10-24-83 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, I~IIi~'NESOTA
Office of City Manager
Tre ~'ororable '-'_avor
and
Members or the City Council
Cit~,~ of Richfield
Council ^iembers
.r~~T i ~ / S.i/' '
Council Letter No. 350
Agenda October 24, 1983
Subject: Resolutions Pertaining to the Sale of General
Obligation Improvement Bonds
Enclosed herewith are resolutions pertaining to the sale of
$825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983. City staff
has been working with Evenson dodge,the city's financial consultant,
and the city attorneys office to make arrangements for this bond
sale. The purpose of the bond issue is to arrange permanent finan-
cing for various improvement projects undertaken in 1982 and 1983,
including sidewalk and alley construction, and the Lyndale Avenue
reconstruction project.
The first resolution would provide for the issuance and sale
of the bonds. Of course, the council will have to award the actual
sale of the bonds at a future date for the bond issue to become
final .
The second resolution combines certain city improvement projects,
CP-772 (1982 sidewalk project), CP-775 (1982 alley improvements) and
CP-757 (Lyndale Avenue reconstruction). The purpose of combining
these projects is to ensure that at least 20% of the cost of the
combined improvements will be specially assessed, as required for
the bond financing.
The bond sale is scheduled to be completed in late November,
to take advantage of recently declining interest rates and to com-
plete the transaction before year-end financial reporting..
It is, therefore, reccmmer_ded that the council adopt the
attached resolutions.
~~
Re,~pectfully sub. ~tec~,
~~~~~,~y ~~~~~
,7onz~ G. tCart;aright '~
City LTanager
JGC/e j a
Extract of Minutes of Meetira
of the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnescta
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting
of the City, Council of the City of Richfield, Iennepin County,
Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday,
October 2~?, 1983, commencing at 7:00 p.m.
T'~e following members ~~rere present
and the folloai na were absent
RESOLUTION NO.
The following resolution was presented by ceuncilmember
whc moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION COP'IBINING CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
NO. 772, 775, AND 757
BE IT RESOLVED By tre City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That is is herebv determined:
a) That City improvement projects designated CP-
772, CP-775 and CP-757, have been instituted by
the City Council of the City cf Richfield at
substantially the same dates; and
b) That said improvement projects can be more
economically completed if consolidated and
joined as one prcject.
2. That said improvement projects are 'r~ereby consolidated.
3. That all subsequent proceedings relating to said
improvement projects, including proceedings relating to the
issuance and sal` of $825,000 General Obligation Imbrc~,~ement
Bonds of 1983, shall hereafter be conducted ir. all respects as
if the various separate proceedings relating to said im~rovemer~t
projects had originally been instituted as one prcceeding, all
pursuant to .Minn. Stat. X435.56.
C7
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
~r~as duly seconded by cour~cilmember and
upon vote being ta'{en thereon, the following voted in favor of
the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Dated: October 2~, 1983
flavor
ATTEST:
City Cler.'~
•
)
COliNTY OF HENNEPIi~I) SS.
CITY CF RICHFIELD )
)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Cit` Clerk o` the City of Richfield, Mi:~nescta, do Hereby
Certify that I t1aVe Caref'aliy CCmpare~l the attached ar1Ca
foregoin.,, extract of minutes of a regular meetir_g of t:~e
City Ccuncil of said City held on Monday, Octcber 24, 1983,
with the original thereof on file in my office and the same
is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as
the same relates to the issuance and sale of $825,000 General
Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, of the City.
WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate
seal of the City this _ day of
1983.
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
(SEAL )
Extract of `Iinutes of `Ieeting
of the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Baas held at
the City Hall in said City en P~Sonday, October 24, 1983, commencing at 7:00
o'clock P.`1.
The following members toe re present:
•
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF $825,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEr1ENT BONDS OF 1983
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, ili nnesota as follows:
1. It is hereby determined:
(a) That the following assessable public improvements (the
"Improvements") have been made, duly ordered or con-
tracts Iet for the construction thereof, by the City
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429:
•
Project Designation ct Descrirtion Total Project Cost
•
(b) That it is necessary and e.tpedient to the sound finan-
cial management of the affairs of the City to issue
$825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983,
(Bends) to provide financing for the Improvements.
2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City
shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $810,000. In
order to provide in part the additional interest required to market
the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount
of $15,000. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the
sum of $810,000 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the
Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on such
additional Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance
with the terms of the following Official Terms of Bond Sale:
•
OFFICIAL
NOTICE GF SALE
$825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, will receive and open. bids at the City Ha11 in
the City of Richfield on Tuesday, November 15, 1933, at 11:00 o'clock
a.m. , C.T. , and consider bids at noon on tree same date for the pur-
chase of 5825,000 general obligation bonds of the City on the
following terms:
Purpose and Security
The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the finan-
cing of various assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds
will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith,
credit and taxing powers are pledged.
Date and Maturities
•
The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be
dated December 1, 1983, will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each
and will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts:
Year Amount Year mount Year amount
1985 $25,000 1992 $50,000 1999 $50,000
1986 25,000 1993 50,000 2000 25,000
1987 50,000 1994 50,000 2001 25,000
1988 50,000 1995 50,000 2002 25,000
1989 50,000 1996 50,000 2003 25,000
1990 50,000 1997 50,000 2004 25,000
1991 50,000 1998 50,000
Redemption Feature
x111 bonds of this issue maturing after February 1, 1992 will
be subject to prior redemption at the option of the City in inverse
order of serial numbers on said date and any interest payment date
thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemp-
tion.
Interest
n
~.
Interest on the-bonds will be payable on August i, L984, and
semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. A11 bonds
maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until
paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate
bonds of ary subsequent maturity. Each rate must be i
multiple of 5/100 of i,~, and no rate of interest nor the
average rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate
permitted by law on the day of sale.
Paying Agent
specified for
n an integral
net effective
of interest
The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to
applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be pa~Table at the prin-
cipal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or
draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The
City will pa~* the reasonable and customary charges for the services of
the Registrar.
CUSIP Numbers
The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or
printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any
numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned
and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives
any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby.
Delivery
Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver
to the office of the purchaser or, at his option, will deposit with a
bank in the United States selected by him and approved by the City as
its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser,
the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of
bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any
manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The
charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all
other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid
upon delivery of the bonds, or within five days after deposit with the
delivery agent, in funds available for expenditure by the City on the
day of payment.
Legal Opinion
An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished
by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa-
tion of i•Sinneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on
the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will
state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the
City, payable primarily from special assessments against ber_efited
property, and that the City is obligated and req_ui-red to lew taxes
for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due ~,~ithout
limit as to rate or amount.
T~,~e of Bid - ?.mount
Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned
and must be received prior to the time of said meeting. Each bid must
be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified
check or bank draft in the amount of $16,500, payable to the City
Clerk, to be retained b~7 the City as liquidated damages if the bid is
accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid author-
izing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds
to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less
than $825,000 bid for principal) wi11 be deemed the most favorable.
No oral bid and no bid of less than $810,000 for principal plus
accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the City
reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive anv_ infor-
mality in any bid.
BY ORDER OF TNT' CITY COlitiCIL
/s/
City Clerk
Dated: October 24, 1983
•
r~
L~
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the
Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Terms of Bond
Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as
Exhibit A, to be published in the manner requried by law. The City
Council shall meet on Tuesday, November 15, 1983, at 12:00 o'clock
noon, for the purpose of considering sealed bids on the Bonds and
taking any other appropriate action.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Dated: October 24, 1983.
Alayor
ATTEST:
Citv Clerk
~J
Exhibit "A"
•
NOTICE OF SALE
$825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, ~Sinnesota
•
These bonds will be offered on Tuesday, November 15, 1983,
at 11:00 o'clock a.m., C.T., for consideration and award at 12:00
o'clock noon at the City Hall in Richfield, "Iinnesota. Dated
December 1, 1983, the toads will mature on February 1 in the years
and amounts as follows:
Year Funount Year Amount Y"ear Amount
1985 $25,000 1992 $50,000 1999 $50,000
1986 25,000 1993 50,000 2000 25,000
1987 50,000 1994 50,000 2001 25,000
1988 50,000 1995 50,000 2002 25,000
1989 50,000 1996 50,000 2003 25,000
1990 50,000 1997 50,000 2004 25,000
1991 50,000 1998 50,000
All bonds maturing after February 1, 1992 are subject to prior redemp-
tion on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus
accrued interest. Interest will be payable on august 1, 1984, and
semiannually thereafter. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of
5/100 of 1% and no rate may exceed the maximum rate of interest per-
mitted by law on the day of sale. ilinimum price, $810,000. An
unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler,
Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association of rlinneapolis,
Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to finance various assessable
public improvements in the City.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/
Cit~r Clerk
Dated
October 24, 1983
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COLn1TY OF HE~PvTEPIN ) SS .
)
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City
Clerk of the Cit~: of Richfield, `Iinnesota do hereby certif;~ that I
have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes
of a re ;ular meetin4 of the Cit~.~ Council of said City held on `Ionda,r,
October 24, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office and
the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as
the same relates to the issuance and sale of $825,000 General Obli-
gation Improvement Bonds of 1983, of the City.
WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of
the City this day of 1983.
•
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
(SEAL)
j , .-
.~~•+~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~TINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 349
Agenda October 24, 1983
The Honorable ~-?avcr
and
.Members of the City Council
City cf Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Airport Noise Land [Jse Compatibility Planning
Funding
Background
In March of this year the Metropolitan Council approved an
amendment to the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide outlining guidelines for land use compatibility with air-
craft noise. Communities adjacent to airports must now review
their comprehensive plans for consistency with the amended Metro-
politan Development Guide, make appropriate amendments to their
comprehensive land use plans, submit the amendments to the Metro-
politan Council for approval, and adopt ordinances to implement
and carry out the lard use plans.
Ir. preparing or revising land use plans, each community is ad-
vised to consider the following strategies, where appropriate, to
reduce or prevent incompatible uses and to mitigate the impact of
excess noise exposure.
1. Insulate structures located in noise-sensitive areas;
2. Adopt building r:oise attenuation standards for new
construction, additions or substantial rehabilitation;
3. Disclose degree of noise exposure to prospective home
buyers;
4. Develop policies on the lccation, relocation, and
closing of public structures in aircraft noise
impact areas;
~. Develop policies on the extension of utilities into
noise impact areas;
6. Zcne or rezone property;
7. Redevelop appropriate areas.
The Metropolitan Council guidelines designate four noise ex-
posure zones arour_d airports. tti~ithin each of these zones, land
uses are classified as '^eing cor_sistent, provisional, conditional,
Gr inconsistent, depending on their susceptibility to airplane noise.
Council Letter\o. 349 -2- October 24, 1983
These terms are defined as follows:
• Consistent: Land uses that are acceptable
Provisional: Land uses that must comply with the following
land use provisions to be acceptable:
Structures constructed after December, 1983, shall be
acoustically constructed se as to achieve the interior
sound levels descri'ued in the fo1le-~ina table.
STRL'CTUP~E. PERFORMAi~ICE STANDF~RDS 1
INTERIOR
L~iD US" SOU^1D LEVEL
Residential 45dBA
Education/Medical 45 dBA
Cultural/Entertainment/Recreational 50 dBA2
Office/Commercial; Retail Services 50 dBA
Industrial/Communication/Utility 60 dBA
Agricultural Land/T~7ater Area/Resource Ex- 65 dBA
traction
1These performance standards to not apply to buildings,
accessory buildings, or portions of buildings that are
not normally occupied by people.
2Special attention is required for certain noise sensitive
uses, e.g., concert halls.
Each local unit of government that has land within the airport
noise zones will be responsible for implementing and enforcing
these performance standards within its jurisdiction. The Metropol-
itan Council will review the adequacy of these mechanisms as part
of its review of amendments to each community's comprehensive plan.
Conditional: Land uses that may be identified as conditionally
acceptable in local comprehensive plans. The Metropolitan Council
shall review and approve provisions for the review and authoriza-
tion of conditional uses incorporated in local comprehensive plan
amendments for compliance with the follo~~Jing conditional land use
review factors:
Co;~ditional Land L'se F.evi ew ~ actors
when a local government submits a land use Alan amendment
proposing the potential authorization of uses identified
aS COP.dltiOnal ir. these gu_aelineS, the 'ietrODOlltan COUI7C11
will use the following factors in determining ~~~hether or not
to approve the provisions relating to pro~csed conditional
uses:
1. The specific nature of the proposed use, including extent
of associated outdoor activities;
2. The relation of proposed use with other planning consider-
ations, including adjacent land use activities, consistency
Council Letter ?~10. 349 -3- October 24, 1983
with overall comprehensive plannir.q and relation to
other metropolitan systems.
3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft over-
flight.
4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight
tracks and aircraft onground operating and maintenance
areas.
3. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be
imposed by the community on the proposed use with respect
to reduction of exterior to interior Heise transmissions,
aid shielding of outdoor activities.
6. Method community will use to inform future occupants of
proposed use of potential noise from aircraft operations.
7. Extent to which community restricts the building of
facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use.
8. pistance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways,
parallel taxiways, o-r engine run-up areas.
Inconsistent: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustic
treatment were incorporated in the structure and outside uses were
restricted.
As can be seen by the attached map, approximately two-thirds of
Richfield lies within these noise exposure zones and that most of
the land uses within these zones are classified as conditional.
Because of this, Richfield be required to amend its comprehensive
. plan and develop a strategy acceptable to the Metropolitan Council to
mitigate the impact of excess noise exposure. Richfield may also
have to obtain a variance from state noise standards from the Minnes-
ota Pollution Control Agency.
Funding: The guidelines indicate that the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) is expected to participate in the preparation ar.d
financing of a program to address existing incompatible uses. To
do this, MAC recently applied to the Federal Aviation Administration
,FAA) for federal funds which are available for use by individual
communities and/or airports for the planning and implementation of
land use control strategies. This funding application was furred
down, apparentl~,~ because of technical problems with the ti~aay the
noise zones were defined.
Further discussions have taken place between the FAA and MAC
and it now appears that fur:dinq will be available to carry out the
planning required by the Metropolitan Council for an interim period
while the above mentioned technical ~robiems are worked out.
~1AC has asked COiTimU'.`!1.t1eS ad]aCel'it t0 'Iin~eapolis/St. Paul In-
ternational Airport to submit to them a wor;c program and budget
to carry out the Metropolitan Council guidelines. They will then
Council Letter Nc. 349 -4- October 24, 1983
combine these and submit them to the FAA for funding.
• Staff has prepared a work program ar.d budget as requested by
~1AC. A copy of this work program and budget are attached for your
consideration. Based on this wor'.~c program, Richfield will need
$30,595 to carry out the necessary comprehensive plan amendment,
land use plan amendment, and ordinance amendment.
It is recommended that the council authorize the staff to sub-
mi t this ~~~erk grogram to 'IAC for i nclusicn i n i _._ funding request
`o the FAA .
Respectfully s,,ubmitted, ,
P1 B ~
J;' din G.` Cart~~~ri ht ~+'
9 g
City Manager
JGC/ej a
i
•
_;• ,
HOc~'ti P90G~:~1
^_.1D~ p1~' eT'it°t10P Ott Vtot~-070' T t2'1 17e'7e~ ^'~7P'e^t 'iilido - ,.. -
in ~,'icinity of uinreaDelis-St. Paul International airport
1. Particiaate in uetropolitan Council preparation of Model Zonir_g Ordinances
for aircraft noise zones.
c. ._..~.'_:G -_^°_T7=~'v' ~°°+..~'~~S "n`;`.il ~'`eT.=O ~.Gtu,C1_..
2. :apply the uetro Council land use guidelines to the adopted comprehensive
! 2:1 .
3. -'u'laiyZe areas OL :._^_COnSlStenC7 betWee:l guidelines a:ld adODted CCi..'Dre-
hensive plan in the airport vicinity.
3. Amend comprehensive plan.
a. Prepare proposed changes to adopted comprehensive plan in the airport
vicinity together with variance requests.
b. Obtain interim approval of City Council.
c. Submit to Metropolitan Council for review and approval.
d. Mee*_ing with Metro Council.
4. emend ordinances, regulations to implement the comprehensive plan in the
airport vicinity and to address inconsistent land uses.
a. Prepare draft ordinances, resolutions and administrative procedures
for~Council action.
b. Obtain interim approval of City Council.
c. Submit to '~etro Council for revie*a and approval.
d. Meeting with Metro Council.
~. adopt comprehensive plan amendments together with proposed implementaticn
actions.
a. Submit proposed variances to 'Iinnesota Pollution Control agency.
b. Prepare materials for formal adoption by City Council.
c. Cbtain approval of City Council.
•
•
•
•
~.
C
~.i
~~~
~~
pal
~.,
~I
,~.. ~'~
~~
Cj
Z
H
I
:!:
U
::
z
s
z
L
r
:n
r.
.J
q
C
;~ ~.
O
~
L'~
C
tI1
lf~
O
~ O Lr1 L'1
~ p M t~•
O
^
~ O
r-'
Lrl LCl
M M ~.
V? ,',1 M M M i~ [` ;-V ~' r-i r-1 r-1 O M L7
-1 ~ Q1 ~ ^ C''1
~
:7 I
~~
v
I v
"~ ~~-~+ ~ ~ I O C O O O O
~ U U v> 1 1 d' 1 1 ~ N CJ
~-i G U t!} U]-
..
.. x U; I
~ v
~ i
I
~'
I ~
~' ~ ~
c ,
~
I I o L7 Lr) c I p L~ ~ :n
~ C1 M M M N f~ ~' O M N I'~ ~.:- N M M
~ ~
~ • M N
I e~ ri C1
~, r-I Q1 r-1
I N
c!1 !
L q
~
Y+
O~ I 1 tl'f ~' N ! O ~!' N I ~n +11 ~ M
e
cn ~
cp
~ ~
U
C
O
N
O I N
1
~f1
tf'I tf)
01
G I I .--I ! I N ~
U cJ
Cl
.
x ,
S.i
~ "~
_ cs
C sue.
~
~ O
o] ,.
C
tC1
O
O
~O
tl1
et'
~
~
~
b
Q
~
w q lfl p r-I r1 N
O E d' ~ M
s~ v ~ ~
~+
~ m
~ v s+ ..
-Ci q C
I O
r-i O
N C'
1 ~' to ~' I C 'C
-! C1 N
-I lJ
O
,~ q~ N ~ r n
G7 :~
v] w a "'3
c
~" U
~ ~ '~ •-+
I u! • r-? U
O ~ v O E O ~~ ?
l p
3 ~ J O
V ~
r-I
'U -~ OI :a J I ~ U I U~ •
U
3 s~ S.a ~ I N r~ • ~ p
1 .~
x ~ J C O I ~ C~ `.a .~ ~ J ~ ~; ~~ ~ .3 ~ ~ ~ U O•~ ~.-.
fJ•~-1 `,•I
: r' •
O J) ~ ~ w ~ •n ~v Ul : G7 ~i C2,W W ~'3i
C N ,., ( i a
..~ .
•
17
.., .-+
~ N
~ ~ ~ .: I ~
r_
rJ ~
:~
N y
•~r-I
.^..i
N
w [w[~~
U7 G
~~
.~
,~
4-Y
O
U
.,~
O
s~
r-I
.~
'J
r-i
U
.~
QN
U
Vi
N
~8
•~~•+ 0~
~ C
U •'-i
r;
O
;~ •-~
.~ y
U
y •~
r-a N ~ t!1
C
•
~~
•
' ~ ,~,r
--,~....-of ~•.s
err,., OF R~C F1~~,~ _.I_:. -SC"_'
~; ^o Cr r'i -~~ .:an aces
O= .. _ ~`
=_cer:da October 2= , 1 983
-.-- --~ _-~_ ~~_e _. ~cr
~.^:d
- _ --%, - i
Subject: Ordi::ance ame::ding the Cable TV Franchise
to adjust Certain Rates, Seco~:d Reading.
~~_ Sectember 12, i983, the city council held a public hearing
a~:d crave =first reading to an ordinance amending the cable tv rran-
...__se :with CaJ'esystems-SOUth~deSt tC 'JrOV1Ce iOr Certain rate ?n-
.._ ~,~SeS . -
The ~o1lo~aina is a brief cr.ronolouy ar.d su~^.mar1~ o~ actions re-
Gardinc phis matter.
. 1. '~innesota Cablesvstems-Southwest submitted a "Rate
adjus ~.:;.en ~ ~ ~po~a~
?Y~ ~ ~", cater June 24, 1983 to the
C~'=ieS Of ~C~.en ?i"3~r1e, ^Clnd, :`iCDi{i:1S, ~'1i?liletCP..'-C„3,
and RiCh~ield, Which are ti^.e :TlelRberS OL th e SCUt~7-
west Suburban Cable CG?iLTi11S5 icn (S~aSCC) .
2 . The Operating-Comumi ttee (c _~y manace, s ` or the SwSCC
met on July 7 , 1 983 to discuss t:^.e ~rccess o~ co-
sidering the pr^posed ramie _ncreases. The cable
administrator ar_d attcrne~r were d==ecte tCi _ '~e~.are
a reCCiL"tienC°C DrCCeSS ~Cr CC.:.Q SC, ~nClUC_._^.Q seCU_"-
ing an indepe.^.dent expert re-~~e°a o= _: e =_~:anc :~_
aspec ~s of the proposal.
3. Cn aucust 3, 19x3 the Cceratin~c Com:.--i_~_ee me. a^:d
ac~rovec _::e procecures ~o ccns ~cer ~^e ~roccsal
'_1~C 1ud 1nC
_. > >Cr^al ~L'-.__C ..~C_ _._c ;~~ ~.. ~',aCrn _cs ~i_TiC^v
~o -ake _~~:e ce~.,re ...e .. "SC^, _._erebv -~_::_-
:^i .. _: c _::e ..eed = cr ea yens _ ; e .-°=- -- ' --• ~~`--
c _ .,. -
_.. Co":s __.__"a =_.... C. a s ='.:dV a::G =es =_':C::V ^e
~~
r=carer "" ..:e ...._....-e ^°_cV___..._ ~__~Cr:":a, ':
C n^a!^ (C.•';CJ , c:;-'_":C~C2^C~r` CC^~L'_iVr,i ~ C~
~;t-
:eT"":-nC ~:7e ra-e __'_CYea~e r"CCSa_.
_~~.-.~_~ _~__-= :... ., -~ -_- Oc=over 2-, 903
., . -dyer _i~e:e::.. c. =..e ,, ,ACC ~1~_i,.. ._ _..._ _nc
C~~_e -VStem _~=e~~ r =.._ "'__.:1ec^,C''__.-. S ~.__
" ^'~c Sr'r'Sl-.~. ^L'i;~~C nee.. _..C :vcS t.°__cy Cn :'.'uCuS i I i , I °c3
at ; .00 p.m. at Edina C_~y __-~ i. S-Ncrn tes ~-mcny
was Dresented ~v Gary vizcd o^ hehal= o~ the connanv,
S;iSCC dc.^.~_.::-~ -= 3L..- ~d _ . J ~ ~. _ :e i _ , __.~- _^a - -Cr ~_ _
e _.._C_'Je =_ :.:I~.~... i~„mac __ -.S '~°' .-.;'~J~C -..c.,.Cer'S
~C__C',ti?C. -,v ..,_....^.erS C. __.` `_"~-:e__' :LiC11C. C.{e
.-.~ :1e e~ ^tS. .__ -=r ~-~ e `', Cce C'~ ~..,e neG_ _rg
'- - - ~ - ~ ~
`^.e SwSCC C-= eC'eC _ __ _ _ _.._ ._°V .O _ r~"G_ ~ _ _:'C_:'1C.=
C~ ~?C` ~:~C. ~ ^~~ = CSeC .._ _. _..d::Ce ';JC':1C.^. ?rC'~I_^~ ,-! _n, :v
5. On aucust 24 , 1 9S3 , the S;vSCC :net and reek action.
tc recem:nend ~ avor able cc:~s ider at-on o~ the f i-:c i-~cs
Ci ~cCt and D?'ODCSeC Crd]...~dP.C° Dy edC:: CL .::e ~_tle
::Iember cities.
~_S 1:?d'_Cated in the attached OrG1nd%Ce aiile:lC.T,e.^.t, t.`le CO:i~^a::V 1 S
:ro~csed rate _^,creases would raise O'ier 3 mCrithly c,a_ges ~rcm
55.9 .0 56.50; increase monthly coverter rental c'.^.arces w $'.00 -
=ro^ 53.00, 54.50, and 55.00 to 54.00, $5.50 and 50.00, increase
a'~GVe grOlliid iristd~ i atlori CC'iarCeS irCI?'i $ 1 9.95 tO 524. °5 , and
raise certain, other charges nor extra outlets and recor.necticn.
?dteS iC" '?' ley 1 and Tier 2 SerV'_Ce , t;te ! Cwer ieve ~ S O S2rV i Ce ,
• 'riCl1 ~ d nOt Ch anCe . ~ateS ~ Gr premium JaV SerV 1CeS ~ BO , vCV ie
Cid^.Z:e~ , etc ) a1"e T7Ct re~L'! dte~ ~V ~=?e C'_~_eS c:1 C1 ...r", t:72re-
ere , net a~ ~ ec _ed ?cv ~h e end inar_ce .
'he COi'l~dny 1 S ]llSti~ iCation LOr .he 'JrODOSed rate ___^.CredS2
iGC'.:SeS Gr i~nari ~ y On rite iO1~ OGling 1temS
i. ~?iaher convey=per costs
2. signer _rterest rates
°1Cre ~~ do ~ m~ leage tL?c_. Was Cr_Gi ~:d~ l ~; e:{~eC ~eC
Je-..er mdr'.~et ^enetrat_on rates
.. 1'=1Cr eases 1:? dry :~idre d:"i~ ~ a~O~ CCS `S
'~';'ie cc:npany was Stated what tf:e '_i`_Cre::Se :~iCL'.~ d __e~ ~ -reC~1Ce a?1-
_~., ~dteC ! CSSeS 1:? I ``~C'-~ arc? ~~~ ..,:"iC :•;=~ ~ ~~: _ =.^-e C'~.:"~c~_:"1" _?"': d
_~ case cep icienc~~ .
•
.. ..,:__,.__ ~2~~e'" _.-C. -.,~ -~- ''~C-..per _'_, ~a3
..._~Cr_ --~ _~_
- -ca ~ ~^c =ca
~us_c ~erv_ce c`:arge ('~_~r 3 =- -- -- ---
'.v__.. _e:"tC=_ CCa7ert~T'1 S I O ~'_~ .. :'0~~
?re'.'l:.ll~ Cc.'y SE=V~C°S (3VeraCe
.--.~.. ~e ~__.ver-.eri f'J .i0
,vm. - - - - C ^, O -.
~.'1C_~~:C_iiC ~. ° reCeil~ =r°_:i1_ll::l ~aV carV_Ce ?_,CreaS2 a_:C ~_.e
_ r C~CSe~ C3S l.C _ ... _° l:1Cr edaeS , Zile "aV2raCe SL:~SCr1 :er ~~ CCL' ~ C
e~_ ect to day 1 i .'°~ r~or e _-. mcl~*~hly c'r.ar~es .
~S _^_C ~ed ~??_ 1 i cr ~ C'^~C :•JaS I7 _~ eG~ JV ~..e S~vSCC CO c:.d~ _i Ze til°_
D: C CS2C rate 1'1CreaSe . ~`=' C eXdlRli.eQ til° DrCDOSc! ~ ~i':e CCIi1Da:1V ~ S
Or 1C 1:^.3, DI"CDOSul ~ Ci ~.;:2 irZ;7C:11.Se , ?ilC =in e dllC 1 ~.2C =_^ ZiiC ~al
State-.entS C ~ile CCiiipdP.V. C'.'~C rec" ^eG~ = ~_' CC::CIL:S~C~ ti7Gt ~.:le
~~~ rc_ csed rate ??':CredSe l.S 1llStl.i ia~ ~ aI'.C Ttey l~eC.'~ Tt dISO
I7CteCi , :~oweVer ~ t dt file CCI'1~%dP.V ~ S _ , CeSt 1Cil t:.at al;Ct.^:eY rate
1:^.Cr ea S2 _^ Li'_e ':e3r Llltllre ?^dV I]Ct _^.e ;';er i toy .
l.~t'i Star"r haS DreV1CUSi1~~`eVl.e:^J2~ a~~ C1' file i~aterlai Sll~?*lltteC
ii=tii reCar~ t0 t}^ie OrCDOSed ~`e l.?~iCreaSe DUr1~:Ci file S:`:~:,'C CO`1Slu-
eratl.0!^_ C~ ti'le .L:"'CreaS2 GL1eS~.'~C.^.S i^Je?"e ra~SeG~. COrCer='?1nG tr'ie e~ieC?~'S
C a~C,'_tl.Cila~ '.^-.OrrCjrJ1::Q ::V tC'e CC`RI~a;7V, i.~tereSt rates, a:^:C CDeY'ut1?Zc3
CCStS . ;dilile 1t 1S ~e~ leVeC file ~rCDOSeG~ rate 1."'CreaSe may ~e
~UStl.=1e(~~, Sta`- S~`~areS merle C'1~ CCi7Cer_^_ aJOUt file :Merl.' O OtnEr
1riCreaSeS 111 file near iUtL:re. BeCaUSe ti"1? S ? S the r_rSt DaS~C rate
':1CreaSe 51.:1Ce tP.e Gral:tlnG Oi tine tra^Cil_Se, GJe ~e~ 1eVe tole CCilDc_'':j
and file Clt'_eS :Jl~ i ilaVe t0 C ~ OSe~V "10ri1tOr file E.'TteCtS Oi t:ie 1'1-
..reaS2 O:, SUDSCrlberS anc ti^.e ~eVe~ Of Ca~'_e SE~rV1.CeS ~rCV1`?e~ ^V
~.e cc~:~any. ~ -
--- ri,:e .Se"C=e:ili~er ~2, ~.~~ Cl'='•J CClli:~C1~ ~ee:`1:1Ci, C_UeSL10?"_S :Mere
CCSeG~ a:'1C CC~i~'",:e!1tS ?~;aC.e CCl?CerT'1_:Q.
m:'?° =a ,-e - ~c ^CTi^, a'""i `^. ,...:tie ..°r'._,~ Jare C= car~r~ ^c
_ - J
c-~eY - ~n .r, -
;fie ~C:r:Da~^:' :'C~e" __~ Dia~S _.,_ a :`;a~Cr re-''!c.r:tie:_':•~: e_-,.,- _
=----- =al- _~ ---~-_ rasa ~~..~~_ ~ ;e~ _.-_., . ~ ~...~.. ___ ~c,.,,Ner
_._~. :`1Cr° _ ~- -'CMe- ~ -• -_ -- ~~ -_ -_--.. _~ _.,"•ie. Ser". _Ce
-~^..,~'.~_. _._ ~. ~a .-. ... .~ri,. e'. _~. '_ ___~ __..._ G.~: l.. _~. ",J`"/- .".mew.
• -,~ e ..CTNGr: ~ ^:aS :.?'_Q `.:ar ..G I ,.. .r__e_ _ _--. ~ _..? G~~q~ ~ i
Council wetter ~:o. 343 -4- October 24, 1983
deferred to future years because many systems are
under construction and not producing revenue. For
limited partners, the company has said that the rate
increase will have no direct benefit. The CTIC report
indicates these investors are likely earning a return
through tax benefits and, depending on the future market
value of the investment, this return may range from 10-
i8°. These tax benefits have been taken into account
only indirectly in determining the need for a rate in-
crease.
3. Tvhat is the likelihood of another rate increase being
reaues ted ir. the near future?
The company has stated another rate increase may be re-
quested in the next 18 to 24 months. The CTIC report
raised doubts about whether sucl-i an increase would be
accepted by subscribers if it were requested toC fre-
quently.
Enclosed for the council's information are the franchise
criteria~fcr rate increases, the SWSCC Findings of Fact, and the
r~roposed ordinance amendment. Copies of the CTIC report were pre-
viously distributed to the council. Additional copies are avail-
able through the city manager's office, if desired.
It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing
and approve the second reading and adoption of the ordinance for
the following reasons:
1. Recommended approval by CTIC.
2. Recommended approval by SWSCC
3, Recommended approval by Cooper and Associates
4. Recommended approval by Richfield City Staff
Re~ec fully s minted,
,j
~ ~~
~~~ ~'
1 , ~,
J G. Cartwright
City ~~Ianager
JGC/ej a
(a) The ability of the Grantee to render
System services and to derive a reason-
able profit therefrom under the existing
rate schedule and proposed rate sched-
' ule; •
(b) The revenues and profits derived from
. System services;
(c) Tax benefits received by Grantee, its
partners or shareholders, as the result
of their investment in the System;
(d) Cash flow derived from System services;
(e) The efficiency of Grantee;
(f) The quality of the service offered by
Grantee;
(g) The original cost of the System, less
depreciation;
•(h) A fair rate of return with respect to
investments having similar risks to that
of providing cable communication servi-
ces;
(i) The extent to which Grantee has adhered
to the terms of this Franchise;
{j) Fairness to residents and subscribers;
{k) Capital expenditures by Grantee in pro-
• viding updated technology and service to
subscribers; .
•
r4
e
- - ... _
_ _
(l) The extent to which Grantee has then pro-
vided service to schools, hospitals,
libraries, publicly owned or leased
buildings ar.d similar. institutions
within City;
(m) Such other factors as City may deem rel-
evant.
•
I~
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS
OF FACTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SOUTHWEST
SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
(HEREINAFTER "COMMISSION")
WHEREAS, the Commission was formed by the City Councils of
Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota
(hereinafter "Parties") in May, 1982, to coordinate the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the respective cable communications
franchises of the Parties; to report and recommend to the Parties
relative to the operation of their respective cable com~-nunications
franchisees; and to perform such other duties as are required; and
WHEREAS, based upon the authority granted to it pursuant to
Article VII, Section 3, subdivision Q, the Commission is to
advise and recommend to the Parties as to all requested rate or
charge changes; obtain from the cable communications franchisees
and from any other source, such information relating to rates,
costs and service levels as any Party is entitled to obtain; and
conduct hearings as the Comp-nission deems appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at a meeting of the
Commission, that the Commission does hereby make the following:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Parties have received a request for a rate adjustment
as set forth with supporting documentation and justification. in a
document entitled Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest Rate
Adjustment Proposal (hereinafter "Proposal") dated June 24, 1983.
2. Th e Commission, Attorney met on Friday, July 29, 1983,
with the Parties' attorneys to discuss the process for reviewing
-1-
~___
__
the Proposal and preparing, if necessary, a franchise ordinance
amendment.
3. In a memorandum to the Commission's Operating Committee
and Commission dated August 4, 1983, the Commission Attorney
recommended a process for the Commission to follow in preparing a
recommendation on the Proposal. The process was approved by the
Operating Committee and recommended to the Commission.
4. The Commission at a regular meeting on Wednesday, August
17, 1983, reviewed the proposed process and received an explana-
tion of the process from the Commission Attorney.
5. .The Commission received a memorandum from its Attorney
dated August 17, 1983, regarding the issue of whether Minnesota
has completed construction of the Initial Service Area. The
Attorney cited Article VI, Section 4C(2) of the ordinance which
states that a rate change may not be approved until two years
after commencement of construction or upon completion of all
construction required by Article V, Section 1, whichever is later
in the opinion of the City.
6. The Attorney, in the above described memorandum,
reported that an area exists on Oakdale Avenue in Edina that is
not yet completed. The Attorney further reported that
P~]innesota's response to this area of non-compliance is that a
private easement is necessary to serve that area and that dif-
ficulties have arisen regarding those negotiations.
7. On August 17, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. the Commission held a
public hearing, after publishing notice and by further providing
-2-
notice over the cable system channels as provided for in the
franchises, at the City of Edina regarding the Proposal.
8. Prior to starting the hearing the Commission Chairman
asked the Commission Attorney to review for the public in
attendance the hearing process. This was done. Also, the
Commission Attorney asked the Attorney for the company to stipu-
late on the record to the following:
A. The company accepts the process;
B. The company waives the two week time pericd within
which a City, pursuant to the franchise Section 4 Subdivision
D(4)(d), is required to schedule a public hearing on the request;
C. The company agrees to be bound by the record and
proceedings before the Commissior_.
Mr. Popham, Attorney for the company, agreed to this stipula-
lion, and added only that his company would provide informal pre-
sentations at the hearings before each city.
9. Th e Commission received oral testimony from Gary Mizga,
Executive Vice President and Regional Manager for Minnesota. Mr.
Mizga introduced the following Exhibits:
A. Schedule of Delivery of Rate Adjustment Document to
Southwest Officials (attached hereto as. Minnesota Exhibit 1);
and
B. Cablesvstems-Southwest's response to the SWSCC's
chart entitled "Areas of ~;or.-Compliance with Ordinance and
Offering" (attached hereto as Minnesota Exhibit 2); and
-3-
T-
C. Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest's Rate Adjustment
Proposal of June 24, 1983, with errata letter dated July 18,
1983 (attached hereto as Minnesota Exhibit 3).
10. According to Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest
(hereinafter "Minnesota"} the proposed adjustment is necessary
because of unexpected cost increases including high interest
rates, costs associated with the build for the additional ~~iles
of plant to accomodate new subdivisions which were built up be-
tween the writing of the proposal and actual build, as well as
mileage not included in the original estimates, doubling of con-
verter casts, and lower than expected revenue because of market
penetration difficulties associated with gaining access to multi-
unit buildings and the general economic climate.
i 11. According to Minnesota, at current subscriber rate
levels, losses will reach $9 Million by the end of 1985. For the
fiscal period just ended, almost $500,000 was lost from opera-
tions. An extra $4 Million of equity has been injected in order
to relieve the pressures of higher plant, equipment and interest
costs.
12. The proposed rate adjustment, according to the proposal,
wculd provide the following financial benefits:
A. 1984 losses would decline by almost $260,000;
B. 1983 losses would follow suit by $530,000; and
C. Ar. economic foundation would be provided allowing
the company to raise additional financing.
•
-4-
13. Mr. Mizga testified that Minnesota was aware of problems with
a private easement on Oakdale Avenue in Edina, that Minnesota
has been in continuous contact with residents in that area and
that certain developments in St. Louis Park would now make it
possible to service the Oakdale avenue area without securing the
private easement.
14. The Commission Attorney and the Commission itself were pro-
vided an opportunity to question Mr. Mizga.
15. Mr. Ralph Campbell III, Franchise Administrator
(hereinafter "Administrator"), presented oral testimony regarding
his reports to the Commission. The following Exhibits were
introduced by Mr. Campbell:
A. Rate Increase Ordinance Criteria Report (attached
hereto as Commission Exhibit 1);
B. Financial Analysis Rate Increase Proposal (attached
hereto as Commission Exhibit 2);
C. Cooper Associate, Inc. Technical Evaluation dated
June 8, 1983, (attached hereto as Commission Exhibit 3).
16. The Administrator addressed the proposed rate adjustment
in light of its fairness to residents and subscribers and the
extent to which Minnesota has provided service to Schools,
Hospitals, Libraries, Publicly Owned or Leased Buildings and
similar institutions within the Cities.
17. With respect to the issue of fairness to residents and
subscribers, the Administrator concludes Minnesota has been fair.
-5-
Ccmnlaints have been relatively few compared to the high number
of residents and subscribers. The Administrator's report also
illustrated additional steps being taken by Minnesota to deal
more effectively and fairly with subscribers.
18. `~iith respect to the issue of service to public buildings
and similar institutions, the Administrator reports that
`~'innesota stands in substantial compliance with this criterion.
19. The Administrator's report also documented the quality
of service offered by Minnesota and the extent to which Minnesota
has adhered to the terms of the Franchise. The Administrator's
report was supplemented by a performance evaluation prepared by
Cooper and Associates. The areas of non-compliance were accom-
panied by a response from Minnesota.
20. Minnesota, the Commission Attorney and the Commission
itself were provided an opportunity to question Mr. Campbell.
21. The Commission retained the consulting firm of the Cable
Television Information Center (hereinafter "CTIC") to prepare a
financial analysis of the proposal. CTIC submitted its analysis,
entitled ANALYSIS OF THE PENDING RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL OF
tiiINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS-SOUTHWEST (hereinafter "Analysis"), dated
August 9, 1983.
22. The Commission also received oral testimony from Deborah
Love-Heilig of CTIC regarding the Financial Analysis prepared by
CTIC. Introduced as an Exhibit at this time was the Analysis OF
THE PE[vDING RATE I~'CREASE PROPOSAL OF MI?JNESOTA
CABLESYSTEMS-SOUTHWEST (attached hereto as Commission Exhibit 4).
-6-
23. The Analysis illustrates that original company fore-
~~ casts showed cumulative capital expenditure at the end of fiscal
1985 a total of $27.6 Million will be invested. The original
forecast for the same period was $20.1 Million.
24. These higher costs, according to the Analysis, car, be
attributed to:
A. More plant miles than were originally forecasted;
B. Higher per mile construction costs;
C. High converter costs; and
D. Design changes.
According to the Analysis, Minnesota has provided ample sup-
port for the concept that the added cost was necessary and bene-
ficial to the system and its subscribers.
25. CTIC states that Minnesota's original proposal assumed 690
miles of plant of which 624 miles would be aerial plant and 66
miles would be underground construction. Minnesota reports that
by the end of fiscal 1983, Minnesota will have constructed 595
miles of aerial plant and 150 miles of underground plant for a
total of 745 miles. To date, the average per mile cost of new
plant construction for Minnesota has been close to $17,830, close
to 39 percent higher.
26. CTIC also states that in its original proposal, Minnesota had
planned to use Scientific Atlanta Descrambler-Converters with an
estimated cost of $70 per unit. Because the Scientific Atlanta
Converter was not available at the time of construction,
•
-7-
"~innesota decided to use the Zenith Z-TAC addressable converter
which costs approximately $150 per unit. According to CTIC, the
Z-TAC allows for many operator benefits in terms of their
security and reducing signal theft but has meant an additional
53.1 Million in capital spending.
27. CTIC reports further that the decision to use Z-TAC conver-
ters also required upgrading of headend equipment. Additional
higher headend cost can be attributed to the addition of one
earth station above the original plan of two earth stations.
This provides for a greater diversity of satellite signals.
28. 'CTIC reports that the system offers profitability at
this time only to the limited partners who can fully benefit from
the tax savings of the losses and investment tax credits. The
proposed rate increase, according to CTIC, will not immediately
have any effect on system profitability. According to the Analy-
sis, the principal benefit of the rate increase will be to hasten
positive cash flow in order to ensure that debt service or
repayment can begin on schedule in 1986.
29. CTIC concludes that it finds the proposed rate adjustment
is justifiable and merited.
30. Minnesota, the Commission Attorney and the Commission
itself were provided an opportunity to question Ms. Lcve-Heilig.
The Commission asked Deborah Love-Heilig to review each of the
standards for reviewing a rate change request in the franchise
ordinance. Ms. Love-Heilig then reviewed each of those standards.
r-~
~~
-8-
31. An opportunity was provided for members of the public to
comment on the proposed rate adjustment. No public comments were
received.
32. Based on the foregoing, it is the Ccmmission's finding
t:r~at the proposed rate adjustment is justifiable and merited;
that the standards for reviewing a proposed rate change have been
considered and properly addressed; that the failure of Minnesota
to wire certain areas of Oakdale Avenue in Edina are being ade-
quately and timely resolved; and the members of the public have
been afforded reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard on
the proposed rate adjustment.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. The Council should accept this report from the
Com.*nission.
B. The Council should adopt the ordinance set forth
allowing Minnesota to implement its rate adjustment.
-9-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF CITY OF RICHFIELD
AMENDIPvG THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE N0.198(~-33 , EXHIBIT B, PARAGRAPH I,
SUBPARAGRAPHS Al, A3, B, C, D, E AND Hl AND H4
TO CHANGE THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR
INSTALLATION, MONTHLY RATES, CONVERTER,
RL'CONNECTION, EXTRA OUTLETS, CO~:_"•1ERCIAL RATES,
FM SERVICES AND PREMIUM SERVICES AND PROVIDING
FOR THE EFFECTIVE TIME OF THIS ORDINANCE.
The City Council of the City of Richfield crdains:
SECTION 1. Ordinance x'01980-33~ Exhibit B is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Paragraph I.A.l. is amended to read:
I. SUBSCRIBER NETWORK
A. Basic .Rates.
1. TIERS
Standard
150 Ft. Aerial Seniors &
Installation Monthly Homebound
First Outlet)
TIER 1 Universal Service. $ 49-5- Free Free
Converter not re- 24.95
quired for this
service.
TIER 2 Family Service.
Subscriber owns $~-9-a-9-5• $ 3.95 $ 3.36
converter 24.95
Subscriber rents $ 3~-9.5- Various Various
converter from 24.95
Grantee.
TIER 3 Full Service.
Subscriber owns $ ~-?-~-~~ ~~ ~~'
converter 24.95 6.50 5.52
Subscriber rents
converter from $ ?-9TH *Various *Various
Grantee 24.95
•
TIER 3 Expanded Service.
(Expanded)(Included converter
and unit) $ ~5-
24.95
$ ~~- $ 3-:~-1-
13.95 13.25
Subdivision 2. Paragraph I.A.3. is amended to read as
follows:
3. Subscribers will have the option of renting various
•
types of converters as follows:
Grantee Converter Rate Schedule
initial Monthly
Description Rate
~-1 . OAK L- 3 5 1 . 50
~~~~ (~
v 14'1-73-1 }-L ~ !iY (l Tl ~ i e'}3 '`T'i-C7'l"Y'
..•..•. - __- t ~ /-~(1
Tr4V
a ,a .-, t-. 1 ~ ,, -, ~ . ~ .~..b~.
3-2. ZENITH Z-TAC
A. Set-top converter 4.00
B. Set-Top Converter with remote
control including remote 5.50
volume.
C. Enhanced Set-Tom converter with
enhanced remote control in- 6.00
eluding remote volume muting,
favorite channel.
The rental rate shall be added to the appropriate base rate
shown in the table above if the subscriber rents t7ze converter
from Grantee. Subscribers may choose to rent or buy converters
from sources other than the Grantee, however, a Grantee converter
or descrambler will be necessary for premium services.
-2-
r~
Subdivision 3. Paragraph I.B. is amended to read as follows:
B. Extra Outlets.
*Installation (At
time of initial
Installation) Monthly
TIER 1 Converter not required $~~- each Free
15.00
TIER 2 Subscriber owns converter $v.-~ each $1.95 each
15.00
Subscriber rents
converter $~-~,-9~ each **Various
15.00
TIER 3 Subscriber owns converter $ each $3-.-3-~ each
15.00 4.95
Subscriber rents converter
from Grantee $~-8-88 **Various
15.00
* Each outlet installed after the initial installation will be
$?-~-~5- $19 .9 5 each .
** Same Converter rental option as provided for under Section IA
of this Exhibit B.
Subdivision 4. Paragraph I.C. is amended to read as follows:
C. Reconnection.
Charges for reconnection of exi sting installations shall be
$~-9§ $19.95 for each reconnection regardless of the number of
outlets.
Subdivision 5. Paragraph I.D. is amended to read as follows:
D. Commercial Rates For Subscriber ~'etwork Services.
These rates will be subject to negotiation and will depend on
the number of outlets required and the type of services selected.
A typical commercial rate for depar tment store requesting 10
outlets on TIER 3 with no converter s and no premium pay would be:
-3-
Installation (at cost on time and material basis)
Monthly Rate 1st outlet $~5-:-9~ $20.00
2nd outlet $~8--~ 15.00
3rd out 1 e t $ -5-:-98 10 .0 0
Additional
outlets $ ~:~-E3 9.00
Subdivision 6. Paragraph I.E. is amended to read as follows:
... FM Rates.
F ?~I s e r v i c e ~-e--s;~~-t-° a-s_~~T~. ~ r-az=~ ~~: ~a-r e~-Te r r ate s s h a 11
be $10.00 for installation and $2.50 per month. FM service shall
be available only on TIER 2 and TIER 3 and not available on TIER 1.
Subdivision 7. Paragraph I.H.l. is amended to read as
follows:
H. Premium Services.
1. Premium service rates shall be as follows:
I~!ONTHLY
n~m~~az~r y, ~ ~ ._ r,. c~~. $ 8 . 9 5
Home Box Office ~8_ 8.95
CINEMAX ~-.-~ 8.95
The Movie Channel ~~8 8.95
Sh owt ime ~-z-~8 8 .9 5
Premiere ~~8 8.95
HTN plus 8.95
Bravo 8.95
The Disney Channel 9.95
Spectrum Snorts 9.95
Sub division 8. Paragraph I.H.4. is amended tc read as
follows:
4. Installation for premium services shall be free with the
intital installation of TIER 2 or 3 service. Thereafter, any
number of premium services added at the same time shall be added
•
-4-
•
at a maximum cost of $ 19.95.
SECTION 2. Process for Adoption and Acceptance.
Subdivision 1. Adoption by Other `Member Cities and
•
Cancellation. That notwithstanding any other provision of this
Ordinance, if all of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins,
'Minnetonka and Richfield do not adopt a similar franchise
Ordinance amendment then those that have may cancel the Franchise
Ordinance amendment adopted by it. This right of cancellation
must be exercised within thirty (30) days after all Cities have
acted on a similar amendment.
Subdivision 2. Time for Adoption and Acceptance. Grantee
shall have thirty (30) days from the last date of adoption of a
similar franchise Ordinance amendment by all of the Cities listed
in Section 9 of this Ordinance, to accept this franchise
Ordinance amendment in form and substance acceptable to City.
However, in no event will accep~.ance occur later than ninety (90)
days after the adoption of this franchise Ordinance amendment
unless the time for acceptance is extended by City. Such accep-
tance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this franchise
Ordinance amendment for all purposes.
Subdivision 3. Requirements with Acceptance. With its
acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City an opinion from
its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this
franchise Ordinance amendment has been duly accepted by Grantee,
that the said Ordinance, as amended by this Franchise Ordinance
-5-
amendment is enforceable against Grantee, and the corporations
which signed the Agreement of joint and several liability dated
January 9, 1981 related to the franchise granted by the said
Ordinance, in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall
otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City.
Subdivision 4. Effectiveness of Ordinance. That this
Ordinance shall be in full force a:~d effect upon adoption and
publication and acceptance in writing by Grantee.
Passed and adopted this day of
•
•
1983.
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
And
Manager
-6-
w
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable ?~`ayor
and
'~?embers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council !?embers
Council Letter No. 347
Agenda October 24, 1983
Subject: Award of Bid, Public Safety Remodeling Project
As members of the council area acaa.re, the capital improve-
ment budgets for 1983 and 1984 provide for the completion of the
public safety facility improvement project. The final phase of
this project provides for the completion of work ire the fire
apparatus area at city hall, as well as the total renovation cf
the fire station on Penn Avenue.
On September 29, 1983 bids were opened for this final phase
of the public safety improvement project. Eight bids were re-
ceived ranging from $246,819 to $276,500. The bid proposals have
been analyzed by both the Public Safety Director and the archi-
tectural consultant, Mr. Herb Ketcham. The firm of i~Iaertens-
Brenny has submitted the low base bid of $246,819. Along with
the base bids, several alternates were requested. Of these alter-
nates, it is recommended that two alternate proposals be added to
the base bid. These are shown as alternates 4a and 4b on the
attached bid tabulation. In considering the bids on this basis,
-laertens-Brerny is still the low bidder.
Funding the public safety building improvements will require
a supplemental appropriation from the Special Revenue Fund.
Capital Improvement Project Funds - 1983
Public Safety Building S 75,000
Penn Fire Station Improvements 185,000
$250,000
Less e::_penditures made to date 60,000
Balance available $200,000
Contract - as recom~<<ended $247,041
Amount required from Special
Revenue Fund $ 47,041
The staff ~f~ill submit to the city council during early 1984
d supplemental appropriaticn ordinance allocating the $47,041 from
the S~oecial Revenue Fund in 1984. The 1984 budget for the Special
Revenue Fund has a projected fund balance of $258,287.
Council Letter No. 34? -2- October 24, 1983
Several other options have been considered; such as:
1. Making a loan from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund;
2. Reallocate the $40,000 iri the Capital Improvement
Budget from the fire vehicle reserve;
3. Trim down the project by deleting such items as
a. sitework $ 5,100
b. sprinkler $13,030
c. auxiliary standby generator $11,405
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety,
in which I concur, that the construction bid be awarded to the
~•~aertens-Brenny firm in a total amount of $247,041. Funds have
been allocated in the capital improvement budget to finance the
completion of this work as outlined above.
Respectfully bmitted,
J~b~ n G~ Cartwright '~~''~
City Manager
JGC/ej a
_^ r _M
T,
U r,
i
O r\
T
~"" cJ ;-~
? C;!
r
^
~ ~
Cl': ^ U
4-J L
~ ~ U
b V]
'~ `~
~ >^
r
~--1
r
_
_.
^ r-^
J
C
~ O
.,~ - y,.
u :J U
c3 a. G
i-I C
:J ^~.,
~ ~ ~
...1 ~}
G ~
'~ •ry .~
G U
v U r-i
c^ 67 c9
~-I •r{
J U
M Q .H
^^
r~l ~ ~ ~ w
1.-~ ~ U"1
~ .-. w ~ o
c10 C
C 3 ~
'~
CJ cv CD i.+
U •r! C
~ J 'r~~.
p cJ CJ L .~
~ N J
v ~ C ~ ~
>-I ~ J C3 (n
CJ •.-I
rl U ^ ~.. ~
u :J] ul +J y..l
r~ U
~
C '~
. ~,
z o ~
G S-I
O ~ N
...y '3.
;J
U ~
r-i ""
U ll C3
U:
CJ L n
N.+ ~
:~i ~
C
Ali Q~ •r~
~ :J
T ~ ~
O :n
~.~ :i ~ Ci
,3 n :u •ri
rl
~ „~ CD
~'+ j
C O
• L W U
1.!
:~ ~ ~ v
r, ~ J U
N G7 T
•~ ~ ~ V
.-I
~ U
:..I
U
U
~-1 ~.1
C1 ~
Q
;L U
.~
~ i
:J ;a
J r]
.= .~
:~ :.+
:.; 7 :J
~-i ~
u J
•~
3..1 JJ
~ ~ L.i
~ i>D
O •rlU
ti
c0 .-~ •,a
O ~ r~-I
O 7,
i-+ C V]
r~
CJ
'A
U
~-I
G-1
'r
S^~
'~
U
:J
~r~!
~J
3
.~
•,~
^1'
G7
.~
tom.{
r-+
J
~~
ff(f
f ( II I
I III
I
I l , ^ I
I
I
1
I
c o c o I cj .=
~ ~ o I ~.I ~I
I
I ~
1 C IS ~,
~ ~~ i~~~l~~ = ~
~i~
~ f7 '.' ~ i . I J .:. ~ I C tn~
_ I .
I
~ I ~ I I ~
~ I I 1 I I ~' +
Y~+ T I i rr -
I
C
~
~
O
, I I I
O O~ O
I
I
I
i I
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~ °
i I _
i
1
I ,
y
O ~i'7 O ^ ^
O
C
OI ~ C CI
) C (") N ~ lei ~I MI ^~I C b 7 ,~ I I vl
C I~ :f7 a I
:V N M C r\ N I
I
w :.J n
~I C O Oi C
~I I O O
_
I ^I oI ^~
~ ~ I
`
y ~I 7
I
+ ~ =1 I ^ ~
_.I
~
~~ _ I ~f
I
., r~l
O
O I rh NI al
.
I j a ~ ul
I~.a W I i ..'~ ~ -'1 '"~ " I I I :..I ~ I z i
I~ ~i I l i I I I I - I I ! -
I
o
~ I t
1 ff ~' j _ I I .-,i i I I I
f o o o (o c ~
I ?I I cl ^ i
_
ra
~
~') i
O
O
7 I
is
i
I
c
I l
~
C l V
I C _
~
O
~
O
) _
J I ~ C
~.^
O
a sI
l a d
cry ..
N ~
cu ~ O~ .O-I O
.^,~ t O
c I S OI wl
~ LI
_
V
N
OI I
tt~
ti
a
'~
~
I a
~I
Nj ^I
NI
~ o
~ n.l }I
I I
I
I ~ ~ I I I 1 I y i + + ! w I + +
I
OI
C I 1 I I I
~
O O O C O p C C C
I ~ c>m
O n s I.'~ C O O u~ d C C ~n
O
~
t")
:Cw
c
'J
c"w
~ G'
C
GJ
I
N aa r-•-t ~1
aJ
f ^ _ _ 'J ~~ }
O d N I
~ .~ ~. v L
~ ~ ~ ri 0 ~ ~ ~ ^
c
o
0
0
0
0 I
0 ~
c
f ^ J l
o c o o o ~ ~I .- ~J o
_
O
C
C
C ~
C
p
O _
I I
C ....
O
vt
p 1 I to C f'7 C f7 ~ i !
O (`~ ^ ~
CJ G1
I ` I ^
~ ~ I I ~ I
' I I I + 1 11 1 i ~ + I
I I I I ~
O O O C O O O O ~ O O
y ~
I~ C i0 O ~O .-. a O O I ~ .
i
C
a
b
n
!~
.p
N
~~
^
to
a 1 m O to
Q7 N Q lD Q f"') C .,,+ 1~1 f'7 N G7
~
~ N `I
b
41 I I I I a l
~ ~ o o -' ~~ ~ o' o I j i ~ ~' ~'
0 0 0 ~ ~ _ ~ I ~ ~
I I
~ ?
as ~
^ M
rn I.C'1
a C
~ C
a O
~ C
C N
r~
-'I f
_
""' I ~
~ O
°
~
~
o ~ ~ a o o M~ ` i c ~
u
, y 1 }
a
c
r~
~
a
c
m
z)
~
N
Z ~
O I OI I I ~ I I I
~ C O I O OI O J
C
~ I
a o~ ~r, v o oI of oI
I
~
~ M C C ~
~ _
~I
^
~
IU
I ~ of c c' «I ~ ^-j :
~I
~ ~I a:l
^ I -~
1 I
`~ r I
I I I ~ ~ I I
~~ W l i I I T I T ~ ~ i S r i
1 I i
^I iI I i
I
~.I ~i
I
I c l ~y II I
I ,.11 ni of ~i j j i =I
I i cl ~I ~~ ~1 ~i
f
i ~i I
I I
'I ul o
~I
-I s~
I ~
i
~i
I 1
I
nl
~ I
,n
I
y~
I
~I ci
=1 Y
?~
_
~
l ~I
~
t
i~
_~j ~)
;n V) i
ir i
:JI ~I :JI ~ OI
I v
~I
~
_I
^I "±
1 I
Y ^
Ti
_ I
j i
C
I
~
I ~
~
! J
?
i
) I I
JI -1
I ~1 J
I ~. I
I J
~ ?i
l
~
I -I -
J ^
^
I •-J •
1 ~I _I :JI 7i .mil 71 - .~1 i 17 ?t
~ ,
.
? ~ I
~~
l I r
~ I ~ I t t
~
I ! I I I I I ^
_
~
C aGl
I a a
~ I s ~I xl xl
1 I ~ 9
n
T
s
:J
J ....
'~ _ ..,:
f. ^\
J ~
_~
~~
.J
:J
Ci
':J
L
..'1
J
:J
r
~.J
•ri
V
O
V
'~
U
L
,,.3
rl
CJ
U
>/
0
3
U
:J
J
J
G
.j
J
r..1
~~
G
L
..-{
r
+~/
ry
.1:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off 1Ce of City tilanager
i
The Honorable ~?avor
and
".embers of the City Council
City cf Richfield
Council Members:
1 ~ ~~
Council Letter No. 346
Agenda October 24, 1983
subject: Fourth of July Committee Appointments
In December, 1982, the city council appointed an 11 member
committee to work on the Fourth of July Community Celebration.
Because this was the first official appointment by the city
council of committee members, five members were appointed for
one year terms and six members were appointed for two-year terms.
It was the understanding that, with the exception of this first
series of appointments, terms would be for two years. Also, at
the time of the original organization of the committee, terms
were to expire October 1. This date was selected to provide
sufficient time to complete the annual celebration and subse-
quent critique each year with the committee intact and also pro-
vide sufficient time for the new committee to organize, plan
and execute the coming year's celebration.
In February, 1983, the city council took action to have
all terms of city advisory commissions/committees expire on
January 31, so that following a communit~T recruitment process,
the council could make such appointments at the same time.
The Fourth of July Community Celebration Committee is re-
questing that the city council consider reinstatir:g the October
1 date for appointments to this committee due to:
1. planning, organizing and timing requirements for an
annual celebration
2. potential difficulty of r_~ew committee members to ob-
tain necessary background information on a timely
basis
3. having sufficient time to make necessary arrangements
for the various areas of responsibility associated
with the celebration, and
? . ge:~erally beir`~a able tc provide a meaningful contrib-
ution to the celebration and the community within a
short term of membership
• any months of planning gc into the celebration. The
caliber and participation of Richfield's Fourth of July Celebration
ccr_tirues to crow. Commitments must be arranged far in advance
Council Letter No. 346
-2- October 24, 1983
of the celebration between the city and the various parade units,
entertainers, suppliers, vendors and the earlier appointment
date for committee members is believed to be in the best inter-
ests of the celebration and the community.
Vacancies on this committee have beer. published in the
Richfield Sun and through :announcements on the community bulletin
board of cable tv.
~:t the present time, there are eight appointments to ~,e
made to this committee; three to fill unexpired terms which will
expire in October, 1984; and five t.,~o year terms ~r~hich will ex-
pi~Ye in October, 198. Present members Ethel ~laslund, Bob Houlton,
George Evans and Joe ~~Ienning have all expressed an interest in
being reappointed for two-year terms. In addition, applications
have been received from Sharon Kosek and Arnold Odefey, who wish
to be considered for appointment to this committee. Copies of
these applications are attached to this council letter. Also
attached is a list of the present members of the committee.
This item has been placed on the October 24, 1983 city
council agenda for council action.
JGC/ej a
Respec fully~su muted,
/ ~
} ~ ~~
Jc~~n G . Car ~wr fight
City Nianaaer
- :ate September 21, 1983
I _;i;`I'Z . ?? LASL CCi•IPT -'TF =`1 SLAG; _~ K OR "_"j''F;vRI'_'=
JL
APPLICATiCN PCR Ci'i"! Cr RICHF~LD
ADt.tISCR~ CCM~~IiiTEE CR CC~y1y1ISSION .ti?POi`1TME'~:'"
ODEFEy ARNOLD L.
'_VA.'vi
Last : it st ~i~cCie
:TOME ADDRESS 10415 Decatur Avenue S. Bloomington, MN 55438
:,treat X10. City ~ Zip C~~e
~v1AiT i,VG ADDREUS Ali Ci;ferent ii.^~ri'i hvi~it~ aCCr2ss1
.~.ti°°t ~JO. `.ire, Gi0 ~ ;C2
-r
P?-:CNE: Borne 944-0135
~`,PPCINTME;VT PREr~RENCE:
Business 853-5070
?iar.ning Commission Human Rights Commission
Co*~rsunity Services Commission Civil Service Commission
Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of :iealth
Advisory Commission Other 4th of July Committee
qualify you for this
Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~~~hich you believe
municipal commission./commit*_ee and why ,you are Interested in sere..^.g:
4th of July Committee/concessions Committee
Assisted Concession chairperson - 1983
CnIIC , PRCFESSICNAL Ai1D CCMtitL'~v ITY AC ~?Vi'"i~.S:
Nest Richfield Girls Softball
Richf field Girls Basketball
6~?est P.ichffield Little League
Richfield Optimists
St. Rlc ara s saris ouncyl
`'C''B. ?T ~'~S"' ,` T ~"TE APPLICA'~'ICN IV LIrnH~R SLACK I:+K CR YY?EWRIZ'~R.
FOURTH OF JULY CG~~'Ii~~?ITTEE
PRESEN'T' NEW
TER^~T EMPIRES TER"! EMPIRES
Ethel Naslund (wishes reappointment) October, 1983 October, 1985
RO.^,ert Houlton,wishes reappointment) October, i983 October, 1985
Stu S~,~anson (does not wish to be
reappo inted) October, 1983 October, 1985
Joe '-Ien_~ing ( ,wishes reappointment) October, i 983 October , 1 985
Gee se Evans (wishes reappointment) October, 1983 October, 1985
Vacant October, 1984 ~ October, 1984
Vacant October, 1984 October, 1984
`Vacant. October, 198E October, 1984
Paul Kaiser October, 1984 Oc~t.ober, 1984
Joanne 6ailmes October, 1984 October, 1984
i ~ Carole Memmel October, 1984 October, 1984
•
~'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 345
Agenda October 24, 1983
The Honorable ~Tayor
and
`Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Federal Legislative Position Statement Regard-
ing the Authority to Issue Housing Mortgage
Revenue Bonds
Enclosed herewith is a copy of the federal legislative posi-
tion statement cited above. As council members may know, the
authority for cities to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds will,
by law, end December 31, 1983.
The City and the HRA are presently seeking such authority
to assist in financing new housing in the Portland Avenue Rede-
velopment Area (PADA). If such authority is no longer available,
these housing opportunities for moderate income families and first-
time homebuyers will be lost.
This matter is presently before the House Ways and Means
Committee, and the chances are good that the bonding authority
will be extended through 1988. However, ~J~e believe it is important
for the City to go on record in support of the program ar.d convey
this support to our congressional representatives.
It is, therefore, recommended that the city council adopt
the position statement as proposed.
R~ct~ully~u'~/ 'tted,
.~ ~ ~ ~~
,~ ~ ~ ~
y~t~n G. Cart,,~right ~~~
amity `Manager
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD , ^~"I~.~"ESOTA
•
•
~? O .
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITIO'N' STATEME'~?T
SUBJECT: AUTHORITY TO ISSUE HOUSIT?G
~?ORTGAGE RE~,IENUE BO~:DS
The rurpose of this statement is to discuss the concerns of
the City of Richfield regarding authority conveyed to state
and local governme:~ts to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds
a^.d t~.e effect of this program cn the City of Richfield.
Current Status
Under legislation previously adopted by Congress (the Allman
Bi11) the authority granted to state and local governments is
scheduled to cease, or "sunset", on December 31, 1983. The
authority for cities to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds
has become increasingly important, particularly in light of
significant reductions in federally-sponsored housing programs.
This authority is now one of the few means available to cities
to provide assistance to the creation of new housing oppor-
tunities, especially for households of low and moderate income.
Impact on the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield has an active program for improving hous-
ing opportunities in the community. The city presently has
several projects under consideration which would increase opper-
~unities for moderate income families and first time homebuvers.
For one of these projects the city is now seeking authority
to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds. However, if such
authority is not available after December 31, 1983, the project
will no longer be financially feasible and the housing oppor-
tunities it would afford will be lost for the forseeable future.
It is, therefore, the position of the City of Richfield that
Congress should take action to extend the authority for the
issuance of housing mortgage revenue bonds.
Passed by the City Cou:zcil of the City of Richfield.
October 24, 1983
•
,r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, P~1Ir~1NESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 344
Agenda October 24, 1983
The "r,enorable `-favor
and
~-?embers cf the City Council
City of Richfield _
Counc i i i~"embers
Subject: Appeal of Denial for Richfield Taxicab
Drivers License
On September 23, 1983, the Public Safety Department received
an application for a taxicab drivers license from i-?r. John A.
Fisher. The background investigation conducted by the Public
Safety Department indicated that the applicant had a history
of driving-related traffic violations. On the basis of the
applicant's driving record, the Public Safety Director denied
the requested license on September 29, 1983.
The applicant has notified the Public Safety Department
that he wishes to appeal the denial of his requested taxi drivers
license to the city council. Council consideration of this
appeal has been scheduled for the council meeting on October 24,
1983. At that time, both the applicant and the Public Safety
Director will offer testimony before the council with regard
to this matter.
It is recommended that the council consider the appeal
and take action affirming or denyir:q the appeal, subsea_uent to
testimony at the council meeting.
Respect till„ submitted,
~9 ~' " ;
/ ;(John G ,/ Ca~-twr igha~t
r~City~ `?anager ( ~~
J'
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, ^~IINi~i~SOTA
Office of City r~ianager
`s'he :=cncrable '~'ayor
and
'?embers of the City Council
City of Richfield
} 0
~pa~..Tti .M~ Y
Council Letter No. 343
Agenda October 24, 1983
Subject: $4,350,000 Commercial Redevelopment Revenue
Bonds for Richfield Shoppes Development
Project (Linc0ln Properties)
~~
At the July 11, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
held a public hearing on the issuance of $4,750,000 in Commer-
cial Development Revenue Bonds for the commercial property lo-
cated on the east side of Nicollet Avenue between 65th and 66th
Streets and the former Red Owl Building which is located at the
southeast corner of 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue. After the
public hearing, the city council tabled the matter until the
July 25 regular meeting. At the July 25, 1983 council meeting,
the council adopted a resolution giving preliminary approval to
the project, subject to the execution Of a Developer's Agreement
between the City of Richfield and Lincoln Properties.
Since that time, negotiations have continued with the devel-
oper, the Red Owl building was acquired by the developer, renova-
tion was started on this building, and agreements were reached
with property owners of the Jac'.~cie Ann Hair Salon, the Richfield
Steakhouse, and the Richfield Pharmacy. Also, a Developer's
Agreement is in final draft form.
It has also .been determined that the amount of the bond
issue could be reduced from $4,50,000 to $4,350,000. Further,
the city attorney's office has indicated that it is desirable for
the city council t0 reaffirm its action giving preliminary approval
to the project as well as giving final approval at the October 24,
1983 city council meeting. The -reason for the preliminary approval
being given once again is that the advertising process possibly
rid r.ot meet all of the ordinance reauiremer:ts and, as insurance
nor the validity of ti,_e project, it is suggested that preliminary
approval once again be given to the project.
Another ?part of the same project, but not directly related
to the issuance of the bonds, will inci~~~de the sale of the Rich-
field Automotive property i~-which is located at the Northeast
COrne'L Of C'f7 tr'_ Street and ~. icollet AVenUe-t:w0 Ri Chf field ShOpS 1 .
`I"1`? 1S Tr?111 CCCUr SUbSeQUeilt t0 t e aCauis i ti On Of the property" nl
the Citv from the Naeaele Company.
Council Letter ^~70. 343 -2- October 24, 1983
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
• resolution giving preliminary and final approval to the project
subject to the execution of a Developer's Agreement between the
City of Richfield and Lincoln Properties.
Respectf}~3,1~ ,submitted,
i (/
~, ~ ~~
<,
' John G.~Cartwrigh~
..j City ~?anager
,~
JGC%eja
•
EXTRACT OF 'iINUTES OF i1EETING
• OF THE CITY COL~:ICIL OF THE CIT:
OF RICHFIELD, I-~NNEPIN COUNTY, `II_~1~TESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City.- of Richfield, Hennepin Countv, `Iinnesota, Baas held at
the City Ha11 in said City on Monday, October 2+, 1983, commencing at 7:00
o'clock P.'~1.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was then presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption, the reading of which was
dispensed with by unanimous consent:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RESTATING THE COLiv'CIL'S INTENT
OF GIVING PRELI'~II?vT~RY APPROVAL TO :~ PP,OJECT
liNDER THE :•IL-NICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DE~,'ELOP"TENT ACT
BE IT RESGL~~.D By the Cite Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:
Section 1. Backgrcund.
1.01. On July 25, 1983 the City Council of the City o± Richfield
passed Resolution No. b786 tResoiution} giving Preliminary 'approval to
Richfield Shoppes Developers Project (Project) under the `Iunicipa'1
• Industrial Development Act.
1.02. a public hearing before the Council was held prior to the
adoption of the Resolution but published notice of the hearing as required
• by law was not given.
1.G3. 'n'otice of a public hearing on the Project which was held this
date was dul;- given and published as required by law.
Resolution No. 6786 did not meet certain technical publication
requirements.
In the opinion of bond counsel and the City Council those techni-
cal requirements are not such so as to void the original preliminar~.T
approval giver. to the Project by Resolution wo. 6786.
Section 2. Findings: Determination.
2.G1. The City Council hereby restates and reaffirms its findings,
determinations and declarations made in Resolution No. 6786 and hereby
states that it is and has been the intent of the City Council to grant
preliminary approval to the Project since .7uly 25, 1983.
2.02. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to send a certified
copy of this resolution to the 'Minnesota Energy and Economic Development
authority.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember
and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
E=rTR-ACT OF ~1I~rUTES OF CIEETIl1G
OF THE CITY CODICIL OF TILE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, HE~,~'EFIN COL~'TY, LII:;NESOTa
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a -regular meeting of the City
Council of the City,- of Richfield, Hennepin Couat~ '•!innesota, was held at
the City Hall in said City on Monday, October 2=+, 1°83, commencing at 7:00
O ~ C1GC~: P.:l.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
•
The following resolution was then presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption, the reading of which was
dispensed with by unanimous consent:
RESOLliTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSL?-~~'CE :~:'vD SALE OF
$4, 350 , 000 CO`L"1ERCIaL DE~'nLOPMENT RE~'ENI;E B0:1D
(RIC:-MELD SHOPPES DE~,~LOPERS PROJECTI
PUP.SU:~.~IT TO :`II~TIv'ESOT~ STATUTES , CH_aPTER 4 7 4
tv~FcE:~S, the City of Richfield (the "City''; is authorized by the
`linnesota `;unicipal Industrial Development pct, as amended, the ''yct") to
issue its revenue bonds and to make secured Gr unsecured loans to finance
the acquisition of real property and tl~e acquisition or construction of
buildings and imarovements on such real property and the installation of
machinery and equipment of any anti all kinds and any other tiersonal pr•:~p-
erties deemed necessary in connection ~.:ith a project, .:s defined in the
pct; ar.d
•
WHEREAS, the City has made the necessary arrangements with Richfield
Shoppes Developers, a i~Iinresota general partnership (the "Company"), for
the purchase and renovation by the Company of a retail and commercial
facilities (the "Project"), which will be of the character contemplated by
and will accomplish the purposes provided by the Act; and
WI-IEREAS, it has been determined that bonds in the principal amount of
5+,350,000 should be issued, sold and delivered to provide proceeds for a
loan to be made to *_he Company to pay a part or all of the cost of the
Project; and
:~~0`.~, ~HERErORE, BE iT RESGL~~'ED B-.- the City Council of the City of
Richfi?ici, :Sinnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Definition, Exhibits and General Provisions.
1.01. Definitions. In this Resolution the following terms have the
following respective meanings unless the context hereof clearly requires
otherwise:
1,.02. Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4i4, as amended;
1.03. Assignment: the Assignment of Rents and Leases, dated as of
October 1, 1983, between Company and Bank;
1.04. Bond: the Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Richfield
Shoppes Developers Project) in the aggregate principal amount of
$4,350,000, to be issued by the City pursuant to this Resolution.
1.05. Bond Register: the register maintained by the City pursuant to
Section 4.02 hereof;
1.06. City: the City of Richfield, `linnesota, its successors and
assigns;
1.Oi. Disbursing Agreement: the Disbursing :agreement dated
October 1, 1983 among Bank, City and Company.
1.08. Guaranty: the Guaranty dated October 1, 1983 given by the
partners of the Company to the Bank.
1.09. Holder: the P,egistered Holder of the Bond;
1.1G. Loan A~~reement: the Loan and Bond Purchase ?.greement dated as
of October 1, 1983, bet;.een the Cit•~-, the Bark and the Compan~,~ an~i any
amendments or supplements thereto;
i.ll. 'Mortgage: that certain Combination `1ort,gage, Security Agree-
ment an~i Ei:{lure rinancin,Q Statement by the Company to the Bank;
• i.l"~. Payment Date: a elate ,>n which an installment of interest or of
principal and interest is due on the E3ond;
1.13. Pledge Agreement: the Pledge and assignment agreement b~,r which
tr:e City assigns to Purchaser certain of its rights under the Loan agree-
. ment as security for the Bond;
1.14. Purchaser: Nor;aest Bank `linneapolis, ~iational association,
ilinneapolis, 'linnesota (sometimes referred to as "the Bank");
1.15. Resolution: this Resolution, including any amendment thereto.
Bcnd.
Section ?. Approval of Documents: General Provisions Felatir.Q to tine
2.01. Authorization. The Citv is authorized by the Act to issue
revenue bonds and loan the proceeds thereof to business enterprises to
finance the acquisition and construction of projects as defined in the act,
and to make ail contracts, execute all instruments, and do all things
necessary or convenient in the exercise of such authority.
2.02. Preliminary City Approval: Approval by the Energy and Economic
Development authority. By resolution duly adopted by this Council on
July 25, 1983, the Council gave preliminary approval to the sale of revenue
bonds and the loan of proceeds to the Company for the construction of the
Project, and authorized the preparation of such documents as may be appro-
priate to the Project and the issuance and sale of the Bond.
2.03. Approval of Documents. Pursuant to the above, there have been
prepared and presented to this Council copies of the following documents,
all of which are now, or shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk, and cahich are approved substantiall:~ in the form presented, subject
to such modifications as are acceptable to the parties and the City
Attorney:
(a) the Loan Agreement;
(b) the Pledge Agreement;
(c) the Disbursing Agreement;
(d) the ,Mortgage;
(e) the Assigrunent of Rents and Leases; and
(f) the Guaranties.
Documents (d), (e) and (f) are not to be executed by ti.e Cit,:.
2.04. form and authorized .-lmount. The Bond shall be issued substan-
tially in the form set forth in Exhibit a attached to the Loan .`.~reement,
:with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted
or required bv_ this Resolution, and in accordance ~.cith the further provi-
. slops of this article anti :?rticle Three. The total principal amount of the
Bond to be delivered hereunder is expressly limited to $4,350,000.
2.05. Execution. The Bond may be in typewritten form and shall be
executed on behalf of the City by the manual signatures of the flavor and
the City 'Sanager, shall have the official seal of the City affixed or
imprinted thereon. In case any officer whose signature appears on the Bond
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bond, such signa-
ture shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same
as if he had remained in office until delivery.
2.Oo. '1utilated, Lost and Destroyed Bond. in case the Bond shall
become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then
prohibited by fah, cause to be executed and delivered, a new Bend of like
amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for
and uDOn cancellation of such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substi-
tution for such Bond destroyed or lost, open the Holder's paving the
reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and,
in case of a Bond destroyed or lost, its filing with the City evidence of
such loss or destruction satisfactory= to it together with the indemnity
required by Section 475.70 of the :pct. If the mutilated, destroyed or lost
Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with
its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment.
2.07. Redemption. The Bond is subject to redemption and prepayment
without premium in whole or in part, in multiples of $1,000, by the City at
the direction of the Obligor on any Pa~nnent Date. The Bond may also he
prepaid in whole but not in part at the option of the Obligor upon certain
conditions involving damage to or destruction of the Project or taking of
the Project by eminent domain. The Bond is also further subject to redemp-
• tion in whole but not in part by the City at the direction of the Holder
upon certain events specified in Section 5 of the Loan agreement.
2.08. Cancellation. tv'hen the Bond has been redeemed or otherwise
paid in full, it shall be cancelled by the City and shall not be reissued.
The Holder shall deliver to the Citv either the cancelled Bond or a certif-
icate of a responsible officer of the Holder certifying as to the destruc-
tion thereof.
2.09. Registration: Securities :pct. The Bond has not been regis-
tered under the Securities pct of 1933, as amended (the "Securities :pct"),
or under any state securities laws for initial distribution, and the Bond
has been sold initially only to the Bank pursuant to the investment repre-
sentation of the Bank as Purchaser.
2.10. Registration of Transfer. The City trill cause to be kept at
the office of the City Clerk a Bond Register in which, subject to such
reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, the City snail provide for the
registration of transfers of ownership of the Bond. The Bor.d shall be
transferable only anon the Bond Register by the the Registered ~7older
thereof in person or by its attorne•.= duly authorized in writing, uuon
surrender of the Bond together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Cite Clerk and the City :attorney, duly executed by the
Registered Holder or its duly authorized attorney. t:pon such transfer the
City shall note the date ~~f registration and the name and address of the
• new registered o:cner in the Bor,d inie~ister and in the registration blank
appearing on the Bond. ylternativeiy, the City shall, at the request and
expense of the registered Holder, issue a new Bond in aggregate outstanding
principal amount equal to that of the bond surrendered, and of like tenor
except as to principal amount, and -registered in the name of the registered
Holder or such transferee as may be designated by the registered Holder.
The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Bond is last
registered in the Bond Register and by notation on the Bond as the absolute
owner thereof, whether or not the principal balance or any part thereof is
overdue, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the
principal balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes.
The Bond shall be initially -registered in the name of the Bank.
2.11. Cessation and Continuation of Interest. Interest on the Bond
shall cease on its payment in full. If the Bond is not presented for
payment ;:hen due, and if funds sufficient to pay the Bcnd shall have been
paid to the tIoider, (i) all obligations of the City for payment of the Bond
shall forthwith cease and (ii) the Holder of the Bond shall thereafter have
no rights with respect thereof except to receive payment therefor.
Section 3. authorization and Sale: Terms and Conditions of the Bond.
3.01. Approval of Terms. The City shall forthwith issue and sell the
Bond in the principal amount of $4,350,000. The Bond shall be in substan-
tially the form set forth in Exhibit A of the Loan Agreement, which terms
and provisions are herebv approved and incorporated herein. Principal and
interest shall be payable at Norwest Bank :`linneapolis, national Associa-
tion, ilinneapolis, Clinnesota 55402.
3.02. Sale of Bond. The offer of the Bank to purchase the Bond at a
price of $4,350,000 in accordance with the terms of the Loan agreement is
hereby found to be reasonable and is accepted.
3.03. Delivery of the Bond. The Bond shall be delivered to the Bank
upon payment of the purchase price on the Closing Date as defined in the
Loan Agreement, and upon compliance with all conditions of Section 3 of the
Loan Agreement relating to closing and delivery.
Section 4. Approvals and Authorization: Limitations of City Obligation.
4.01. Authorization: Authentication of Transcript. Upon the execu-
tion of the documents approved in Section 2 hereof, the Mayor and City
Manager are authorized and directed to execute the Bond on behalf of the
City and to deliver it to the Bank, and to execute such other certifica-
tions, documents or instructions as may be required by the Loan Agreement,
or as bond counsel or counsel for the Bank shall require, and all such
certifications, recitals and representatior_s of the Cite-, including anv
heretofore furnished, shall constitute a representation of the Cit~.~ as to
the accuracy of ail statements contained therein. tpo^ deliver~~ of the
Bond, the proceeds thereof shall be disbursed to the Compan~~ pursuant to
the Loan agreement. execution of any instrument or document by one or more
appropriate efficers of the City shall constitute, and shall be deemed the
conclusive evidence of, the approval and authorization by the City and ~he
Council of the instrument or. docwnent so executed. in the event of the
S absence or disability or the `layor or City ;lanager, officers of the {~it,~'
as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, mav_ act in their behalf, shall
without further act or authorization of the Council do all thin,QS and
• execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by
such absent or disabled officials.
4.02. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as bond registrar, shall
keep a bond register in which the City shall provide for the registration
of the Bond and for transfers of the Bond. The principal of and interest
on the Bond shall be raai.d to the Bank for the account of the Holder
enti*_~~ed thereto in Federal or other it?imediately available funds. The Citv
Clerk is authorized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this Bond
Resolution to tt.e Director of Propert-.r Taxation of Hennepin Count~.r,
together ~~ith such other information as said officer may require, and to
obtain the certificates as to entr,; of the Bond on the bond resister as
required by the Act and ^linnesota Statutes, Section 4%5.63
4.03. Limitation of the Citv_'s Obligations. 'vTotwithstanding anything
contained in the Bond or the Loan Agreement or any other documents relating
thereto, the Bond shall not constitute a debt of the City within the
meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation, and shall
not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue
pledged to the payment thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any
liability thereon, and no holder of the Bond shall ever have the right to
compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bond or the
interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the
City, and the Bond shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the City. The agreement of the
• City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in the Bond
and the Loan Agreement shall be subject at all times to the availability of
revenues furnished by the Company sufficient to pay all costs of such
performance or the enforcement thereof, and neither the City nor any of its
officials, officers, agents or employees shall be subject to any personal
liability thereon.
4.04. Execution and Delivery. The ?~lavor, the City Manager and the
City Attorney are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Resolution relating to the execution and
delivery of the bond and the other documents described herein.
4.05. Statement of Elec*_ior.. The principal amount of the Bond being
in excess of 51,000,000 the '`layor and City Manager are hereby authorized
and directed on behalf of the City to execute and fi1_e c~ith the Internal
Revenue Service a statement of election to issue its obligations in excess
of S1,000,000 as provided by Section 103(b)(e)(D) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 1.103(bj(2)(vi' of the Regulations
promulgated thereui:der.
Adopted by the Council this 4th ~iav of October, i~33.
• :~t~eSt.
'°lac-or
City Clerk
r--
CITY OF RICHFIELD , r~1IN`1ESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter I~?o. 342
Aaenda October 24, 1983
The Honorable ~~layor
and
'~'_embers of the City Council
CiYv cf P.ichf~eld
Council :`-Zembers
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds for Metro
Sales, Inc., 1620 E. ?8th Street
At the September 26, 1983 city council meeting, the city
council set the date of October 24, 1983 for a public hearing
to consider the issuance of Commercial Development Revenue Bonds
to 1letro Sales, Inc. Subsequent to that time, city's legal
staff has been in contact with the attorney for Metro Sales, Inc.
and it was determined that the necessary elements for the project
,,gill not be completed in time for the October 24, 1983 meeting.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council schedule
another public hearing for the Commercial Development Revenue
Bonds for November 14, 1983.
Respectf~t%ly~submitted,
( ~ ~~ i,
Sohn G. Car'~~f~righ~
City Manager ~~
JGC/eja
,~
-.,....~- + a
CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINI~?FSOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 341
Agenda October 24, 1983
i'he Honorable `'?a~IOr
and
Members of the City Council
City, of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Agreement with the South Hennepin
Human Services Council - Paint and Fix Program
At the June 1, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
approved the submission of a request for $227,000 of 1983 Jobs
Bi11 additional Community Development Block Grant appropriation
for economic development and for a "fix and paint" program pro-
posed. by the South Hennepin Human Services Council. Hennepin
County only approved the funding of the fix and paint program,
in the amount of $27,000.
Prior to any of the funds being spent, the city and the
South Hennepin Human Services Council must enter into an agree-
ment, which delineates the responsibilities of each entity and
_required financial information. A draft agreement is attached
for council consideration. Lnder the agreement, SHHSC will hire
people to "paint and fix" the property of eligible persons, and
the city will provide the additional CDBG funds of $27,000 for
labor and materials.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
agreement and authorize the :Mayor and City r~lanager to execute it
on behalf of the city.
R spectf~l~y~bmitted,
~,~~ ~ ---
~u
John G. Cartwright
City '~~anager ',~
JGC/eja
AGREEMENT
This agreement made and er_tered into by and between the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, herein after referred to as the "City"
and South Hennepin Human Services Council, a public service agency,
herein after referred to as the "Agency',
;v ~ T~.LSSE'~H.
WHEREAS, the City is ar. authorized subgrantee participant in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program
by v`rtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the
Ci tv and Hennepin Count,~~ pursuant to `~ISA 471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated 1983 Jobs Bill Additional Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Appropriation
for the purpose of supporting the Paint and Fix program administered
by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually
agree to the following terms and conditions:
I
The City agrees to provide $27,000 dollars of 1983 Jobs Bill
Additional Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Appropriation to the Agency in support of the Paint and Fix program.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period
June 1, 1982 through Jur.e 1, 1983.
III
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352)
(Nondiscrimination in programs or activities receiving
cederal financial assistance.)
2. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. ('londiscrimination in any program or
activity subject to prevision of the HCDA.)
-2-
3. OMB Circular A-i02 Attachment O, Section 14, paragraph (h)
by assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comp-
troller General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to
this contract for the purpose of making audit examinations,
excerpts and transcriptions.
4. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment C (2), and maintain all
required records for a period of three years after receiv-
~r,a final payment.
IV
The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement from the City shall
provide the City with:
1. H.O.M.E. Service Request/Chore Maintenance
2. Individual Data Confidentiality form
3. Client Income Verification
4. Home Summary Form
V
This agreement is effective as
continue in full force and eff
under this agreement have been
paragraphs I-IV.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the
and affixed their seals this
Upon proper execution,
this Agreement wi 11 be
legally valid and binding.
of October 24, 1983, and shall
ect until all funds made available
expended in accordance with
parties hereto have set their hands
day of 1983.
By
Chair, South Hennepin Human
Services Council
and
Executive Director, South
Hennepin. Human Services
Council
•
City of Richfield
State of Minnesota
City of Richfield
By
Mayor
and
City Manager
J !..".,
,~,,,~y"w"' ~ I ~ '~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ ~
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 340
Agenda October 24, 1983
Ti,.e enorable i~:ayor
and
`~':e:nbers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council `~?embers
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650
By resolution of the city council, the city council must
approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or con-
struction when the amount exceeds $2,650. There are two such
items ors the council agenda for October 24, 1983.
Snow Plow Attachment
'I~he recently adopted revised 1983 operating budget for the
central garage motor pool includes $6,000 fer the purchase of
• ne~a snowplow equipment to be used for the plowing of streets. Two
written quotations were recently received for this equipment.
Itasca Equipment Company quoted $3,437; and Road N?achinery and
Supplies Company quoted $2,935.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase
of two one-way Fienke Model OWFA-39-52-11 one ~,~~ay plow attachments
to be mounted on existing vehicles for a total purchase price of
$5,870 from Road Machinery and Supplies Company.
Award of Contract - Rock Salt
Under the Hennepin County Group Purchasing arrangement, coun-
ties and municipalities join together to bid on rock salt for de-
icing. For the last winter season (82/83) the low bidder was
Cargill Salt ~f~ith a unit price of $18.34/ton, plus $1.91Jton for
delivery, for a total price of $20.25/ton. For the contract per-
iod June 23, 1983 through May 1, 1984, the 10~~~ bid ,•~as submitted
by Domtar Industries, Inc., at 515.69/ton plus $2!ton delivery,
for a total price of $18.69%ton.
Under the joint purchasing agreement, the City of Richfield
has an obligation to pure'.'.^.ase from the 1ou~~ bidder. It is, there-
fore, recom~-nended that the city council authorize a master purchase
•
Council Letter '_`IO. 340 -2- October 24 , 1 983
order for an estimated 800 tons of rock salt from Domtar In-
dustries, Inc., for an estimated total purchase price of
$14,952 for the 1983/84 winter season.
spect uL1y, submitted,
~~ ,~ ,:
u~~ d ~, ; ~ f - :~~ N ,~ :~
John G.~ Cartwright
City Manager
JGC; ej a
•
,,'~'i
L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, P-?INNESOTA
Office of City ~~lanager
Council Letter Ne. 339
Agenda October 24,1983
The Honorable ~~?avor
and
_?embers of the City Council
CiL~~ cf Lichfield
Council Members:
Subject: Sign Permit Fee tti'aiver,Louise Whitbeck
Fraser School, 2400 west 64th Street
~J
An application for a temporary sign permit has been sub-
mitted by Ms. Laurie Anderson, publicity co-chairperson for
the Louise 6Vhitbeck Fraser School, located at 2400 West 64th
Street. The purpose of the sign is to advertise their annual
Bazaar which has been scheduled for November 4th through Novem-
ber 6, 1983. The sign is to be located on the school grounds
at 2400 West 64th Street and measures 4 feet by 8 feet.
Pursuant to ordinance 3.47, subdivision 12, Fraser School
is reauestina that the permit fee of $20 oe waived. It is the
recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur,
that the city council give favorable consideration to this
request.
Respectful omitted,
r
' ~~ %%~
/Lt~ • f
ohn G . Carter fight /
City :'-tanager /;`
JGC/eja
•
CITY OF RICHrIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council getter No. 338
Agenda October 24, 1983
I'he ~c~.orable -favor
and
-Iembers of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members
Subject: Off-Street Parking Permit Request at 6944
Nicollet Avenue
Mr. Raymond Wienke, representing dasher Medical Partner-
ship, has requested an offstreet parking permit at 6944 Nicollet
Avenue., The applicant is proposing to remove the existing vacant
gasoline service station on the site and construct a new one-story
2,00 square foot medical clinic on the site.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plan and found tre following:
r~
U
1. A sufficient number of parking spaces will be pro-
vided on the site to accomodate the proposed use;
2. The proposed layout will not result in traffic
hazards or congestion on adjacent streets;
3. The required i5-foot parking area setback will not be
maintained on the north end of the property lot adjacent
to the neighboring multiple residence property. It is
staff's opinion that that will r.ot be detrimental be-
cause sufficient screening exists along the north
property line;
4. The required perimeter curbing is not sho~,an along the
east side and along a portion of the south side of the
parking area;
5. Cars will overhang the right-of-way ar_.d the side:aalk
adjacent to Nicollet Avenue. Perimeter curbing s'r.ould
be installed a minimum cf three feet away from the side-
;,~a1k to provide proUer pedestriar_ movement on the side-
walk and tc provide ~re~er sno~~~ storage space;
6. A landscape plan has not been submitted, so the staff
is unable to revie~•~ the landscaping of the site;
•
Council Letter `io. 338 -2- October 24, 1983
7. The drainage shown on the site is inadequate. The
site should drain through the driveways to the storm
sewer catch basins on Nicollet and 70th Street;
8. Screening should be provided for the dumpster;
9. The plan sho,:vs that a sign will be constructed in the
corner visibility triangle which would potentially ob-
struct vision. The design details of the sign have
not been submitted so staff cannot determine to what
degree vision :vi11 be obstructed.
~,~. The Site 1S SufflCl.entlV Screened from ad]aCent resi-
dential properties by existing fences and landscaping.
This screening should be maintained.
It is recommended that the city council pass the attached
resolution approving the proposed layout and authorizing execution
of an off-street parking agreement with the following stipulations:
1. That perimeter curbing be provided along the south and
east sides of the parking area;
2. That the perimeter curbing along the east side be
located a minimum of three feet from the west right-of-
way line of Nicollet Avenue;
3. That a landscape plan be submitted for city staff
approval;
4. That a revised drainage plan be submitted for city
staff approval;
S. That the dumpster be screened from view;
6. That the freestanding sign not be constructed in the
corner visibility triangle.
Respectf~y ,snubmitted,
%~ohn G. Carttaright
~'~ City ~~anager
t~,r
.;GC/e~ a
~~
•
•
_w ~
__ ~
I
i
+-
_.... ,.» .~. ., ~ Z
,~,. _.._. _. -_. _ _..__ v
.~, .xz.._. ..,.,~. - Iw~b.eL. 1
. ~ ..._ ~.. r^..
[ ;i
..a, ~, , . `; v
' t ~ ~ ~- ~ _~ aS C
i d d
i 1 L.7',
S'- ~si~~ ._-...
~.. + i
~ '• ~ ~ :"
s ~ #
i jw~ `~ _
~ % lti ~+~~~, a (!:.~-;~ r ~ !. it _.._ _ 1L 3
z ~ ~ ~
~ w, r _
` z.. »,r'y~ sew ., ~\ ~~v
~~5~ ~ [
.~ _. ~ =tL_. _~ J
{
S
y _ I
1 ; ~.
._' ...~ 9
..~- sue... w..~._-.-~~ • ~~ . -1
1.
~l
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION
NO. 83-7, CONTRACT NO. 2355
Name: Flashner Medical Partnership
830 East Rand Road
Mount Prospect, Illincis 56055
~ocaticn: 6944 Nicoi]_et Avenue Scuth
Use: Medical Clinic
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking
as contained in off-street parking application No. 83-7,
Contract No~. 2355 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion
of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as herein-
after authorized.
2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the
improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2355
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this city.
3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal
authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the
community development director and city manager, to ensure the off-
street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations
of the Off-Street Parking Agreement with the following stipulations:
a. That perimeter curbing be provided along the south and east
sides of the parking area;
b. That the perimeter curbing along the east side be located
at a minimum of 3 feet from the west right-of-way line of
Nicollet Avenue ;
c. That a landscape plan be submitted for cite staff appreval;
d. That a revised drainage plan be submitted for city staff
approval;
e. That the dumpster be screened from vie:a;
f That the free-standing sign not be constructed in the corner
visibility triangle;
-2-
9. That existing screening along the north and west property
lines be maintained.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of
the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance
Code ~.OJ.
adopted by the city cour.cii of the City of Richfield this
day of 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
yTTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Llanaaer
Council Letter Ne. 337
Agenda October 24,1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
_~~Iembers of the City Council
C i t',' of Ri chf field
Council tMembers:
Subject: Scheduling a Public Hearing and First Reading
of an Ordinance Relating to Preparing an Appli-
cation to Issue Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds
During the last quarter of 1982, tl:e city council and the
HRA considered applying for authority to issue mortgage revenue
bonds. This authority, which must be secured from the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MFA), would have provided the financing
source for a city~,aide program that offers qualifying first-time
homebuyers below market interest rate mortgages to purchase afford-
able existing homes. The city council scheduled the required
public hearing. However, the HRA declined to provide necessary
funds to support this program, determining that its limited fin-
ancial resources were needed to pursue specific projects having
a higher priority. One such project, to which the HRA has al-
ready committed approximately $178,000 for acquisition. and planning
purposes, is developing affordable family housing within the Port-
land Avenue Development Area (PADA) at Legion La'.{e (see map
Attachment A). Securing authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds
for this project would finance affordable ownership or rental
opportunities for moderate income families in 1984 if appropriate
actions are taken now, by participating in the annual MHFA appli-
cation process for bonding authority. This letter discusses the
plan, program and project in greater detail and requests appropri-
ate actions of the city council.
On October 17, 1983, the HRA gave preliminary consideration
to pursuing the bond plan and program for PADA, and ado?~ted a
motion requesting the city council to establish the date of the
public hearing or. the bond plan and program for ~~ovember 28, 1983.
The HRA also adopted a resolution (Attachment Bl :which requests
the council to adopt an ordinance whereby the HRA would be grar:ted
the authority to issue housing mortgage bonds. A copy of the
proposed ordinance is attached and marked Attachment C. Permitting
the HRA to exercise the authority tc issue mortgage revenue bonds
would make a complex process more manageable and require less
staff time. Track~na and assembling the necessary documents would
also be simplified. lIf approved, the ordinance would receive a
second reading and public hearing on November 14, 1983. Favorable
Council Letter r?o. 337 -2-
October 24, 1983
consideration of the ordinance and successful completion of a
• public hearing on the bond plan permits the HRA to submit the
plan, program and application to MHFA.
The staff is in the process of finalizing a bond plan (a
general statement of housing conditions, goals, and needs) and
bond program (a specific finance program for a project such as
DADA) that would become part of an application. The process ~,~ill
also involve: interested citizens; the city financial consultant,
~vensen-Dodge; a bond under.ariter, Dain-Bosworth; and the City/
HRA legal counsel, ~f~ho also serves as bond counsel. The Metro-
politan Council and the "•MHFA have an advisory and revie~f~ role
relating to submitting a bond plan, bond program, and an applica-
tion for bonding authority.
The LIRA and City Council will be requested to consider the
plan and program at the req•~ired public hearing and submit the plan
and program to the :Metropolitan Council for review prior to the
January 3, 1984 submission deadline at MHFA. The Richfield "plan"
will discuss:
-Housing needs, with supporting demographic data;
-Local housing policies as outlined in Richfield's
comprehensive plan;
-Potential projects that could utilize this type of
financing;
-Lender participation;
. -The estimated number of loans and estimated amounts
and timing of the sale of revenue bonds required to
finance loans, appropriate reserves, and costs of
issuance;
-Methods of monitoring a program to ensure it meets
plan objectives;
-Costs to the city, with costs of issuance being reim-
bursed from bond proceeds. Staff believes the local
contribution needed to make a bond issue feasible
(known as "non-bond proceeds"} could come from sources
other than the operating fund and reserves of the HRA
and the city;
-How the program meets the needs of low and moderate
income families;
-The maximum loan amount, sales price, cr monthly rental
_range for the proposed units.
The plan is a broad document that is applied to a variety of
more specific programs than can be pursued over a number of _years.
Hence, one plan, if adopted, serves many programs. The first pro-
gram taould be the proposed PADA project being submitted in this
year's application. Future applications would require are appropri-
ate "program" but not a "plan", si:~ce that plan would have been
prepared earlier. The decision ma'.~cing steps for completing an
application this year are provided in mere detail on the attached
schedule !Attachment D). The kev elements of the schedule and the
i time frame are based on requirements within Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 462C. This is the statute which permits a city to develop
Council Letter ?,io. 337 -3- October 24, 1983
ar~d administer programs to finance family housing for low and
moderate income persons.
Once the plan, and the first program (PADA project), as
described above, are completed and the public hearing requirement
met, the plan and program are reviewed by the Metropolitan Council
as required by I~linnesota Statute 462C. The HRA would submit the
application to ti1HFA for bonding authority providing the ordinance
is ~remptly adopted. The precise amount of bonding authority to
:~e requested is in the process of being determined. Assistance
is being provided by the architectural firm of Val ^~iichelson Assoc-
iates .which is evaluating the design and cost feasibility for
housing at PADA, and also by Dain-Bosworth. It is expected the
request for bonding authority will be perhaps only a quarter to a
third of the maximum $10 million request permitted by an individual
city.
If MHFA receives requests for mere than the $27.5 million in
bonding authority available exclusively to cities, then the applica-
tions are ranked based on three criteria:
1. 'The proportion of the proposec'. issue reserved for at
least a six-month period for households with incomes
below 80 percent of the metropolitan area median
income limit, or $25,280.
2. The proportion reserved for families below 900 of the
median income, or $28,440.
3. The percentage of the proposed bend program that re-
presents non-bond proceeds; i.e., a cash contribution.
All applicants tend to use the same proportions for the first
two criteria. As a result, the third criteria, that of the cash
contribution, usually becomes the basis for the final ranking.
In the program proposed in late 1982, the HRA was concerned about
having to contribute a minimum of 3-50 of the size of the bond
issue, and as much as 10°, to be competitive in securing bonding
authority. Since this was a program designed to finance the sale
of existing homes, other likely sources for contributions were few.
However, with a neTS~ construction program, such as PADA, other likely
sources of contribution increase. The following sources,. suggested
by our bond under~s~riter, could apply to the P"DA Project:
-COntrl:JUtlon from partl.ClpatlnQ leriderS, ~ percent
(lender recovers this investment when buyer or seller
mays "points" at loan closing;;
-Contribution from the HRA, 5178,000, 3-6 percent, de-
pending on size cf issue. This contribution has already
been expended for acquisition ar.d planning;
-Contribution based on the value of land not acquired by
the HRA and presently o~rmed by the city, with the value
determined by appraisal; and estimated~2-4 percdnt depend-
ing ors size of issue and estimated market value of the
land.
Council Letter No. 337
-4- October 24, 1983
Conservatively, staff expects a 7-8 percent contribution to
be available from these sources. The contribution does not have
to be provided until after the city has been selected by MHFA and
is actually preparing to issue bonds. He~s~ever, the application
must indicate the amounts, and the expected sources of such con-
tributions.
By February 1, 1984, MHFA will have reviewed each of the sub-
mitted ~reposals and selected successful proposals. Assuming favor-
able consideration, Richfield would be authorized by MHFA to sell
the housing revenue bonds through Dain-Bosworth in 1984. Local
lenders, .•.~ro agree tc participate in the program, in cooperation
-~~ith the selected developer, originate and service insured mortgages
.pith the bond proceeds being used to purchase these mortgages. Other
activities ~rrhich ~r~ould take place in 1984 include selection of a
developer and initiation of construction. As with Industrial De-
velopment Revenue Bonds, the HRA and the city are not at risk with
mortgage revenue bonds, since they are not backed by the full faith
and credit of the issuer. The bond holders and mortgage issuers
assume the risks of default.
One concern which the city council and the HRA have little
control over is the possibility that mortgage revenue bonds cannot
be issued for ownership housing after U.S. Congressional "sunset"
provisions take effect December 31, 1983. There is significant
congressional support for cancelling the "sunset". However, even
if it is not, bonding authority of some type will likely continue
to be available. Since the annual MHFA application review process
must be initiated before the end of the year, the city council and
the HRA have little choice but to proceed at this time and assume
favorable congressional action. (Also, the authority to sell revenue
bonds for multi-family rental housing does not "sunset". If it is
not possible to finance ownership housing, a decision could be
made to finance rental housing).
A resolution urging Congressional support for cancelling the
"sunset" is also included on the October 24, 1983 agenda.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached res-
olution, marked Attachment E, setting a public hearing for November
28, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. to consider a housing plan and program. The
HRA and City Council would meet con-currently on this date, to
further discuss the matter. Additionally, it is requested that
the city council give first reading consideration to the ordinance
(Attachment C) =f~hich permits the HRA to act on behalf of the cith
in issuing housing mortgage revenue bor:ds. If the ordinance is
given favorable consideration, a public hearing and second reading
could occur November 14, 1983.
ice-,
~sp ctf,'u];~1,~ submitted,
~~ % - ~
~ i ..
~ ~ohn G . % Car~t~•~r ig'rxt..
`,~
V City Manager
JGC/ej a
A~tachment A
_.
.. 'i
i ~ i II
,,
~..,~.,
i s~ ~ ! i I I
~. ~ ~ i
cz~ ~ ~.o ias ate. ....
.~,. ,~ i
' ~ '.a..
i
~ ~
I I
~ ~ ~ I 7
,._
L~G7C~1 LAKE
~.-,-
~ _.r ...
~ ~~.. j• r~ry ~_ ~W t .-~Iq aql~
.^._ `t'~^ _ ~.~y~Yni
MLYA
i I
i i ~
~ ~ i
', I s5o~ ~, ~
~r
6505 ' ~
~~
16507 ~~,~ .~.w ..
r `-- ' ~... ..e..
i 6527 j
I
~Z_rr -~
..a ._,.
i Ii w ~ -
5545 "`
a,.
.~
°' CRGS~TC'rY~V HI`~1AY
~~
y
I
I
~~
_~
~-u, ,
t~LtaCi~ii:crit t_,
•
:.:.JULY ~ :~
+..+~.~'ui _ ~,G z.
_:~ _ ~. r. i.; _ _ _ ~ r.
Cti~ ~=~ .G C~L~:~CSSC C~=^~ =.~ :O;vi: S
..,~ =~ _.:,JOL'v",,J =`_' =,:_-. ::CL;S.:1~G 4D ?.iD.r".':r~C?=.+._:__d^_ r;.^ :CRI':"~
- .Cr~C~.4CT: i• .~.Z.'r.7 au~.'~ci~..y LiG:S ~ ~Y~J6..1~a1~~ ~. i~ ..aC''
~~.. r ~s and zas
~OL::.d a.~.d dct°~'TlineC ti.a t .t :.s neCessarv and desira~le nor tie
aC.`Iieveme_^,t O t~'I°.'~.'~ ~ s a_^iC t:le C~ tV ~ S IlOL'S=P 7 CGd~S t_iat Nr OC:'GI^.S
O r hCUSi:15 Lizance .e uncertaken in the City L'nCer t.'?e a'u'tI1C~ ity O.
:~.irnzsota Statutes, Chapter 462C (pct) .
Sec. 2. Section 46X.02, Subdivision. 6 0.~ the pct provides that
t.'~e City ., ay ac:t:•~orize t.'~e ~3R~ to exercise on behal o~ t~:e City al_
o~ ~ e pewees con erred by Sections 46X.01 to 46X.08 0~ tt.e act.
Sec. 3. ~t is ~ound and cetsr:,iin ec t_':at it is necessary and
desirable to t_he sound :aana event oL the :i?~ and t. L
S ~e provision o~
sousing in t.'.e City t.:ac the c?~ be aut_':orized to exerc :se t7e pcwer s
o t_'~e act as described above.
Sec . 4 . ~'he ~~i~ respectdully r ecuests th z City_ Council od the
City od Rich:field to take appropriate steps as soon zs convenie,^,t to
a'.:y~horize ther'sicr`~ to exercise t_'~e authority gra:'~ted by Sec~ion.s
4o'2C.01 to 46ZC.08 od t.'~e act.
C.'la~_.:ian
~o ~esc .
=.;ec~ ~_~~ e ~i= ec ~cr
•
Attachment C
•
CRDIN~~VCH .1C.
?lV GRDI:~~~1CR
RE~TI:iG TO HOUSING: ~:UTHORIZI?1G TF~'
HOUSi:vG A1,7D ~..,D~iLLOPMENT ?_L'THO:~ITY Cr
THL CI'~'~' C.' RIC:'.~ =~.D TO i~~RCSE ^~~ PC:•~RS
Gr.?1~T=.^~ 2`~ id;`i:i~SCT`~ STAT'~T~ C:=.; ^'A .
/~ _ ~7 ~
4020 l.i'i`i .~~aAS Gi T1:... CiTV .
~Jr ~L.: ~L' JV... 1J i.::: i.~~1.
Secticr. 1. .findings. Subdivision i The City of Ricr~field
is authorized by ~tiTirresota St=totes, C`~apter 4620 (the Act) to
establi sr. and administer programs for the zinancirg o= various
ho~.:sing projects in the City . y
Subd. 2. Section 46X.02, Subdivision 6 of ~'^~e Act provides
that t;:e City nay authorize the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of t_he City of Richfield (HRA) to exercise , on behalf of the Cit v; ,
all of the gcwers conferred on the City by Section 4620.01 to 4620.08
of the Act and the HP.A has requested that the City grant such
authority to it.
S~,ibd. 3 ~ The City Council r,as invest~.cated the facts and =finds
and deter.T.1n eS t!'iat it 2S necessary and desirable to the sound
:ranagement o~ the City and the achievement of tree City's housinc
coals 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 cenferred cr. the City by Secticn
4620.01 to 4620.08 of the Act.
uavor
att°St:
Clerk
Attachment D
S C3~ ~U i:c. . 0
•
•
•
?..DA :7Oi7S=vG DB'v~::O?_`~?B'.1^_'
October 17 'riRA board meeting, evaluation of bend plan/
prcgra^; corce~t, reccrmencaticn to City Council
t0 SC.^.edlll2 ~L'b1iC %e.r_, C a_^.C ~_.=S'.. rc'' aC~:'C
c~ ordinan c` ccn_nr;_ng ~.:-cn .~;c..3 ~':e cowers o=
_ _
4b2C.
October 2-'_ C~-_. Cow :oil ^eet~._ ^, c:,nsiderst~on cc auther,ze
ubl_c ea__Tc =i_st __.ci :c c~ o,..inance.
_ _~
October 26 Publicr_earing notice publisred. 30 day noric~
required on plan, 15 cay notice on Yrocran.
~Tovemner ? Preli.:v.narr plan/progra.-ti submitted to the
Metropolitan Council `cr required 45 day review.
C:~anges made at request of Ci ty Cou.;cil, HRA,
~~!etropclitan Cou.^.cil.
~iove_.nber 14 City Ceurcil meetins, second reading od ordinance.
Vovemher lo' Ordinance published.
`~ovem.:.er 29 Joint :iR~ Board a.ie City Council meetinc, SC~:edLled
public hearing and review o bor_d plan/program.
ece.*n: er 3 uetropolitan Council Corrtu.•2ity Develep:aen~ Com*~i.ttee
review o~ bcnd plan/program.
Dece_*nber ? 6 OrLi.:.ance er;ective.
Dece y,er 22 ~~tropolita.-~ Coun oil review oL bcnd plan/prccra•n.
December 23 Application rec~cest_n g share c= bcr~dinc aut_'.crity
and bcnd plan/prc5r..~:. s ::omitted to `~~=_ or ? 0 da..
review period.
u'anL•a`••_7 2~, 1~~~ ~•1~~~ roars reT=eT11S :.C::C^.rCC`,c..^., and GiS~~i~L't25
.^.CI1G~nC^_ aLL^.cr~t_i :~at-_;i~:SL .fie ...~.___ :°C ....__: g _7~ ~ .
Pecr~.:a=:: 1 ~T?F^A nev_ew Ccmpl°teC
Cebruarv'-JU.*~e Developer Solyc_ta~_cn WrC S`14ct~.c^.
~uCuSt 3C.^_d Sal_
:rove^.ber Co.^.str•~c ~icn Start
F.1., 1985 Constr.:ct_cn Ccmp ~ et~cn and ~n _ . Occ• p~~c•.
Attachment E
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
ADOPTION OF A HOUSING PLAN FOR THE CITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin Cour_ty, 'Minnesota as follo~r~s
Sec. 1. It is hereby found and determined that it is necessary
and desirable that the City take the necessary actions to undertake
programs of providing funds to assist in the financing of the
acquisition or rehabilitation of single family housing for persons
of low and moderate income and the acquisition and rehabilitation
of multi-family housing developments all as authorized by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act").
Sec. 2. Section 46X.02, Subdivision 6, of the Act provides that
the City may authorize the HRA to exercise on behalf of the City
all of the powers conferred by Sections 46X.01 to 462.08 of the
Act.
Sec. 3. It is found and determined, while the City Council takes
the appropriate steps toward considering and ordinance conferring
this authority, that the HRA shall participate jointly in the
public hearing and plan and program review required by the Act.
Sec. 4. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m, on Monday,
November 28, 1983, to conduct a public hearing on a proposed housing
plan and included programs for the City as required by the Act.
Sec. 5. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice
of the public hearing set by paragraph 4 in the manner required by
law and in substantially the form of the notice attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Sec. 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to prepare
a proposed housing plan and included programs for submission to
This Council at the time of the public hearing, and to take such
other actions as he deems necessary to insure that the housing
plan, if adopted by this Council, and any programs (as defined
by the Act) contained therein are timely submitted to the appro-
priate regional and state agencies for review and approval.
Passed by the City Council of the Cit~LL~ of Richfield, ~-Minnesota,
this 24th day of October, 1983.
ATTEST:
john Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
Exhibit A
(Official Publication)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
HOUSING PLAN AND PRCGRAN?S
FOR THE CITY CF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City
of Ricr~field and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Richfield will jointly meet in the
City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on i~ionday, November 28, 1983, to
conduct a public hearing or. the. adoption of a housing plan
and programs for the City in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 4b2C. The plan will set forth the
housing needs of the City, the City elan for meeting those
needs, the specific financing of programs to be utilizes,
and other matters related to the use and issuance of
housing mortgage revenue bonds of the City.
Any person wishing to express an opinion either written
or oral concerning the housing clan and programs will be
heard at the meeting.
Further information regarding the housing plan will be
available at the office of the City Manager, b700 Portland
Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, 55423, after November 21,
1983 during normal business hours.
By Order of the City Council.
Svlvia N. Be_cr~
Cit~.~ Clerk
C~
(Oct. 25, 1983)
~--' f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI~;NESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter ?~?o. 336
Agenda October 24, 1983
The Honorable :Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City cf Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appoint~*:ent to the Human Rights Commission
There is one vacancy on the Richfield Human Rights Commission
for a term to be filled by a high school student.
Attached to this council letter are copies of applications
from four high school students; all of whom have expressed an
interest in being appointed to this commission. The applicants
are: Mary M. Bertrand; Kim S. Elsen, Meghan M. McKenna, and Karen
V. Susag.
• It is recommended that the city council appoint one of these
students to the Human Rights Commission for a term which will expire
upon their graduation from high school.
Respectful bmitted, _
~ ~-~-
~/~ohn G. Cartwright
l/ City Manager
~/
JGC/ej a
._.~ --
"~'"~"'
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 335
Agenda October 24, 1983
The Honorable :~tavor
and
~'lembers of the City Council
City of P.ichfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Appeal of Denial of Kennel License
Fee ~r?giver
At the August 22, 1983 city council meeting, Karen Hughes,
Apartment 6, 7527 Penn Avenue, applied for a kennel license for
her four cats and requested that the city council waive the required
residential kennel license fee of $43. Attached to this council
letter is a copy of a petition supporting the license request and
the fee waiver, which has been signed by the occupants of six of
the apartment units in her building.
• City ordinance Chapter V., Section 5.28, subdivision 3, pro-
vides that when an applicant has more than two dogs or two
cats over six months of age, but no more than four such animals,
and the city council determines that keeping such animals upon
the applicant's property will not have, or will not be likely to
have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy
thereof, the council may waive the requirement for a residential
kennel license."
At the August 22, 1983 meeting, the city council not only
denied the fee waiver request, but also denied the kennel license,
based upon their expressed opinion that a kennel should not be in
an apartment building. Subsequent to that meeting, Ms. Hughes con-
tacted the city staff and council members and requested a reconsid-
eration of her request for a kennel license. At. the September 12,
1983 city council meeting, the city council reconsidered this re-
quest, and voted to grant i-~s. Hughes a kennel license for her
four cats. The city council did not, however, consider the question
of a request to waive the lice=use fee.
~1s. Hughes has noc~~ requested that the city council also re-
consider r:er -request for a license fee ~,aaiver.
The city council has granted 12 residential '{ennel licenses
this year. Only or_e other applicant requested a fee waiver, and
this request was denied by the city council at the September 12,
i 1983 city council meeting.
Council Letter No. 335 -2- October 24, 1983
The action taken to date on the Hughes request has been to
grant a license and impose the fee. In order to determine whether
or not to reconsider the matter, it will require a motion from a
council member who voted in favor. If there is a motion to re-
consider, and the motion is seconded and passes, then the council
may proceed to reconsider whether the council wishes to waive
the license fee as requested by Mr. Hughes in his letter of Septem-
ber 28, 1983.
If the ccuncil does not vote to reconsider this matter, then
the agenda item is completed and the imposed license fee will stand.
The city manaa_er recommends that the license fee not be
waived.
,~- ;~
;pectf~li bmitted, ~
a ` _._~ ~
ohn G. ,-Cartwright '
City Manage
J
JC,C/ej a
cc: City Clerk
s
,' /
w.
• ~
September 28,,.1983
MIDLAND BUILDING SERVICES, INC.
7890 12TH AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55420
(612) 854-7700
Mayor John Hamilton
and Councilmen
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -
Re: ~:esidential Kennel License,
Karen Hughes
7527 Penn Avenue
Gentlemen:
On March, 3, 1983, Karen Hughes submitted an application for a
Residential Kennel License, along with a petition signed by all
the tenants in the apartment building at 7527 Penn, in accordance
with Chapter V, Part III, Section 5.28, Subdivision 3, of your
Health, Safety, and General Welfare Ordinances, testifying to
the fact that the keeping of these cats had no adverse effect
upon the adjacent properties, and requesting that therefore the
fee be waived. This license was granted, expiring May 31, 1983,
with fee waived. The cash was picked up by Karen Hughes person-
ally.
All these cats are licensed, all have been either spayed or
neutered, all have correct rabies and distemper shots.
It might be pointed out that cats two, three, ar.d four are strays
that wandered up to the door. Karen made extensive efforts to
Mace these animals with neighbors and friends, with no success,
and rather than have them sold to the U. for researer~, c~ ,~..y-~..,
she chose to retain them.
This not only put a burden on her limited budget, but prevented
any further cats from being added to the Richfield feline popu-
lation by fathering or mothering, and also prevented the expense
of disposal by the City of Richfield.
:oon due notification, application. was duly made for tre 1984
License, submitted with the required fee of $43.00, along with
another current petition signed by all the tenants in the apart-
ment building stating that there was no adverse effect on the
adjacent properties, and asking that therefore the fee be waived
accordingly.
Mayor John Hamilton
and Councilmen
- 3 - September 28, 1983
Attached herewith is a duplicate copy of the petition signed by
all tenants in the building.
Also attached is a petition of approval from the three contiguous
private real estate. owners. as required in, your paragraph Chapter.., V,
Part TII, Sectiori~5.28~, Subdivision 3.
In addition is a petition of approval signed by all three of the
current owners of the apartment building at 7527 Penn.
In the interim, at the suggestion of someone in City Hall, Y talked
to Councilman Martin Kirsch and, when he had heard my story, I
believe he chose to bring it back before the Council, and on
September 14, 1983, my daughter, Karen Hughes, received a letter
to the extent that the Council had voted to approve her Kennel
License.
I thank each of you very much for this approval, and would respect-
'fully request- that you reconsider Chapter V; Fart IIT,
Section 5.28, Subdivision 3 of your Health, Safety, and General
Welfare Ordinances, in light of the petition submitted herewith
attesting to the fact that these animals have no adverse effect
upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof.
Thank you for your reconsideration in granting the license, and
thank you in advance for your reconsideration of the waiving of
the fee in light of your pertinent, current, ordinance codes,
Cordially yours,
~ ~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~
Morlais Hughe` r.
Attachments
MH.cd
cc; Mr. Howard Bunce
Mr. Donald Hassenstab
Mr. Martin Kirsch
Mr. Ivan Luderman
Mr. Donald Priele
•
r~
September 8, 1983
•
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been advised of the laws concerning the ownership and
Boarding of animals as stated in Chapter 5, Part III of the
ordinance in this regard, and wish to appeal under 5.28, Sub-
division 3,.Approvah,of Contiguous: Prgperty Owners,.that the
Council waive-the requirement f.or a Residential Kennel License
Fee. '
We, the undersigned, as co-owners of the apartment building in
question, 7527 Penn, hereby petition to show our approval for
a Residential Kennel at 7527 Penn Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota, and can determine no adverse effects on the occupancy
thereof .
Address ~ ~ /
Name
~.~ 7 ~ ~~~ ~-ti.-~. ~-~ - ~.-v~...._....
Address
•
•
.. ~eyotemk~er $~;~~ 1~98~3 ~~ ,. .< :.
' To Whom It May Concern:
t~~e have been advised of the laws concerning the ownership and
Boazding of animals us ::fated in Chapter 5, Part III of the
ordinances in this regard, and wish to appeal under 5.28, Sub-
.
division 3, Approval of, Contiguous Property Owners, that the
..
Council waive the requirement for a Residential Kennel License
Fee.
We, the undersigned, as adjacent private property owners, hereby
II ! petition to show our approval for a Residential Kennel at 7527
Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, and can determine no
adverse effects on the occupancy thereof.
Name ~". _ ,-,
. ~ ~w~~~~. ~~~1 ~~NN
Address `~ . ~~,; /, ,~~,- ~_ .
Name %' ' __
7~ ~ C r ,,-, -/ n
ddreSS
Name
Ac? fires s
•
Council `Meeting tilinutes -8- September 12, 1983
:-lotion by Ludeman, seconded by Priebe to approve the license for tits. Kelber
-with the stipulation that she reduce the number of cats to four in 1984.
:~11 ayes - Carried.
Motion by Ludeman, seconded by Priebe to approve the following kennel
__censes:
Roszella Harding, 7139 Columbus - Tour dogs
dale and Bsther L~.~ddor., 6733 10th avenue - t~.~ree dogs
_~lyrtle ;vickstrom, 0725 Chicago - three dogs
Teresa Eccleston, 7526 Portland - three cats
Richard Burtis, 7325 Fremont - tour cats
.~.11 aves - Carried.
Discussion ensued regarding the licensing of residential kennels and the
council's action at the previous meeting when. the application or wren Hughes
had 'peen denied.
`lotion by {irsch, seconded by Bunce to reconsider the vote for denial on
S the Hughes '.kennel application from last meeting,
Poll of votes: ?,yes - Bunce, irsch, Priebe, Hamilton. Vays - Hasser.stab, Ludeman.
Carried.
Motion by Priebe, seconded by Hirsch to approve *_he kennel license application ,
of wren rughes, 7527 Penn :venue.
?011 of votes: ?,~;es - Bur.ce, kirsch, Priebe, Hamilton. Vays - Hassenstab, Ludeman.
Carried
11. `o*_ on ~~=enda
'•iar_- `•Iac~or:al~, 0~'3~'.,ptCn, aQCreSS2d the CCl1nC11 re~3rding the rll:~lOr
~:`laC ~~~'i0 ?3r-{in~~' S:3'ls iJ:.11 ~eaCVeC D:% C::2 Dar':C SP.Q t~nn1S COlirtS On tieSt
DJC:": JtreeC. SCl2 said parki^~ .s S~dgoered nOW 3nu aCDealed CO the sta~i t0
_ea','e 'mot as 1t 1S. Jhe said 1t s~.^:0:11c D2 1e~t _=or th2 '!O^eoCJners` con'7enlenCe,
ACC CCr taOSe that Ilse file par:CS.
~__
i
~~ OPTIMUM /IDEAL
~1AVAGERS INCORPORATED
July 8, 1983
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been advised of the laws concerning the ownership
and Boarding of animals as stated in Chapter 5, Part TII
of the ordinances in this regard, and wish to appeal under
5.28, Subdivision 3, Approval of Contiguous Property Owners,
that the Council waive the requirement for a Residential
Kennel License Fee.
-~ Tr1e, the undersigned hereby petition to show our approval
for a Residential Kennel at 7527 Penn Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota, of which we are all tenants, and can determine no
adverse effects on the occupancy thereof.
e
~ ~~~ ~~
.•~. ~~
~~
~/
~~
_~
Specia~isfs iii t4~prhers Compensation. Prodertu and Casualty l~~surance 5s0i GAiL1BLE DRIVE SUITE IOa ST LO~IIS PARK. ~~^,h1'~,VESOTA 5;x16 . col?; 5~1-0?88