into a setback area. There `~~ould still be
sufficient setback from the street and adjacent dwellings.
•
•
Planning Commission Discussion at the 10%25/83 Meeting
The planning commission felt that if
the extended roof is considered a part of
thereby establishes a new building line.
could then enclose the porch area without
The conclusion was that this request canny
request for a roof projection variance.
the variance is granted,
the main structure, and
In the future, the owner
seeking a further variance.
~t be considered merely a
However, the city attorney has advised the staff that if the
council grants the variance it may impose conditions in the arant-
ina of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent
properties.
Staff Recommendation
Since the request does not meet the three conditions regarding
variances, staff must recommend denial of this variance request.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission on a 6-2 vote recommended that the
variance be denied because the three conditions necessary for
granting variances have not been met.
JGC %ej a
spect~ul~.,~submitted,
John G .;' C twr igh
City Manage r
•
•
~f
0
w
N
O v
L1...
..__
~-
_~~=~
-~~.
~~ .
~.,
~_ ~'~
~:
_ ~ / 1--` ~ / ~ J ' _
~ ~~~~ ,
`- .J
~L,~ ~/-'
,~~-;
~~,, ` c, ~~ ~ .
~ ..
. ~~ ~.,..
,~~
,-_--~
r~~
_~_~
Y f / ~.
,/
- . , \.
~A, ~'
~;
.1
i
~ !~I 11 _.~ __i
j , ~_~~ _-i+ -i
.. ' , . i; ~L~, i
~:,.i!~~
j ;-~~~
,. ~,
I. ~ ~
:_:
r '
~~
~,
` T'Ili ji
~~
i ~~~1'~ I
it ,;
~~ ~, -,
„~; ; ~ :.
' ~~~ ,
,i ill ,f
~~il, ~
.. 4
~..~- i ,
~, , ~ ~
f
ICI±~!G~,I!II
_~_
_-_
C~~ (~.
~®~~
-.~ m
~ I! ~ !~
' ~ ~ ~ i
~:
i,
,P C
~,
~ ~ ~ i
i ~•, ~ .
w I I ' ~
~ P
y ~ ~ I ~ I I~ i 1
~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~li~i ,~~
~~I
1. ~i~
•
•
i
~,~
/~~`°'~. 5~.~ .tL t ~ ~ ~' V'~r~ t~~"2G.tL,~, t~+./~-^j we L L• f4t-L...~ W ~-+'~.r
` f / ''
~/~'~- f }rZ,^ ~ O ~ c r`l C.~ c1 fi S ~'~ ,,G~ TK` G i ~,.~ t ^s r_ 4 ~ ~ ^~'~ ~ rJ .!
14 i~_+A-''' {-,~.L~ ~i f ~..~,-~.. ~ t.,E. ~- t r ; a ~° ~ /-r~ c_: + Siiy t-~;. ~~ ~~ ^-t i
1
~l-P1 S w r t. L.. t ~"„- j~ -C~ v C.... ~ ~ ,~-(' 1`~ ,i?-, ~ ~4 ^c c- ~ .~''"t~3 +-4-~7
~" !_
~~2 O "~„GT ~~ t~i2o ^c i v.>~ L,+L SiZ~ ~ w h-t~ `, ~~cs.~ `` t "t b'a
t~-SLM.E~^tT~ ocs^t~ ELt.Mt~'4TC..~ ~L-- ~`t£.~/~ ~~2 4,vi~-'~,ZS wiy-t.
Co^c Si 5 i ~^i i .Ly Ac...~c.~ .
3 ~- ~ ~.-t cE.^cs~ ~ ~ o~ ~ a2. ~-a~ +~r ~~ ~o versa .°~ ~...
C~ /~+ ~ t/ E-7" 1 "'l C.. ! Z"~"3 S ~ t2A ~ S~ S +'~ C... C~ ~'{ ~'k.~ L~J u-.o ~°{ t~d~,
/H. ~ N.E.. i Cs r-}- r+G ~--5 1'i-~s ~...~. S ~c ^~3 ~..~ ~ /~.:J ~ ~ C: S r3 t~ ~ "t +'~~ ~~.®r~ - ~
.
Co ^t S~.r+ i E ~ w s '~.~ "jl'Ef l/~ St two ^~ r4 i 1.~ ZG, S e
I ~ O'er .
~..~~ ~
~~~
~S<.D ~f i t..... , 5 c'? i....
- __
~ I
-- - -~ = -
z._• --
~ -
,
_ _ _
t
,~
`r
i ,
_ ~
- ~
/~
~ --
--
`~ , -~
~, ,
~r
4
.~, / z /
t-
__ ,,
~~' I~ ~~~ ', ~' ~,>, {~l ~
~~- Z - - - ~
I'~' l\ z f~Ai I '
cr T -
-T - _b -
\~ ~~ ..1\ _ ~ I ~ _ 1
WcS 1 _ 6ith
..>: .
- - SS J: _
~~,~ i
.~~ / _ ~ ~ I
.9 a
Q ~ 'r. ; ~ .
-- _ 1
i
- , °'
I _
-
f _-S
_ 7~•~~_ ~ 8 3 ~ IC II 12 •t i ~.
{~ ~~ 3 ~
-=~ -='~-3~~~9 ~ -' FOREST - __ DRIVE
i• ~ ~:' J
~ - ,
e
o IUD Q 5 - a=.~~~'~ ~ -` 2 - I
r _.._. -_ _. - C - 7D°°~o'b°°.o" o a~ a°°ODO~~ o "0S°' ;'D'a P'° a 7 - o ,N./
ti ~ T l~ _ np ''~ ' bo'c'o°~'i° ° _ °°c~'°°~ '°~'~'D°a ° _ °
- - -~
n ~_
•~ ~
N., i , '. y - ~ , ltJ
r
,,,~~7
, ~ ,yr, ~v
'~:: J
ia= :,:
y
~s~
--•- ---
/ 3''~
_.
0.!1°
~~ ~i~
s S ~~
~,\I~ Y o'~~\l
~~~ItT ~- ~ /~
~~~t~ n . z Cgk~,3~'
G
~\\
~:j`a~s ~. IOS13 ~~
,
~
(3a~c z ~~~~
`319
~7 ~3 /~~
~
!~ R
~~ -
4 0
,
~
. ~
1 - -.
~
~~
H
. _-
~ ,'
'Y,J, • '~~~,~
Y
, F
~~~: 12 ,:
NLAfv
'7 HS~ ~~ z~ly~,
°;~~~ „
L- - ~ ~o~v
~ _-.
Ig311~ z !-+1
`.
~~i 6 ~ ~-!Z.f
~ _
~~-
ts.!
Q
°O~°,D,o,D~~J ~Y' ~% ~ C ° D ,
1~ ' q ~ J _ 3 X171
- --~.
V
~
~ti~~13 ,
a „
-
,112
~
, , N 4 .,
J
~
~tt
'~y
r
Y y ~
.
L'
,
a ~t3
r\~ 6
•
/j`
W
I~QI ~ s ~ _ -.-.t \
a~ ~
.
~,
y ~~: ~
W
Q
o
y
.~
~ ~..
C y~ ~ ~~ , y
4 ~~-~ ~ ~
,. .
~ _\~ ~ ~2
. ~~
f ~~ l
~~t
~/' ~ ~. z ~Z~ `
13
~~~ ~ 1 ~ Y1
Y 4~J'
-
}~ol~c
it ~ ~? a
s ~ .
~ yl s z
j A~ 9
8 ~ ~ ~
;~~
i` ~ ~ '
~
^ ~ ~~
,a,
' ~
\ C C -' ~` -
1
a
' WEST ~ 69th
-
- ----~--
_SIGNATURI=S -- - -
ON
PETlT10N
z~~~
'~t~~~~i~.' (,
~~~_• r
_
"
! ,
~ i
~
1 i~ti3~'
C'h '~QN~j~
~
S
l
1~ - -_ -- - /
3 ~ ~y.~- 1
3 `10 ,
~
1.
L i
1
Cp,~,~
-- `
_ G 1~~
- - ,21i7
~ q 6$l
/ ~-`~~iji4 ?, ~ 1 {~,~il
Z
~ !i~'ll9 ~ ~ z
Q _
~`~A5 5 /~ Z ,`~7 13 ,
~,~ ~ C
~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~~ s , I~ = ~Ca
-~ Q ~ I
O ~ Y
~.~ 3 (~~ r`~
~
11 y r___ _- _
_
_-~: q r~GJl, J
J, j
\
ri 11,0 -- - ~ 4
n S~A~~o ~
i
ui
Q _ ~~?l ~ ~
~ ~ : i+~ c 5
~,8 a
1 t~
,
v
C J
e
` '' i
~
3
'
s, .~,~, .'Mid ~ ~
f
~'1~~'O~p~ a;,t~';
~ I,
. ! ~X
...~ ~
.
,,y,?tlGN~~N~S 3-
~
•
~
f. ,<
1
^• ?°,~, L''~S'=' : C? Vc:~_a~~tC~ 0 C~IJ~.~ ~-p+r~rr'1. to S Z ~ ~ r~ s~._
?CR PU:~~CS r C~ Ca 1 ~~i ~-~G-r; p ~ 0t= ~~J~~t ~-~-~^t ~o
~ .regal Desc~ _^t :or_ .
~ ~ ~~
r4'@ ~ _.__E L~..':Ce=S_C':^r' ~ C?=_ ~ .v" v- __.s:`G-roc ~G~^ ___ :C _`.~:G ~c
J J ~ I
d. C'T~ ..CSC=~ :;EG ~ C.O :II.=~C`.T ...~:~C:y_ 'r~-- ___ `-.:cam .'G==d: C° ?S : °^.::`Sj-..dC o I
S~Cir~.;:r_ C~ C~dP.°~ S'c ~ .rC i
nQG_ SS
~ ~~
(:...
~ ~ a o o °-o ~- ~ .~
* S:,y^ d ~'.+.'..'~S :~IdV RO ~ b2 ~.°;1CtT ~G Ce^aC° ~~~@ D...° ::~C~CP. 1S 3:. ~:,dL' ?.^.~ .
__ - - -
T_. _ _ - _ - _ __ _- _ _~ -
-- --
T
zZ~
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~1INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 359
Agenda ~?ovember 14, 1983
The Honorable .~~ayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Cour~cii P~lembers
Subject: Receive and File Notice of Hearings, N.W.
Bell Application to Change Telephone Rates
Attached to this council letter is a Notice and Order for
Hearing regarding the application of Northwestern Bell Telephone
Company to change its schedule of telephone rates.
At this time, the only action necessary by the city council
is to receive the.Notice and Order for Hearing and place it on
file in the office of the city clerk.
~.e~Spectf~,Yl.ly~ mitted,
~ohn G. Car Wright
City r-Tanager
JGC/ej a
BEFORE THE MINiIESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COhIMISSION
•
Terry Hoffman Chairman
Leo G. Adams Comr,issioner
Roger L. Hanson Commissioner
Cynthia A. Kitlinski Commissioner
Lillian 'warren-Lazenberry Commissioner
In the Matter of ttie Application of the DOCKET N0. P-421lGR-83-600
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Authority N07ICE AND ORDER
To Change Its Schedule of Telephone Rates FOR HEARING
for Customers Within the State of
Minnesota.
FINDIP+GS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the Commission) finds that
a hearing is necessary in the above-entitled matter to determine the
reasonableness of certain rate increases proposed by the Northwestern Bell
Telephone Company (Bell or the Company). The Commission is authorized to
conduct such a hearing by M. S. 9 237.075.
II. PROPOSED RATES
The rates proposed by Bell would generate an additional b109,401,000
of annual revenues. The effect of the proposed rates is summarized as follows:
Northwestern Beil is requesting a jurisdictional rate increase of
;109,461,000, which represents an overall increase of 27.8% on local
service revenue. However, the average increase proposed for basic
residential service is 76.6% while a decrease of 5.1% is proposed for
basic business service.
A copy of the Company's requested rates is on file in the offices of
the Department of Public Service and is open to public inspection during
normal office Hours. A copy is also available for public inspection at the
Company's business offices. ~ _____
The Commission has suspended the rate schedule filed by the Company
pending the hearing ordered herein. The Commission will issue an Order
establishing interim rates on or before November 28, 1983.
III. PROCEDURAL OUTLINE
The hearing on the petition will be conducted~by a Hearing Examiner
appointed by the Chief Hearing Examiner of the State of Minnesota and wiil be
held in compliance with the applicable laws relating to the Public Utilities
Commission, the Administrative Procedure Act (M. S. Ch. 14), the Rules of the
Office of Administrative Hearings (9 MCAR 44 2.201-2.222) and the Rules of
Practice of the Public Utilities Commission (Minn. Reg. PSC 500-521), to the
extent that they have not been superseded by the Rules of the Office of
Admioistrative Hearings.
These rules may be purchased from tr.e Documents Section of the
Department of Administration, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota
55155, 612/297-3000.
The rules provide generally for the procedural rights of the parties
including: rights to advance notice of witnesses anal evidence, right to a
prehearing conference, rights to present evidence and cross examine witnesses,
and rights to purchase a record or transcript. Parties are entitled to
issuance of subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend and produce documents and
other evidence.
Any person intending to intervene as a formal party to these hearings
must submit a Petition for Leave to Intervene to the Hearing Examiner and
serve the petition on all existing parties. The petition must State how the
Petitioner's legal rights, duties or privileges may be determined or affected
by the Commission's decision in the matter and shall set forth the grounds and
purposes for which intervention is sought and shall indicate the Petitioner's
statutory right to intervene, if one exists. All parties have the right to be
represented by legal counsel, by a person of their choice or by themselves if
not otherwise prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law.
. A Notice of Appearance must be filed with the Hearing Examiner within
20 days of the date of service of this Order if any party intends to appear at
the hearing. The Notice of Appearance is not required if the hearing Bate is
less than 20 days from the issuance of this Order.
Potential intervenors shall attend the prehearing conference
scheduled below with information which will facilitate the scheduling of
hearings permitting all of the parties to present their evidentiary views in a
manner and within a time frame which would be as fair and expeditious as
possible. Matters which may be discussed include: the reasonable time period
required to prepare direct testimony for filing on all of the issues; the time
period for preparation of direct testimony by intervenors; recommended areas
for hearings to receive public input regarding the petition; time required for
parties to prepare far depositions and other discovery; and other matters that
will facilitate full and fair hearings on the petition.
If persons have good reason for requesting a delay of any hearing,
the request must be made in writing to the Hearing Examiner at least five days
prior to the hearing. A copy of the request must be served on the Commission
and all parties.
Failure to appear at the nearing may result in the issues set out
herein being deemed proven. A passible result is that the rates proposed by
Bell may be accepted by the Comrnission.
Following the contested hearing, the Commission may approve all or
any part of the proposed rate increase but may not approve an overall increase
greater than that proposed by the Company. However, the Commission may adjust
rates for classes of customers to levels greater than those proposed by the
Company and make other rate adjustments based upon the testimony of other
parties. If no person contests the proposed rate increase at the nearing, the
rates may be approved as proposed.
Any question concerning informal disposition of this matter or
discovery of information should be addressed to Karl W. Sonneman, Special
Assistant Attorney General, 780 American Center 3uilding, St. Paul, Minnesota
55101, 612/296-6030.
All other questions Concerning this hearing should be addressed to
the Hearing Examiner assigned:
Bruce Campbell
Office of Administrative Hearings
4th floor Summit Sank Building
310 South 4th Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
612/341-7602.
. ORDER
1. A contested case hearing concerning this matter shall be held, commencing
with a Prehearing Conference at 9:30 a.m. on November 18, 1983, at the Large
Hearing Room, 7th Floor, American Center Building, Kellogg and Robert Streets,
St. Paul, Minnesota. Potential parties are encouraged to file prehearing
statements with Hearing Examiner Bruce Campbell and serve them upon all
parties on or before November 10, 1983.
2. The Company shall facilitate in every reasonable way the investigation of
the Department of Public Service. All parties shall furnish adequate
responses within 10 days to all reasonable information requests from other
parties.
3. This Order shall be served on the Company who shall mail copies of the
same to all municipalities and counties in its service area and to such other
persons as the Department of Public Service may request.
4. Public hearings shall be held at locations within the service area of the
Company.
- 2 -
•
5. In addition to the individual notification as ordered by the Commission on
October 21, 1983, the Company shall also publish notices of the pre hearing
conference, evidentiary hearings and public hearings in the form of newspaper
display ads, at least 10 days prior to the dates of their commencement, in
newspapers of general circulation in towns within the Company's service
territory. The heading on the display ad, RATE INCREASE NOTICE, must be set
in 30 point, or larger, bold face type.
6. This Order shall become effective immediately.
~B~Y ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
~ '1` `~
Randall D. Young
Executive Secretary
SERVICE DATE:
(SEAL)
OCT2i~
-3-
•
zz8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 358
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of On-
Sale Liquor Licenses
The municipal code requires that the city council set the
date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on-sale liquor
licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the
official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such a hear-
ing.
It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for
the December 12, 1983 city council meeting to consider the re-
newal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Ground Round
Restaurant, the Godfather, Inc., and the Consul Corporation, dba
Maximillans.and Chi Chi's.
~Pectfu 1y/ mitted,
/~ i1
ohn G. Car, Wright
City I~Ia~ager
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
JGC,/ej a
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
~~$
Council Letter No. 357
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
I an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointment to Human Rights Commission
•
There is one vacancy on the Human Rights Commission for a
student appointment, with a term to expire upon graduation from
high school. Four students have applied for this appointment,
and copies of their applications are attached to this council
letter. The council also arranged individual interviews with
each of the applicants prior to the November 14, 1983 city
council meeting. The interviews will begin at 6:30 p.m.
This item has been placed on the November 14, 1983 city
council agenda for council consideration.
JGC; ej a
s e~tfu~ly~~ s
;'
~'
ohn G. Cart
City Marvager
t.
tted~
t
~J
_ /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 356
Agenda November 14,1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council
Subj ect
•
Discussion of Dates to Hold Second City
Council Meeting in December and First
Meeting in January
The city council is scheduled to meet on a regular basis
the second and fourth Monday of each month. In December, 1983,
the fourth Monday falls on December 26, which is the Christmas
Day holiday, and the city hall offices will be closed on Monday
and Tuesday of that week. The City Charter also stipulates that
"on the first business day of January following a regular muni-
cipal election, the city council shall meet at the usual time
and place for the holding of council meetings. At this time
the newly elected members cf the council shall assume their
duties. Thereafter the council shall meet at such times each
month..." The first business day in January, 1984, is Tuesday,
January 3, as Monday will be a holiday.
At this time it is recommended that the city council cancel the
second council meeting in December, 1983. If a need arises, a
special meeting can be scheduled. The council should also con-
sider scheduling the first council meeting for 1984 on Tuesday,
January 3.
This item has been placed on the November 14, 1983 city
council agenda for council discussion and consideration.
espectfu ~y u fitted,
f ! - ~~ .%
~,
//John G . Cart r fight
(. City Manage~~ ,,I
JGC/ej a `~
~ti3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City rlanager
Council Letter No. 355
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
rlembers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council i2embers
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Council
Salaries. First Reading.
Chapter XII, Section 12.02 of the city ordinance establishes
the salaries of the city council and provides that the salaries of
the council members be reviewed by December of each year. There-
fore, a discussion of this item has been scheduled for the Novem-
ber 14, 1983 city council meeting.
Council salaries were last adjusted in 1978, when the salary
of the P~layor was increased from $5,670 to $6,000 per year; and
Council Member salaries were increased from $4,221 to $4,500 per
year. The city charter, as amended ire July, 1982, stipulates that
"The Mayor and members of the Council shall receive payment as set
by ordinance. No change in salary shall take effect until after
the next succeeding municipal election'. This means any change
would not take effect until after the ~dovember, 1984 election.
An ordinance amendment relating to council member salaries
is attached for council consideration, as well as the most recent
survey that we have of council salaries in other metropolitan
C1t1P_S .
Also attached is a statistical summary indicating how Rich-
field salaries compare to the 24 metro cities over 20,000 popu-
lation. If the city council gives first reading approval to an
ordinance amendment, it is recommended that second reading and
the public hearing be scheduled for December 12, i983.
spec fu 11
"~.
John G ,' G
City M'anag
submitted,
twrigh
JGC/ej a
.. ;t~ ,.
Richf field
~.
' members is
. , ~ Subdi~
~-
Mayor is {:
`member .of 1
. ~ :after ,..the ,~
`.`such officE
here
h,OC
Passed.
i~~innesota, t
! ' ~ ` g ~.
` y ' -~ .
/''< t +a
~~
1
i
! y; f
!.
L `'S
~4
~_ ~ ; `t.
~~ ~:
~~ ~ ~~'\
:~
S
~•
~ t - ~
A _~ f S
` ,,'s}'
t :9
~ h
F W t ~' ~ ~~
~ Af'
!. , .
~ i1
~° ~ 6 T.r r
c r f , ;' r
3 t ~ t t& r
!
\:
~~
i 1 ''
... ... '. r ,.. i
'.1~.
.. k~ ' 9.' S ~ ~'t, i ~ ., / l
~ i t
`s.i r }.
y c ~ 5 ~ ~ t `~
f i
y %
? t
- _ ~ t ~ ..
~>.
/~
~,
+ ~ Y ~,
~ . s ~ ,~ ~. - ' ~' t .' .
~` _ r k I
~' f ~ C , 'rig
K
,, ? { i
!.
t , ~ ~ !
_ 2 f ~ r~ ~ F
<~ - ~ f .
. -n - ;
~,~
' ~ , t", ~ ;~ ' o
.. nc-... t. t: ..... .. wJ
U
•
ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES
(24 cities over 20,000 population)
MAYOR 1983 1982 1981
Richfield $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Mean $5,570 $5,237 $5,028
Median $5,450 $4,800 $4,800
Richfield to tilean +8.95% +1 4.56 0 +1 9.33 0
Richfield Rank 6th 5th 5th
(with four others) (with two others) (with one other)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Richfield $4,500
Mean $4,015
Median $3,850
Richfield to Mean +12.07%
Richfield Rank 6th
$4,500 $4,500
$3x823 $3x670
$3,600 $3,600
$1.70% $22.610
4th 3rd
(with 1 other)
•
•
W
C/~
Q
J
Q
C/~
t./)
J
.-~
U
.--.~
O
~l
W
}-
V
LtJ
J
W
.~
.,.{
a
U
.,~
cd
;~
.~
rl
O
O
i->
w
O
O
.~
cd
.,~
U
O
N
.C]
'~
•rl
O
U
M
ri
r-i
N
D,
r-i
h
•
•
O O O O O G O C C C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U] I C ~ O O G O G O O O O O O ~ C C O O ~c7 O O O G O O
G; r! O i1J O *-{ O C N CL G; Cr G 67 C1J ~~ O C C') CO O N C~ lC) N C~ O ~••
.~ C C~) N C n ~": CrJ ~" C^, M C7 C'7 C'7 ~' tS) ~ ^; C7 Ch M M C7 ~ ~ M :') N
Y I i-; r:
H u v*-
z
0
;_; c o C G c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 0 o c o G G o
L7 F=; O U O ~ G O O D G O O O O O ~n C O O O ~) O O O G O C~-
C O N O M C *--I C;.J rJ d'' L 6) C: O C~ GO ~'i+ O O M CO C^ N N ~ ~ O O Gh
-- I rC ., .. .. .. .. .. .. ..- _ .. .. ., ., .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. _. .. .. .. .. ..
~ C: I i'7 C7 L . ,^') L'J C7 M M C'7 M ~+ IS) `~ . . C") C) C7 C~ ~ tf+ ~i C : M C]
~ T"+
~ Cf,-
~-7
~"
C!]
C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O L~ C C C C G O
~,~ C C O ~' O O O ~% O O C O O C LO C O C O O O O C C O N
C, C; N CO O *~ C C O C~ Cam.. N O C~ A~ C:~ O M N C7 C~• N ~ GO Li O C`~
`Z O ~ C7 C9 ~;+ C') M C9 C~ C`7 ~, C^ C7 ~, tf) c,+ :'] C'7 V" M C~ c`+ '~' c+ C ; C7 N
z ~
~ c-9- .
~s~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~A
~ a :~ ~-;
+~ +~
o c o 0 o c o C G o G o o c o 0 0 0 o G o c o 0
~, o L~ c~ o 0 0 0 0 o L7 0 o c o 0 o O~ o 0 0 0 o c
O r' ( C~ Q+ N c' ~ a N N C9 CJ UJ C9 c' ~ tC) 'J 07 N <t+ O ~i+ v' C c9
;~ M .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _ .. ., ., .. .. .. .. ., .. ., .. .. .,
~ C'? C') C. C~ t,+ ~ ~ d' ~' C'7 tf) C9 L7 c+ v C'') C7 v+ Cn C~ L~ tC) Cfl C')
r-i
CO-
O C C O O C O O G C G G O G G G G G O G G O O G O
0 0 0~ o 0 0 0' o o L~ o c o 0 0 o O~ C o o c o co
y{ N O N N ~' C~ CO O N CO C9 GO CO c~ CO N ~J N N O O Cam- C O G~
C C .~? ~,`' C~ `^, ~+ m 6) ^' d+ Cr3 t0 C<? t ~ ~' -;" ~!! ci+ c~ '9 C9 CP tf? C~ M
y~ r-i
~ f~-
rA
O O O C O C O O G O O O O C O O O c0 G O O C O O
~7 O O C G'J O O G O O O ~) O O O O O U GO O O O O O
~ . , cA N ca ~ co ~ N ~^a ~n ~ cp cfl c] x N o L7 co 0 0 o C o c~
`~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~;~ c~ ~ cfl c:. ~ ~+ o ~ ~" c c9 cfl ~ c~ c~
Z C, ~+ C~- ~t+ O ~i
~i ~ ~ ~J
41 tf}
N
r~ rr~~ ~
rVrJ ~yy
C~ H
,~, O
•a N N ~" N N N N c~ N N N N N N N M N N c'') N C~7 N N +--{
C7 G:
'X+ ~-`-t
O'
O{ O
C I CO i/~
07 ~
O' ri CJ]
NI
~ (=+ GO CYJ r-{ O ^] c' d Cn C7 N C7 CA L7 ~: C ^'~ O~ L` tC) ri O r--i L7 CO
O U *-~ L7 M C.: C^, l` N N ~," M N N C~ C~] C7 CA C9 M r-I tf) C`] C^, C7 M
_=, H ~ tf) Cfi N C^, «J O CA tf) L~ G N ~ :f) '7 C7 N O C9 Cl~ COQ,. ^] V7
O ~ Cy ~ r--I CO t-I r-n C*) tf) O L(7 t1J O C,O O N G :O 6~ C) M rl l` IS) N r-1 N
~ ~ N N M .~ '~ M N M N N ~ c'7 N N N M' N N C`') Ch CO c' N N
~ ~_;
O R+ ~
+-+ O ~;
H G, w
~ ~
O J
/-+ 7, ~ ~ GJ ~ ~ e3 Ma
rl O U ~` ~ w ~ ~ ~ c3 ;-~ ZS O UI c3
F~-s r-± r-I •ri O O O ~ ~ ~ UZ c3 ~ '~ '~ r-! r-i ~ ~ .~ O ;-, ~••>
~ Z ~` C!3 O O ~ + r-i O .'~ cA •,~: • ri ri .^-. ~, ~' .''~ 3 ~ U Ul ~ • r-f
~••~ ~ ~., r-i r-; N ;-i ~ O O F1 cd '~ ~ O ~ c3 •r1 iU ~ ~ •r-I O ;-~ O .~
U ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ Ca U U U W ~ ~ C7 ,~ ~ , }' ~ ~ (~, ~ ~ ~ C/1
•
•
•
_ _ _ _ __ _
tl~ 0 0 O O O '~" V' O O GO O ~" d' O O M
~ r-i v~ C d~ d'' ~ L~ C~'~ CO CO N ~ 07 07 GO ~7' to
CJ c0
G~ ,~ G: (~ N N N N rl N ~ rl N N N N ~ N ~
a r+
H U ffT
w z
U
W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cfl
C7 (~ O O O O O V~ ~ O O ~ O O O O O c'")
O W r1' CO '~!' d' ri C`•• M W CO Cfl O ~ C7 CdJ V~ tt~
a
'J+ G7 C7 M N N N ri N *'1 ri N M ri C`') ri N *-~
~ ri
6 ~
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 0 ~+ cfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ c~ c+ cfl a+ ~r T+ ~ o co co 0 o co :~ ~+ a+ co
07 C*~ C*~ N N N r-i C*) e-i r-i C'") M r-~ C~ N N r-i
z ~+
~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ O O O O O co O O O c0 O O O O O N
O r-1 O C9 CO O 67 07 C7 di O 00 O G7 CTi [~ O rl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~ 67 V+ c'•) M C7 N ri C~7 N M N M C'7 M N M N
~ ~
Ef}
W
O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'cJ+
0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O ci' 0 0 ~+ O O N
~+ N O cr CO O 07 47 P? V' O N Cfl d' ri t`~ O r-i
t~ 00 .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. ., .,
~ O ~+ tf) c'~ C~") N r-1 Q'1 N M C7 M N c'+, N M N
a ~
~ ~
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a 0 0 0 0 0 0o co 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0
~ M O V' CO O 07 O O ~' O c9 c0 ~" c~ c0 O L~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z`l-. ~ r," In C7 C'7 N ri ~' N 0'~ M M N '~ C~] M N
~ ~
O
O V] w
~ ~ Z
ON ~ ~ N N N N N N N ~i' N N N N N N N N
O C7 tx
W W
~ ~
O
O O
O O ~
O r•i U1
~+ z
z W ~+ ~+ ['~ l~ Cfl .-i O c'7 e-I M C'7 N O O C~ [~
~ O U C*~ 07 Cfl N t'7 C~ O O N N O N O O N O
O N Cfl ~ N 00 M r-I C~ tf~ 07 r-1 O t1' C+') N ~7 N
a H a
W ~ Q to CO Cp N ~ L~ ~ N ~-i N O C" L~ N 00 O
z o w
N
a
a
a
0
a
x
F
H
W
H
H
U
a w
h
a
'C
a
H
U
H
z
m
.~
~n
.,.,
m ~
a~ w ~
a~ ~ ~
p •~ O 3 ~, O cti
C~ •~ O O •~ c3 3 N
L'3 ~ ~i ri t7 ~ '~ ~ ~ r7'+
an F, ~ ~ •~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 v1 ~
Cd a3 •r-I •rl i~ ~ '~ .L". Cd N •r•I Q? r-i ~2
O ~ ~ U] ~' r7 .1' i'3 S-I.s'i ~ ~ ~ •r•1 U1 ~
~ o v~ o~~ o o~~ o .~ +~ o 0
~ z~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, D4INNESOTA
Office of City Manager
M Council Letter No. 354
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
I~lembers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Approving City Manager's Election
to be Excluded from PERA
State law was amended in 1980 to allow city manacers to
choose to be excluded from the Public Employees Retirement Associ-
ation (PERA). The change allows city managers to channel con-
tributions that would otherwise go to PERA to some other retirement
system, because city managers have a mobile profession and often
do not reside in any one sate long enough to vest in the pension
benefits of the state system.
Richfield's new city manager has chosen to apply to be ex-
cluded from PERA, and the application requires an accompanying
resolution from the city council approving the exclusion. Lender
the exclusion, city and employee contributions that would have
gone to PERA will go to the ICr=1A-RC, an independent, portable
retirement fund sponsored by the International City Management
Association.
It is recommended that the council adopt the proposed resol-
ution as requested by the city manager.
~~
~,.R"e~pe,c t fu~1
~ ~ i,~J
/ ohn ~G . Car
City Manage
JGC/ej a
'a~bmitted,
f ~ S ~ ~ --
fight /
i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION
OF JOHN G. CARTWRIGHT TO BE
EXCLUDED FROi1 THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT ASSOCIATIO~i
~dHEREAS, John Cartwright has notified the city council of his
election to be excluded from membership in the Public Employees
Retirement Association and has provided this council with a copy
of his written election to do so, all as authorized by Minnesota
Statutes 353.028.
MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield as follows:
1. The council makes the following findings:
(a} John G. Cartwright is the city manager of the
City of Richfield, 1~~iinnesota.
(b) That position is provided for in the home rule
charter of the City of Richfield.
(c~ He was duly appointed to serve in that position
effective October 1, 1983, and he has held that
position continuously since that date.
(d) The city manager is the chief administrative
officer of the City of Richfield.
(e) Acting under Minnesota Statute 353.028, he has
elected to be excluded from membership in the
Public Employees Retirement Association, effective
upon his filing such election with the Executive
Director of that association.
- (f) In making this election he has agreed that he will
not at any time in the future seek any authorization
to purchase service credit for any period of excluded
service. He has further agreed that this election is
irrevocable.
2. Said election is therefore approved.
3. A certified copy of this resoluti~~n will be provided to
the Executive Director of said association.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 14th day of November, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Berah City Clerk
Capitol Square Eu~ld;r,g
St. ?aul , .'-'i nnesota 5101
Teiepr.one (612) 296-i4c"0
ri~PLICnT?Ui,t ~V~ Cy~i iJ~J~I i_:~^~ ~C~ ?~,?`~!^,,`^~1ir' ~Y A CII i~ ~'~"~~"r'C
..-~~r,-1J~~
! a~.~_. l ~ ° Chd,oter 25 cacti on 1 , d ,roes a ci ` r~a;,aaer as f o i i ows
~ e ` ~~
". ~ 1 } a p?rsen duly dppoi r,ted to and 'r,ol di nc the ::esi ti cn of
city ,m~anayer In a Plan B Statutory city cr ~n a home rule City oaer-
atln~~ Under t!'e 'Cv^UnCll-iiid^aQer~ fCr*n Of QOVerr;me,^,t, Cr (Zj a ~crSOn
ap.o0,nted tC dPd r~olding the pO51t10n OT chief ad;,~lniStr~tiVP Or"?leer
of a ^ome rule c^arter city era statutory ci;.y rursuartLLto a charter
rrovi sion, ordinance, cr resol uticr, establishing such a pc;s ; t ior: and
prescribing its du*_ies and re spensibilities. ."
I the undersicred, d city mdnager d5 defined, elect t0 be eXClUded from c~embership
i n the rubl i c ~,~,p i ogees Reti re~„ent Association.
I will not at any time in the future seek any authorization to purcha.e service
credit for any pericd of ~xcluddble service and I understand that this elccticr.
is irrevocable.
became a Clt}' manager ds deflned Under ~ aws 1981 , Chanter 254 ~ ''' ,
r , TOr u'le ~ ; ty OT
~~
L~ ~ j ~ y~,^ _ ~,
_ ~
\~' ~_.-
!Signature ~--
,~ ,
~.
,-
Subscribed and shorn. to, be
/+ ;
;-1 i day of ',~~ %~/~%~~
~_ / ~i .
~~
j ~.~C C- ~t
i
_ ;'
Ore il".e~tn15
? I
;~ ,~
,~ 1 g ~~ ~-
~ / ,~~i
C ijty',
~~~,
,.
treat Address
;. ,
trite, yip Code
~~~f.;~3
~~~
. ~
COUntY
sh. : ;tiv.tiv~.,;1,v ,.~, ~ . ,
ra; j,~. 23.
. ,•.v~,... awv.w~
- r, ~~"~!~ .~i i _ ~ r~~LIJT 1'.. ,~ GI -~;~ r.'r\,= .111 ,i'^. v'Jv`I '~7~ I,L~J F. L1T\i ,^.?'~.,.J~ i~~J '{~'~~liZ
~9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City r•~anager
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council P~Iembers
Subject: Special Use Permit Request to Construct
A Two-Family Dwelling, 920 W. 66th Street
Proposal
The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment (HRA) is in the process
of acquiring the property at 920 W. 66th Street from Hennepin County.
The HRA has requested that a special use permit be approved to
allow the construction of a two-family dwelling on the site. The
existing single family residence would be sold and moved off the
property, a ne~~ two family dwelling wo~~ld be constructed on the
site and the units sold to moderate income families of three to
six members.
Zoninq Ordinance Requirements
1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3e indicates that two family
dwellings are permitted by special use permit, in R
Residence Zoning Districts, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) the site shall abut an arterial or collector street;
(b) two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for
each dwelling unit. One of the spaces must be enclosed;
(c) only one access to the street shall be allowed.
2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5 or 5a, r~~uires that it be
found that the development requiring a special use permit
not be detrimental to the public welfare and that it be
consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, any
officially adopted redevelopment plans and urban design
guidelines thereof, and with the city's parking regula-
tions and landscape guidelines.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed. the special use permit request and found
the following:
1. The site abuts 66th Street, which is an arterial street.
Council Letter r1o. 353 -2- r~ovember 14, 1983
2. Two off-street parking stalls will be provided for each
• unit and one of these will be enclosed.
3. There will only be one access from the street to the site.
4. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposed two-family dwelling will replace a deterior-
ating single family dwelling on the site, ~~~ill help
stabilize the residential use of the block, and will deter
commercial encroachment. into the block. The two-family use
will be compatible with surrounding land uses which include
single family dwellings, two--family dwellings and multiple
family dwellings.
5. The proposed two family use would be consistent with the
city's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan indicates
that the site should be developed as a medium density buffer,
which would include two-family dwellings. The proposed
use would also be consistent with the city's goal of pro-
viding additional housing for low and moderate income fam-
ilies. At the July 26th planning commission meeting, the
commission found that the acquisition, proposed two-family
use and disposition of this site and the adjacent site to
be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
6. The site is not within the L;~'H/N redevelopment project area
and, therefore, is not subject to the redevelopment plan and
the urban design guidelines.
7. The proposal would be consistent with the city's offstreet
parking and landscape guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the special use permit be approved.
Plannir~a Commission
The planning commission unanimously recommended that the
specialuse permit be approved.
,~
spectfully ubrnitted,
i ~,r ~' ~
,~ohn G. Ca' twright
/City Mana~g
JGC/ej a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members cf the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for a Variance to the Setback Zoning
Ordinance to Construct an Addition to Existing
Garage, 6800 Pillsbury Avenue
Proposal
Mr. Gordon Rosengren has requested a variance to allow him
to construct a 10' x 20' addition onto the north end of his exist-
ing garage. The existing garage has a setback of one foot on the
south and west sides, and a two-foot setback is required. There-
fore, the existing garage is a non-con~orming use. The proposed
addition would have a one foot setback along the west property
line. The proposed addition would be used for storage and would
have siding to match the residence.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
i. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that garages
have a two-foot setback from side and rear property
lines.
2. Section 3.29, subdivision 2, indicates that noncon-
forming structures cannot be enlarged.
3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 sites three conditions
that must be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
that must be present and found the following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties
or similar districts.
• It is the staff's opinion that no special circumstances
are present on this particular lot not present on other
lots in the area. The lot is of similar size as other
corner lots in the area and the community as a whole.
Council Letter Pdo. 352 -2- November 14, 1983
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
• rights.
It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance
would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The
property owner can cer.tinue the existing single family
residential use on the site.
3. That the arantincr of the application will not materially
and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re-
siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public ~rielfare or injurious
to improvements in the neighborhood.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed addition could
be detrimental to the public welfare. There are no struct-
ures on the adjacent property close to this one which would
present any problems. However, if at some future time the
adjacent property owner chose to construct a garage or
other accessory building, one could, in fact, be construct-
ed within two feet of the property line. This would be
three feet away from the existing garage and proposed addi-
tion at 6800 Pillsbury, which could present firespread
problems. The Public Safety Department personnel recommends
that, for fire protection purposes, the exterior material
of the addition be brick to match the existing garage and
• that no windows be present on the west wall. Subsequent
to the planning commission meeting meeting, Mr. Rosengren
indicated he would agree to use brick on the west side of
the proposed addition.
Staff Recommendation
Because the variance request does not meet the three conditions
for granting variances, staff must recommend denial of this variance
request. The applicant can construct a building without a variance,
if the building would be located five feet from the exis~~ng garage
and two feet from the rear property line.
Planning Commission Discussion at 10/25/83 ~?eeting
The planning Commission discussed the city's ordinances con-
cerning structures projecting into required streetside sideyards.
City ordinances indicate that an addition would be permitted onto
a house which does not meet the city's streetside sideyard re-
quirements as long as the addition matched or had a greater
streetside sideyard setback than the existing house.
However, the planning commission reaffirmed its position
that this ordinance provision for the main structure would not
apply to detached garages. The reasoning is:
• 1. To stop and/or eliminate non-conforming uses;
2. Granting a garage variance will perpetuate non-
conforming uses.
Council Letter No. 352 -3- November 14, 1983
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission by a 5-3 vote recommends that the
variance request be denied because the three conditions for grant-
ing variances have not been met.
~.
~pectf~ 11 ~'~mitted ,
,; ~ i
onn G. Car Wright
~ity Manage
J
JGC/ej a
e
•
Pillsbury
...•
Cn
r
++
CV
•
.~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda November 14, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance to Mechanical Equipment
Screening Ordinance, Corporate Travel, 1401
West ?6th Street
Proposal
r~~r. Charles Erickson, representing Dakotah Properties, has re-
quested a variance to omit the required screening of mechanical
equipment located adjacent to the recently constructed Corporate
Travel Center at 1401 West 76th Street. It is the applicant's
opinion that the area will look better without a screening fence
and that the mechanical equipment is only visible from the free-
way which is not as critical as the other views, which have been
effectively screened by a building and parking garage.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1. Section 3.29, subdivision 12, requires that any
mechanical equipment located on grounds adjacent
to any structure other than a single family residence
shall be enclosed in a screening enclosure and that
such enclosure shall be designed to provide a safety
shield around such equipment and shall conceal it from
public view by nearby premises.
2. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three conditions
which must be present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions
and found the following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affect-
ing this land not common to other properties or similar
districts.
i It is the staff's opinion that no special circumstances
Council Letter No. 351 -2-
November 14, 1983
are preser_t on the site which .could justify the variance.
The lot is a similar size and shape as other commercial
• properties in the community. The type and location of
mechanical eauipmer.t is also not unique and could be found
in other areas of the community.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and en~ovment of substantial property rights.
It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance does
not preclude reasonable use of the property. The property
owner. could establish the commercial office use on the
property. ,
3
That the gran tinct of the application will
and adversely affect the health or safety
siding or working in the ne~ahborhood and
materially detrimental to the public wolf
to improvements in the neighborhood.
not materially
of persons re-
wiil not be
are or injurious
It is the staff's opinion that it would be difficult to pro-
vide a functional, yet aesthetic, screening enclosure around
the proposed mechanical equipment because of the size of
the mechanical equipment involved. It is also staff's
opinion that the shapes of the mechanical equipment are
simple and have been painted to tie into the building and
do not present a negative aesthetic appearance. The mechan-
ical equipment is not visible from surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The proper location and type of landscaping
materials can provide an effective screen for the mechanical
equipment as the vegation matures.
Staff Recommendation
Because the variance request does not meet the three conditions
for granting variances, staff must recommend denial of this request
for a variance. However, if the city council agrees caith the
Planning Commissions recommendation that a variance is not needed,
the staff supports the planning commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Discussion at the 10/25!83 ~?eetina
The Planning Commission reviewed tr.is matter and unanimously
determined that if the applicant provided a safety-shield enclosure
around the mechanical equipment to restrict access and that if
additional evergreen trees are planted to provide additional screen-
ing, then the ordinance requirements would be met and a variance
would not be necessary. The applicant agreed to provide the safety
shield and additional trees.
The planning commission also determined that this was more in
the nature of an appeal from a determination of the building
Council Letter No. 352 -3- November 14, 1983
official, rather than an action requiring a variance.
The zoning ordinance requirement (Section 3.29, subdivision
12) provides amont other conditions a requirement that the mechan-
ical equipment shall be protected by a safety shield and that the
equipment be concealed from public view. The mechanical equipment
projects some 15 to 20 feet above ground level.
Planning Commission members concluded:
(1) That a fence of six feet would satisfy the safety
factor of keeping children off the equipment.
(2) Because of the height of the equipment and that its
location is not within view of adjacent residential
properties, the planting of additional evergreens
would satisfy the need for screening as set forth
in the ordinance .
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the city council de-
termine that a variance is not needed for the installation of the
mechanical equipment and that the applicant be allowed to install
and use the mechanical equipment provided that a safety shield
and screening be provided as recommended by the planning commission.
JGC/ej a
•
DcLANO ER1Ci~S0i~1 ARCN1TcCTS
September 29, 1983
DELANO DEL RAY ERiCKSON AIA
226 MINNESOTA BUILDING
ST. PAUL, M~~ 55101
(612) 292-041?
Sivert iiendrickson
Building Official
City of Richfield
0700 Portland ave.
Richfield, :2d 55423
Re: Corporate Travel Building
Dear Sivert;
In response to your letter of September 1, 1983 regarding screening
of mechanical equipment of above project, we have analyzed the issue
and propose the follcwing.
We feel that the equipa~nt (cooling tower and electrical trans-
former) are very simple, clean shapes and that when painted (dark
bronze to match building metal) as scheduled will not be an eye
sore.
The equipment is effectively screened by the building and parking
garage frcrn view by the neighborhood and 76th Street leaving only
the freeway side open.
The equipment itself screens the gas meter, piping and conduit
fxan freeway view thus presenting an uncluttered appearance.
Landscaping shnbs and ivy are being installed along freeway fence
to enhance the appearance of this area.
A screen wall of redwood will require a gate to provide required
aceess and clearance to transformer thus complicating its appear-
ance.
'~rle therefore ask that a variance be granted to gait screen wall cn the
freeway side with the justification that the area will Look better
treated as above than if a screen fence were added,ard further that we
feel the freeway view is rot as critZCal as the other vie=.as which '~.rve
been effectively screened.
Please contact us if you require additional material for this request.
Very truly yours,
Del Erickson, ~.IA
ARCHITECTURE / ENVIRON"MENTAL QUALITY OF LIFE
cc: C'nuck Erickson - Dacotah Co.
J lim Beckwith - K/A of St. Paul
i
t
`I
4
•
', ,
,` 1
} r .. ,.. .._.. ,
y~ _ I I i ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ] `~
I' 1 k 7 ` 2 , , ~ I t~ ( ~,
I T 11 . ~ ,
~-'i'u~~~i ~:~+~ I~1~ I r /i aa I ~~~ " ~ li X ~~ f ~~a
111 I ~, i I ~s 1 ~ 1'I` ~ S. i~4 I l
i III 1 I ": _ 1)'
1111 1, ~ I ~" I ~'4' ~Ir /
I' , ( ~ ~
~' ~ 14 ~ r~ I ~~
Ili ,
~ I l , '1 ~'~t' ~ ~. ' ~,0., . ~ I
, r I '
I , , 1, "~' 1 ~ '', ~' ~ I I
I ` 'I ~ p ~ ~' ~ h I
~S 1
1 1 i , ~" '~ i ~1 ' I
;I I , /
I 1 1 1 I 3 I
I ~ ^ I
1 I EII t ' ~, I i ~ I
'1 3' ~ I
I ~ I - x I A
t I 1 I
_ '. ~ ' ~ Ala ,~
E 11 `wll ~7 I II ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ i j I I
.r ' I
, ~ 1 ~, I i I~ ~ A
'„' 1, C, 111 w!t
`1 ~ „fir ~I ~x. $'.i
`,~, 4 1 ,I YI II 1 i ~ ~ISAI3
/ , .,L I I i I 1~ ~.lj.
~~ j1 I~>I ~I;
7;11
. ~
i ~ __
\~~\ `~ ~~
_~~ ` $ ~~
r`~ ~ ` a
I
~.
I
ti:
r I
`5~i'
a !a i5
1 -T4.1.
• I _' I
~ . -~~1
>! .
r-- j 1
,e ~~ t}'~ : ,
•~
9 is ~~'1~
uis syy
`z:i may) ~=' 9 IYY'i1~
~ a ~-
a,,~ a~
~~~
~' ~'
r
~~~ i
f~~ ;
t
'~
...,
;'
~~
,~ .~
~.
r' .
- _-
RECIPIEPdTS ATTENDING CERTIFICATc OF APPRECIATION NIGHT
1. Catherine C. Alfano 28. Ethel Hommes
2. Esther Anderson 29. Lois Kovach
3. Dave Arnold 30. Michaeline Kvaale
4. Eunice M. Aulwes 31. Margaret C. LaVallee
5. Lois Awes 32. Myrtle Lindgren
6. Vivian Bennis 33. Jean Lofstrom
7. Catherine Berkman 34. Ione Lunas
8. Alice J. Blom 35. Mary Phyllis Meyer
9. Janet Lifson Bray 36. Jane B. Nelson
10. Patricia C. Brenner 37. Betty Obenchain
11. Anne C. Burkhardt 38. Leota Ostlund
12. Dorothy Chellsen 39. Martha Jane Prottengeier
13. Shirley Comstock 40. Phyllis M. Reinmuth
14. Corrine Cosgrove 41. Rosemary Reynolds
15. Helen David 42. Joyce E. Rodeberg
16. Maxine Evans 43. Gertrude A. Sanders
17. Patricia M. Farnham 44. Joan Schaefer
18. Eloise Friend 45. Bernice Schwie
19. Elayne Gilhousen 46. Alice L. Strom
20. Shirley Gisselquist 47. Fabiola Sullivan
21. Blanche Goodin 48. June Sveum
22. Franc Gray 49. Leona Thompson
23. Ella Haight 50. Constance Thysell
24. Mary C. Haverinen 51. Patricia Toney
25. Mary Ann Helleckson 52. Bernice T. Utter
26. Gertrude Herll 53. Donna Vidas
27. Mildred Hines 54. Audrey Winslow
55. Alma Zeidler