11-29-79 agenda-.r
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 375
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Review of Pension Plan Options for Police
and Fire Personnel
t
•
Periodically over the past several years, members of the city
council have expressed some concerns with regard to the cost of
funding the police and fire pension plans. .During the council's
review of the 1980 budget proposal, this issue was again raised.
Of particular concern was the fact that the cost of the fire pension
plan increased by 87% from $86,210 in 1979 to an anticipated amount
of $161,215 in 1980. At the same time, the police pension plan
decreased slightly in cost.
This matter was discused in some detail during the budget/
revenue sharing hearing conducted by the city manager on August 20,
1979. At that time the council directed the city manager to init-
iate a study of the available options for placing new police and fire
employees in the Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Fund (police
and fire plan), rather than continuing to enroll new employees in
either of the two special private pension programs currently support-
ed by the city. The following report is a summary of the collective
information we have gathered in attempting to address this issue.
Historical Background
On November 3, 1964, Richfield became a home rule city of the
second class by action of a referendum vote. Under the state statutes
this classification change provided some flexibility in the manage-
ment of the city and provided for a greater level of the local
self-determination for our city council in dealing with issues of
local concern. One result of the new designation of the city in-
volved pension problems. Previous to 1964, all police officers
were covered by the pension benefits provided by the Minnesota
Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA). Firefighters had
a local plan which was effected as a result of statutes which
governed second class cities.
In 1965 the Richfield Police Relief Association was established
and a private pension plan for police officers was developed which
ultimately was enacted through a special bill in the Minnesota Leg-
islature. The city adopted the provisions of the special bill on
Council Letter No. 375 -2-
November 29, 1979
August 9, 1965 by a vote of 3 to 1.
i This action was the basis for the current pension plan under
which our police officers are now enrolled. At the time of the
establishment of the special private pension plan for our police
officers, officers enrolled in PERA were given the option of either
withdrawing their funds or having their funds transferred from PERA
to the Police Relief Association. Some officers allowed their
pension funds to be transferred while others elected to withdraw
the funds that had accumulated in their accounts and started over
again in the new Richfield Police Relief Association. The Police
Relief Association was governed by a Board of Directors consisting
of police officers plus three ex-officio non-voting members (Mayor,
Chief of Police and City Treasurer). The pension board is restricted
by the by-laws of the association which were adopted in 1965 and amended
subsequently. The benefits in the by-laws cannot be changed without
concurrence of the city council.
The fire relief association has beer_ in existence for a
longer period of time dating back to the volunteer fire department.
In 1961, legislation was passed by the state and approved by the
city council requiring all firefighters to belong to the local plan
and setting the level of benefits. Additional legislation in 1967
modified the level of benefits in the fire pension plan, The fire
relief association was governed by a Board of Directors consisting
of firefighters plus three ex-officio non-voting members (Mayor,
fire chief and city treasurer). The pension board is restricted
by the by-laws of the association which were adopted. The benefits
cannot be changed without concurrence of the city council. This
bill is the basis for the present pension plan under which our
fire division personnel are enrolled.
There are twenty-nine (29) Minnesota cities which now have local
police or fire relief associations. Cities are prohibited from
creating new relief associations by a statute effective January 1,
1975. These cities have 29 police relief associations and twenty-two
(22) fire relief associations for a total of fifty-one (51) local
plans. Twelve (12) cities have either secured legislation or passed
ordinances which place all of their new police officers or fire-
fighters in the PERA police and fire fund. Eighteen (18) of the
local funds in these twelve cities are being phased out of existence
as a result.
Financial Condition
Over the years there has been concern expressed by the state
legislature with regard to the unfunded liabilities of all govern-
mental pension plans within the state. As far back as 1957, various
sessions of the state legislature authorized legislative study com^?-
issions to examine and monitor the potential funding problems of the
various municipal and state pension plans. In an attempt to get a
more accurate picture of the funding issues involved, the state
Council Letter No. 375 -3- November 29, 1979
legislature mandated actuarial studies of all operating pension
• plans within the state in 1964, 1967 and 1970. The result of these
actual-ial_ studies indicated a trend toward a rapidly growing un-
funded liability on the part of many of the private pension plans
operated by cities throughout the state.
Because of what the state legislature felt was an alarming
increase of the amount of unfunded liabilities, the legislature passed
the Police and Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act in
1965. This statute provided for a mandatory systematic plan to
attempt to prevent the unfunded liability in police and fire pension
plans from increasing in real dollars over future years. Because
of this act the local contributions to municipal police and fire
pension plans were drastically increased in many cases. Because of
the automatic escalator clauses in most of the private police and
fire pension plans, and the fact that the formula for the employee
contribution remained relatively stable, the municipal cost of fund-
ing these plans has increased greatly during the recent inflationary
years. The combination of the Guidelines Act and the general prob-
lems created through inflation have resulted in a potential substantial
financial burden on the part of many communitieswho attempt to develop
fully funded private pension plans.
The special legislation for the relief association pension plans
in the City of Richfield included provisions relating to unfunded
liability problems. Specifically, the 1965 Police Relief legislation
and the 1967 fire relief legislation required that the unfunded lia-
bilities in the two pension plans be paid off within 40 years. This
translates to the year 2005 in the case of the police pension and
the year 2007 in the case of the fire pension plan. The city began
making the nceessary contributions in 1966 for the police fund and
1968 for the fire fund. However, the 1979 actuarial valuation over-
loc'ce,' -the requirements of the special legislation concerning amort-
ization of the unfunded liability and did not include any contribution
for this pirpose. This is a significant omission and will increase
the contribution necessary for subsequent years in order to meet the
requirements of the law.
The actuarial valuations of the police and fire pension plans
are available from the date just prior to the inception through
January 1, 1979. Attachments A and B are summaries of the valuations
over the years in Richfield. The fire pension plan shows unfunded liabil-
ities in 1963 when the plan aa,endrlents were being considered of $210,821 .
While the magnitude of the unfunded liability has fluctuated, by
1979 it had reached $2,334,297, a tenfold increase. It should be
recalled that this unfunded liability is required to decrease over
the forty year period 1967 to 2007 to a point of fully funded status.
The consulting actuary who spoke to the city council indicated
that two other indicators of strength are the percentage of funding
Of the total liabilities and the comparison of unfunded liabilities
to current payroll. The attachment indicates that when the
plan ?,as initiated, the percent funded was 44%, compared to 423 today
with fluctuations down to 28% and up to 50%. The plan has decreased
slightly in this categoryrather than increased as is desirable. In
Council Letter No. 375 -4-
November 29, 1979
1979, the unfunded liability stood at 6.17 times payroll, the high-
est in the history of the plan. This comparison has generally been
increasing over time with fluctuations from the original plan figure
of 1.52 times.
The police pension plan has shown increases in unfunded lia-
bilities from $458,483 in 1965 prior to the plans actual implementa-
tion to $1,818,626 in 1979. The other two indicators of strength
are better in this plan. The percent unfunded increased from 19%
in 1965 to 54% in 19'/9. The comparison of unfunded liability to
payroll increased slightly from 1.75 tunes in 1965 to 2.23 times
in 1979. .
As a result of the unfunded liability problems which existed
within many of the private pension plans the state legislature took
action in 1975 to prohibit the establishment of any additional pri-
vate municipal pension plans, other than those developed in accord-
ance with the state statutes providing for control of Volunteer
Fireman's Relief Associations.
While the Richfield City Council has expressed concern for some
period of time with regard to the cost of the local police and fire
pension plans, no formal action has been taken with regard to this
matter to date. Because of the on-going concern expressed by the
state legislature with regard to this issue over the past several
years, it has been the feeling of the Richfield City Council that
legislative action would be taken to correct these problems on a state-
wide basis. In 1977, for instance, a bill was introduced to place
all new police and fire employees under the state PERA Police and
Fire Fund. This bill was not successful. Again in 1978, several
proposed bills were considered by the legislature which would require
all new police and fire employees to go under the state PERA plan
and would require employees covered by private plans to pay a larger
contribution toward the cost of the plan. However, none of these
bills were successful. It appears that the pension issue will again
be a matter discussed by the upcoming session of the state legislature
but the nature of these bills and their successful enactment re-
mains to be seen.
Richfield Police and Fire Plans Compared to PERA
As previously noted, the immediate concern raised by the council
results from the 87% increase which has occurred between 1979 and
1980, in the city contribution required to fund the fire pension
plan. It should be pointed out that the amount of this increase
is unusual and not typical of the normal year-to-year experience.
The 1980 city contribution to the fire pension plan is based on the
actuarial audit conducted during 1979. The basis for both the
police and fire pension plans is directly related to the current
annual salary of a senior police officer or a senior firefighter.
Annually, as these salary rates increase, therec is a corresponding
percentage increase automatically applied to the pension benefit.
For the past several years the collective bargaining agreement be-
Council Letter No. 375 -5- 17overrber 29, 1979
tween the city and the firefighters union had not been settled at
the tirae of the actuarial evaluation Df the pension plans. There-
fore, for the past several years the audit did not accurately re-
flect current fire salaries. At the time of the actuarial audit in
1979, there was a current contract in effect and the present audit
report is based on actual salary data. The significant increase in
city contribution experience for the fire pension plan between 1979
and 1980, in part, reflects a "catching up" situation.
Nevertheless, the unfunded liability in both the Richfield
police and fire pension plans has grown steadily over the past sev-
eral years. Presently, the unfunded liability (effective as of Dec-
ember 31, 1978), for the police pension plan is $1,818,626. The
unfunded liability as of December 31, 1978, in the fire pension plan
is $2,334,297. A part of the basis for the expanded unfunded liabil-
ity in both pension plans relates to tie benefits and comparable
employee contributions. Presently, both plans provide for employee
contributions based upon 6% of the current senior police officer or
firefighter base pay only, regardless of the employee's actual salary
rate. Therefore, entry level employees as well as senior command
officers are contributing the same amount annually toward the local
pension plans. On the other hand, upon retirement the pension ben-
efit is based upon the current senior police officer or firefighter
salary rate regardless of the salary rate or rank of the employee
at the time of retirement.
The city council directed the staff to analyze the effects of
maintaining our present relief associations compared to converting
to the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) in which the
city participated prior to 1964 for fire and 1965 for police. The
city still is involved with PERA for all remaining employees of the
city. This analysis involves looking at both benefit levels and
the resultant effects on the financing of pension plans.
Attachment C is a comparison of the benefits between the local
pension plans and the PERA pension plan for public safety officers.
There are specific benefits to both plans which can be observed.
PERA provides for vesting after only ten years rather than 20
years (vesting provides some pension rather than loss of all rights
to a pension if separation comes before that time), portability of
pension plan from one government unit to another, increases in
pension benefit for years in excess of twenty, and pension on all
salary, including overtime. The local plan's main benefit in excess
of PERA is the escalation clause which automatically increases
pension benefits to 501 of a top police officer or firefighter.
This benefit is considered significant to local employees and nor-
mally constitutes 40% of a pension plan costs. The actual cost in
our plans could deviate depending upon employee census.
Examples of initial pension benefits for an officer or fire-
f iehter retiring in Richfield in 1979 would be as follows compared
to PERA:
Council Letter No. 375
•
FIREFIGHTER:
20 Years - 55 Age
POLICE OFFICER:
20 Years - 55 Age
FIREFIGHTER:
40 Years - 55 Age
POLICE OFFICER:
40 Years - 55 Age
•
-6-
PENSION BENEFIT EXAMPLES
FOR 1979 AT RETIREMENT
RICHFIELD
50% of Top Firefighter
$ 9,464
RICHFIELD '
35/75 of Top Police Officer
$ 8,454
50% of Top Firefighter
$ 9,464
42/751 of Top Police Officer
$10,146
`?ovember 29, 1979
PERA
20 times 2.5% = 50% of
High Average 5 Years
$ 8,444
20 times 2.5% = 50% of
High Average 5 Years
$ 8,972
20 Times 2.5% + 20 Times 2% _
90% of High Average 5 Years
$15,044
20 Times 2.5% + 20 Times 2% _
90% of High Average 5 Years
$15,749
Council Letter No. 375 -7-
November 29, 1979
There are currently 4400 police officers and firefighters
in PERA (4,179 police officers and 221 firefighters). The local
plans have 58 people in the police pension plan and 43 people in-
volved in the fire pension plan. It should be noted that while
PERA does not have an automatic increase built in for pensioners,
there are increases as a result of legislative action. The
following is a listing of increases since 1953 for these retired
employees:
Annuitant Increases
July 1, 1953 $10 per month increase to those who
retired prior to July 1, 1951
July 1, 1967 $15 per month increase, not to exceed
an annuity of $200, paid to annuitants
retired prior to July 1, 1962, receiving
less than $260 per month, and receiving
a full annuity with at least 20 years of
service
January 1, 1972 4% for persons retired prior to July 1, 1970
January 1, 1973 5.5% for persons retired prior to July 1, 1971
July 1, 1973 9.72 for persons retired prior to July 1, 1973
January 1, 1974 13.9271% for persons retired prior to
July 1, 1973
December 1, 1975 One-time payment of $100 to Basic Members
and $50 for Coordinated Members if retired
under laws in effect prior to July 1, 1973
July 1, 1976 Annuity increase for persons retired prior
to July 1, 1973, based on years of service
and years since first benefit
December 1, 1977 One-time payment of $250 for Basic Members
And $225 for Coordinated Members if retired
under law in effect prior to July 1, 1973
January 1, 1978 4% for persons retired prior to July 1,
1976
December 1, 1979 &
December 1, 1980 Annuitants, at least 65 years of age on
July 1, 1979 and receiving benefits under
laws in effect prior to July 1, 1973, will
receive $15 for each year of service on
which the benefit is based.
One of the primary differences between the funding relationship
of the police and fire plan of PERA and the local plans deals with
the issue of contributio ns. Under the police and fire PERA plan
employees contribute 8% of their actual gross salary as opposed to
6% of the base pay of se nior police officers or firefighters enrolled
in the existing local pl ans. Under the police and fire PERA plan
the city contritution is a flat 1206 of gross payroll. In comparing,
the city cost of pension benefit support under these two plans it
might be noted that in 1980 the projected cost of our local pension
plan for police is $154, 000. In using the same projected personnel
costs for 1980, the cont ribution to the police and fire fund of
PERA would be $108,575.
cost of the fire pension In applying this same analysis to the city
program, the 1980 contribution for the
local pension plan will be $161,444, while the city contribution
for fire division under the PERA plan would be $59,325. Therefore,
Council Letter No. 375 -8- November 29, 1979
if the situation would have existed where all of the employees
affected by these two pension plans would have been covered by
the police and fire fund of PERA, the city's total cost of the
pension program would have been $147,315 less than the actual
projected cost for 1980 under the existing situation with our
two private pension plans.
Attachment D looks at a similar analysis for all of the years
back to 1966. In total, the costs of the local relief association
plans have exceeded the PERA costs by $1,049,587. It must be
remembered that this is only the cash outlay difference. If the
city had fully met the conditions of the legislation and prevented
unfunded liabilities from increasing, the total cost would have
been much greater. The city is required to pay the unfunded liabil-
ities off in the next 24 to 26 years just as if they were account
payables. The total increase in unfunded liabilities since the
inception of the plans is $3,483,619. The total cost difference
between PERA and the local pension plans incurred and paid is actu-
ally $4,533,206 as a result. This amounts to an average of $323,800
during the last fourteen years that the local plans have been in
effect.
Options
If the city council is desirous of altering the current pension
plans of the police officers and firefighters, it should be noted
that there would not appear to be a sound legal or ethical basis
for attempting to apply this change to employees currently enrolled
in either of our local police or fire plans. Any change should
apply only to future police and fire employees. The city remains
obligated to pay for the unfunded liabilities of the local pension
plans even if new officers and firefighters become members of PERA.
The funding formsla in theactuarial report requires that new fire-
fighters or police officers be considered part of the local plan
and contributions made on their behalf include both normal cost
and unfunded liability. The 1980 contribution for three new fire-
fighters of approximately $29,500 includes unfunded liability
of around $17,000, which the city is committed to pay for at some
point in time. The PERA contribution for these same three fire-
fighters would be $7,500. While the 1980 budget savings in cash
outlay would $22,000, the long-term savings is around $5,000 each
year. As can be seen, however, from previous discussion, this would
amount to a significant amount of money each year once the entire
department is turned over and the local pension plans phased out
of existence.
The city council can achieve the effects of moving toward a
PERA pension plan for new employees in one of the three following
ways:
1. Special legislation
2. Charter amendment
3. Local ordinance
•
Council Letter No. 375 -9- November 29, 1979
The following discussion will provide some background inform-
ation with regard to each of these options.
The current local police and fire plans were originally estab-
lished by special legislation jointly agreed upon by the city and
both the police and fire relief associations. Since the whole issue
of the police and fire pensions is controlled by state statute, it
would appear that the most uniform method of modifying or changing
the pension plan program for future employees would be through
enactment of new special legislation or an amendment to the existing
bills covering both of our local police and fire relief associations.
From a practical point of view, it should be noted that the potential
success of any special legislation directed at this issue would very
likely require agreement between the city and the two relief associ-
ations.
From a purely legal standpoint, there would be no potential
future problem created through the use of this approach, other than
potential constitutional conflicts which could be avoided in the
proper drafting of any special bill. If the city council is inter-
ested in addressing this issue through special legislation it is
important to establish a dialogue with both of our police and fire
relief associations so that a concensus of opinion might be achieved
on the provisions of any proposed bill. While the action taken by
the state legislature in 1975 prohibits the establishment of any
additional private municipal pension plans, it does not appear to
prohibit the modification of provisions in existing special plans.
Therefore, the consideration of special legislation is certainly a
viable option for city council discussion with regard to this matter.
Charter Amendment
A second option the city council may wish to consider with
regard to the placement of new police and fire officers in the PERA
police and fire fund would be through a charter amendment. This
approach has a strong legal basis in court precedent. In September,
1975, the Minnesota State Supreme Court rendered a decision which
upheld the right of a municipality, with an existing private police
pension plan, to place new police officers in the Police and fire
fund of PERA. This case, Columbia Heights Police Relief Association,
et al. vs. City of Columbia Heights, was summarized for the court
in a decision by Justice Rogosheske. The case was heard on appeal
from an Anoka County District Court decision made by Judge William
T. Johnson, who considered the original matter at trial. The origi-
nal decision had held the Charter Amendment in this matter was
invalid, but this original decision of the district court was reversed
on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The orignal decision of
the district court was based on Minnesota State Statute 423.392,
which the court held to mean that once a city of the third class
chose to be bound by a private pension system, they must always
continue to be bound by that original decision. The Supreme Court
disagreed with this interpretation of the statute by indicating
Council Letter No. 375 -10- November 29, 1979
that the specific terminology
"may" continue to be bound by
Court held the view that the
state legislature to provide
to continue to be bound by a
lishment of a private pension
of this statute said that, a city
that original decision. The Supreme
word "may" was purposely used by the
for a city to choose whether it wished
prior decision relating to the estab-
plan.
In Columbia Heights' case, one of the major factors of concern
to the Supreme Court on appeal, was the fact that the Columbia
Heights Police Relief Association had an unfunded pension liability
approaching one-million dollars. In analyzing the total provisions
of the statute contained in Chapter 423, which seemed to require
membership in the local pension plan by all officers employed by
the City of Columbia Heights, the Supreme Court ruled that this pro-
vision was not meant to "freeze" membership to the local association,
but rather to prevent an individual member from attempting to qualify
for double pension benefits through membership in more than one plan.
The court noted that, in this particular case, the charter amendment
specifically excluded existing employees from the pension plan change
and thus protected their rights to continue under the benefit program
existing at the time they were employed.
Basically, the case centered around a petition for a writ of
mandamus on the part of the Columbia Heights Police Relief Associa-
tion to name the association as the sole pension plan available to
all Columbia Heights police officers. The counter-claim by the City
of Columbia Heights was based on the authority established by the
state constitution to provide for charter amendments by local muni-
cipalities. The case was complicated by the fact that the Public
Employees Retirement Association initially refused to accept police
officers hired by the City of Columbia Heights after the passage of
the charter amendment. This action was based on the PERA statutory
guidelines contained in Chapter 423.373 and 353.64 (1) stating
essentially that a police officer was precluded from membership in
PERA if there was a local pension plan available to which the officer
was required to belong.
In this matter the court ruled in favor of the City of Columbia
Heights on the basis that the state constitution did provide for
charter amendments and, therefore, the Public Employees Retirement
Association was in error in not accepting Columbia Heights police
officers for membership after the passage of the charter amendment
establishing PERA as the pension plan for new officers employed by
the city.
In discussing this decision, the court noted that the benefits
of both the Columbia Heights private pension plan and the police
and fire fund of PERA were similar. The court did note that the
benefit provisions of the private plan appeared to be more liberal
than those offered by PERA. However, the court also noted that
both plans took into account the unique hazards inherent in the job
of a police officer and provided a benefit program specifically
designed to deal with these inherent job hazards. The court further
Council Letter No. 375 -11-
noted that the financing of both pension
a combination of employee contributions
by state aid from insurance rebates.
November 29, 1979
systems was made up of
and local tax levies supported
The court gave a great deal of attention to the issue of, fin-
ancial responsibility and in the decision referred to a seris of
interim legislative study commission reports dealing withthe problem
of unfunded liabilities in private municipal pension plans. The
court noted that the concern of the legislature with regard to this
matter dated back to 1957. The court also noted the fact that the
legislature had specifically mandated actuarial valuations of private
pension plans in 1964, 1967 and 1970 to provide an accurate statis-
tical analysis of the magnitude of pension fund liabilities.
In ruling on this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that
the basic legislative intent of both the statutes pertaining to
private pension plans, as well as the statutory provisions of PERA,
seemed to provide for local control of pension plan changes rather
than attempting to tie such changes to automatic factors such as
population changes. Finally, the court ruled that there was no
irreconcilable conflict between the Minnesota State Constitution,
Minnesota State Law and the charter amendment in question. Since
there was no conflict, the Supreme Court ruled that the charter
amendment was consitutionally sound.
In discussing the factors relating to their decision in this
matter the court noted the historical background of pension legis-
lation and indicated that the purpose of the law seemed to provide
a relevent statutory scheme to provide retirement benefits to public
employees. The court noted that the issue involved in this case
was not a local or state pension system, but rather the authority
of the city to change the pension plan for newly hired police officers
by eliminating the previously existing Columbia Heights Police Re-
lief Association's special statutorily authorized requirement of
perpetual automatic membership. The court held that the existing
private pension plan and benefits were only possible because the
city, at one time, chose to participate in the private plan and to
be bound by the special legislation creating the plan. In this re-
gard, the court pointed out that the only mandatory statutory re-
quirement for membership in a police pension plan was the require-
ment that police officers be enrolled in the police and fire fund
of the Public Employees Retirement Association if no local alter-
native option existed.
In their overall review of this case, the Supreme Court held
that the "perpetual existence" character of a special pension plan
and the fundamental principals of contract law between the City and
an Employee would preclude the city from abandoning its obligation
to officers employed under the original plan. The court specifi-
cally stated, however, that the language of the statutes in no way
precludes the city from placing new officers under other available
pension plans, particularly in light of the one-million dollar un-
funded liability which had accrued in the local Columbia Heights
plan.
•
._.?..,_._.il. ??._??... _??.'. ?i..i ._I.. ..Vv?..:1J .'1. Gam,
The decision ruled that the charter amendment enacted by the
City of Columbia Heights was not inconsistent with historical state
policy regarding police pension funds. The interpretation of the
court with regard to the membership provision of the Public Employees
Retirement Association excluding persons required to belong to
another pension plan was not to "freeze out" these persons, but only
to prevent double pension benefits from membership in two plans
and to discourage the establishment of additional private pension
plans. In an action consistent with this court decision, the
Minnesota State Legislature in 1975, specifically prohibited the
development of any additional private pension plans. This action
by the legislature seemed to be a direct result of funding liability
problems experienced in the majority of the private plans in effect
at the time. In their final comment on this decision, the Minnesota
Supreme Court referred to the Police and Fire Relief Association
Guidelines Act passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1969.
The court held that the intent of the Quidelines Act was clearly
to eliminate the escalating problem of private pension plan unfunded
liabilities and, therefore, protect and assure future benefits for
all members of a particular pension program. In this regard, the
charter amendment enacted by the City of Columbia Heights was upheld
by the Minnesota Supreme Court as being constitutionally and statu-
torily valid.
Local Ordinance Amendment
The final option available for city council consideration in
meeting their objectives with regard to this proposal is through the
enactment of a local ordinance. Again, there seems to be a strong
• legal basis for this option based upon a precedent established through
a court decision. The most relevant case involved seems to be Citv
of Fridley vs. Fridley Police Pension Association and Minnesota Public
Employees Retirement Association. The decision in this matter was
rendered in Anoka County District Court by Judge Ronald Hachey on
January 3, 1977. Much of the precedent upon which Judge Hachey based
his decision were the principals established in the Columbia Heights
case, as outlined in the foregoing discussion on the charter amend-
ment option. The statutory considerations were based on the Public
Employees Retirement Act contained in Chapter 353 of the Minnesota
State Statutes, as well as the statutory regulation regarding-police
pension programs in cities of the second class contained in Chapter
423.801 through 423.815.
The conflict bringing this issue before the court was an ordin-
ance amendment passed by the Fridley City Council on December 15,
1975. This amendment placed all new police officers hired after
the effective date of the amendment in the police and fire fund of
PERA. The amendment also provided for all existing members of the
local police pension program to voluntarily transfer into the PERA
plan. Prior to this ordinance amendment the City of Fridley, as
was the case with the City of Columbia Heights, had a local police
pension plan. Under the terms of the local plan all police officers
were required to be members of the local pan. On the face of the
issue, this local mandatory membership requirement seemed to pre-
clude the City of Fridley from enrolling new employees in PERA.
The basis for this interpretation ,.,as the statutory provision re-
Council Letter No. 375 -13- November 29, 1979
lating to membership in the police and fire fund of the Public
Employees Retirement Association which excluded from membership any
police officer required to belong to a local pension plan. A further
issue raised by the Public Employees Retirement Association was the
fact that the City of Fridley did not seek permission from the govern-
ing board of PERA to enroll new employees in the state plan.. The
court held that this issue raised by PERA was not relevent since
the facts at hand dealt with statutory construction regarding the
local governing powers of the city to make this decision.
The Fridley Police Pension Association held that PERA specif-
ically excludes from membership persons required to contribute to
another local pension fund. The association pointed out that the
legislature specifically enabled police officers in the City of
Fridley to participate in a plan supplemental to PERA and, in fact,
required cities of the second class to establish Police Relief
Associations to provide benefits supplemental to those available
through PERA when a city chose this option.
In considering the merits of this case, the Anoka District
Court considered, as was the case in the Minnesota Supreme Court
decision regarding Columbia Heights, the significant unfunded liabil-
ity of the local Fridley Police Pension Plan. In light of an exist-
ing unfunded liability in the local pension fund, the court held
that it would bd "financially irresponsible" for the City of Fridley
to continue to add to the membership of the existing private plan
and thus increase the unfunded liability. The court noted that the
fund "already imposes an impossible financial burden upon the city."
The Anoka District Court determined that the ordinance enacted
by the Fridley City Council in no way nullified the power of the
local police pension association to regulate and manage its affairs,
which had been established by legislative action. The court ruled,
however, that the powers established through this special legisla-
tion were simply restricted to the maintenance of the existing fund
for the benefit of police officers who became members prior to the
enactment of the local Fridley ordinance. In addressing this matter,
the court clearly indicated that the existing fund must be maintained
for the benefit of the members enrolled prior to the ordinance
amendment, but that there was no statutory mandate to limit the
Fridley City Council's power to place future employees in some other
pension fund. While the court recognized the requirement that
adequate pension benefits be provided for police officers, the court
indicated that it does not follow this obligation may only be met
by continuing to enroll new members in an existing local fund which
at the time had a substantial unfunded liability.
In referring back to the supreme court decision in the Columbia
Heights case, the Anoka County District Court also held that the
legislative history clearly defined an intent to provide adequate
pension benefit systems for police officers and prohibit the dupli-
cation of such benefits by membership in more than one pension
system.
•
Council Letter No. 375 -14- November 29, 1979
In following the precedent of the Columbia Heights case the
court ruled that the issue at hand was not whether or not a police
officer has the right or obligation to be a member of a local or
state pension system, but rather, whether the city has the author-
ity to change the pension plan for newly-hired officers by elimina-
ting the local relief association's statutorily authorized require-
ment of automatic membership. In the instance matter, the court
held that the special legislative provision for automatic member-
ship in the local pension plan was not intended to limit the dis-
cretionary authority of the city to place newly hired officers
under PERA. Therefore, the court held that the City of Fridley
had the authority to place its 'newly hired officers under another
available pension plan rather than to continue membership in the
local relief association.
In concluding the discussion on this decision the Anoka County
District Court gave particular consideration to the escalating
unfunded liability problem faced by police and fire pension funds
as a group. The ruling by "Judge Hachey states:
"The fire and police pension funds as a group are in
serious financial trouble. They cannot continue the
present level of benefits at the present level of
financial support. Obviously, benefit programs will have
to be drastically reduced or the financing will have to be
drastically increased, or the financing and benefits must
be brought into balance by adjustment of both financing
and benefits. Minnesota law allows the placement of new
officers in PERA; public policy demands it. The City of
Fridley merely chose the retirement plan that would not
bankrupt its treasury. Both pension plans yield excellent
benefits for the officers. To allow new officers to enter
the Fridley Police Relief Association would be financially
irresponsible on the part of the city council."
The decision of the Anoka County District Court in this matter
was that the ordinance amendment passed by the City of Fridley
does not conflict with the provisions of governing membership in
the Fridley Police Relief Association, the eligibility requirements
for membership for PERA, or with the legislatively declared policy
respecting municipal police pensions.
Summary
It is the opinion of the city attorney and myself that the
Richfield City Council may clearly establish a system for placing
new police and fire employees in the Public Employees Retirement
Association through enactment of special legislation authorizing
such action. Additionally, it is our opinion that the council could
choose to accomplish the same objective through either a charter
amendment provision or a local ordinance provision dealing with
this issue.
i?
•
Council Letter No. 375 -15- November 29, 1979
In the court decisions relating to both the charter amendment
and the ordinance amendment approach to this matter, the court
relied heavily on the obligation of local government to manage its
affairs in a financially responsible manner. In both cases the
courts expressly discussed the financial problem to local govern-
ment of the escalating unfunded liability of their private pension
plans. In applying this principal to the situation currently ex-
isting in the City of Richfield, it should be noted, as indicated
previsouly in this report, the unfunded liability of our local police
pension plan as of December 31, 1978, was $1,818,626 and the unfunded
liability of our local fire pension. plan as of the same date was
$2,334,297. An ordinance providing for this type of action is on
the November 29, 1979 city council agenda if the city council is des-
irous of considering it for first reading.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
r
•
O \ \ \ r`
? N N rn N ? ? L!1 ?
co O rn
v .-+ N ? M N M ?n
I O ?^ M
1/? CJ
?J
r-I
- ? L
N N O • 4 m
M ?O r- O C;3 O U3 r-{ W 'u
O N ?n a? I? ?n ?4
n
? * u C)
co rn r •? ,?
i ?:J M M •?
N -4 .-I •ri 4-1
O
G
cD 'G
r C,;
a v
n 1-2 O
t o ? o rn ?? o
:-, ?n M N Ul ?r O? M •rl •rl
? N cn
r rn o rn of N r-1 G
H 00 O 00 N ra ? N cn
r ^
,n N
h ? 1 4-1
N G
oD rU
cn =: •r-I C
7 ? •d- ? O ? ? c o ^ (? n3
O O O Lrl Lr) CO c O rn
H H -4 N G'J M N N O N u
H H t?
14
O
w C , M N O --1 ?' trl •ra •ri
ra U 1 rn L1 M c'J r-i
C o - ^ .-+ ro
4-4
41
C w
U a
i-? O JJ,
H C .--q OJ M N ci
U ?:4 00 ',D CO r- N v ?D O t, G L -
C CTa V?' 6? ON
G?
M
GA
rl
r--I
(A
O v: I N cn _r- O
4-1
H G O n7
O tJ U u
CJ') H (n U1 ?4
H G Q) C O
S4 O r
C u ::? -4
o a o o s° w
D
U Ll1I O O O O N M O O o
r rn M ?
m c3
ur •r1 u O 'O
m •4 u
CJ -?-) to
L+ •rl c3 ?
a ? ? ro
N eJ c?
>
L 7 r c v a N O O y r
M N O N v C,, t? ir1 •? 1-1 r-
? rn o? ? M ?n c? ,-+ H
i ^ :-1 u1 1? c,7
r o o o ro a
I h+ ?O ?--I r-i N $ ? }a i
M r N U r C
11 1J •rl
cn?. ri
UJ U C) H .-a CJ r-.
JJ _1 p c3
L •,-1 p :4 1
•rl
'"? r-1
'?
J
i Jl
? ?>,
•rl CJ ? ?
J r? ?+ 13
V .i.
PLi cJ u G 4-1
r: 0 (D co ?4
a w O o m m m
b U JJ JJ o a a o0
u m O C C i4 H N H r
u u u u a ro a.
:J UJ W ?+ S-+ :J C'3 yJ 4-1
U u? G O J O O
i _, ?7
O ?7 v0 e-2 F M
OID Ln N ?t 1` O ^ N
Gl to U-) Lr) G?
..-- I r--? N x N O M
-+ ? (?• r-1 N H M
M N .-+
J
J
J
-4 co
t\ (\ Q t` ir)
O
N
M
'7
t? N C C-1
I N O N co p U
Lri (f)
H m C
M r-i r-i •.? •r-1
> u
O C
m
y ?
r-I Q\ N \ \ \ \ H 4-I U
Lrl N N M +--? Ul 'v a)
M O O ?" •rl .J
t N N C5? O N CO C) :-1 cu
•-' O N n N H M ?` m 7)
rn co O N m
r n U)
}
r-i r-I ?+ C1
u r co
? •4
w J
L44 o
O u
t? f? \ c6 m
N (n CO OG r-1 r\ OG CSl C) O
r--I r-1 tp N N ,--i CO Cl U lj? U
1? N ra O
Cr ,7, I O r--1 OG oG O'J V r-I •r? r-+
O H N O -4 7 cn O J co
O H I ir) M w E
H H H 34
C H r O p
C H' yr m
-Li li
O :r, }4
O :) C1
M M 00 U m
G-' ,, ? H Vr L, r-t ? r--I v? O r•-i ? .J ciJ
O'J cl, ,--a co O m 4-1 U 'i7
;r4 ?Z4 I M G1 M V) ?J •r1 •r-l U
U - O 1-4 00 r-4 U m
C=a C!) -r,
V
O ! H i :J cu
w ?.'? c? U U) U
O ?' U m O
? H F-+ c3 •rl •r-i
O U .L C) E
C •rl H
H r--I G'? M \ \ \ M =J .1-1
??' V G1 (? r-1 ?p r-I C1 O v m ?
U O t` M H G? N N p C) co
'?-+ H t
- r-I 41
r a r? ? ? ? ? ? N o ? o
O C I M -+ N m J
J M 1
<n p O co
['. •rl H
J W
C U cj
}4 J ?:) •ra
J r
c? r C
C) 7 co
O7 Lr) M \ c \ o ?1 G C) .....
U1 C1 --? co
a1
-?'
V
O
p c?
.u
H •T ra O N ^v
I H m c,7 1a
co O m cf (1)
r-r ?'1 r-a .s ? n c? CD
5 y
C u
O ? m
m m 'U L
U) C) C) p C) Q
U •r1 r-i •7 H r-1 U: i4
.4 J - C O c7
J ',4 •rti --1
cl m
•?
?
m ?,
G
•rl cJ
c) ? i
? O
C) c;, C? r a F S4
7:? P, C d C)
r a r 41 2 m r^ O u m 41
r 7 m w O C1 111 Cv 4-j (IJ w G
r-a i--+ G O -4 U) -4
•rl
U)
J U uL-j O r7 'l7 C) V •ra
O J-) U) U O y W
U n G r C Ci H 0? H C H O
.? L G U CJ U -4 C CJ
S-i U U - Ci C) a cp 71 p,
U m 44 ;4 :4 L C? J L4
U m ?' C)
O U
•rI
G
O
-
I 17? O
I CD r ?4 a)
U v r r r
c) U) C) >1
U w u
rJ G c w c ) r ri U
C. Ln O - U G? S C-) U O S4
U C \ co r
cP
U) O C: U (N U) CA 00
ti O >. O co >Y C' r I
i U7 U) '•? (L) 1-) 4-4 ?-i U ?-4 4J () O U)
?
-
c,o ?; ?I +? U1 O
rJ •r1 r 1-I
'.-? 'r-I •r-I
--, :,) r 4J r U' a ?
) U U S tT
r(nci,
C) ? ra)r>
N () C) >A C w 4- ("I U) C-a U) O H Q I r I
a r-I I
U r O Ln rl
r r 4J (? O
•ri r C S N N O C)
r
+? r
r Q) f 4J U r r
1-1
G 11 ('J a) U) 1
U) r` •r{ rJ U r Q >1 >-, Q O
C) G lc? C) >1 w 0) I r O ?-I
U w Ln a) ? O +,
e ? as L 3 4-) lc?
4-4 , LI) O O (1-) r r ?A r--i w O a a) ?j -I r a)
,f-- Ln N O r F- co
Ca N 4J O rJ O 2 S a
U O U) C7 G 4-? r, ?J O Q1 U) -H 4J ri
r, P-4 ? U u O F- U) > I~ 4-1
r r U) O 43 -H •r4 -U
U O ? O O 'r O C) tDl
4) -rO i 4-) x -H U) O ?4 H U (2)
>1 C) Q, U) -H r ?A 4-) p, U) r(? ;D4 'rl }4
U ?:l G) 7? U CO U) 0 0 4-4
U I CD U w r1 ?-I rO ?-4 O U w 4-4 CJ 'n 4J 4-I U)
l N n P14 U r r u >+ O O a4-) (A O
f
1 U) ?t
4
d} a ?4
N
3
a) O
G
+
?.. •rl r r?
a;Cl)
N 41
U > U U s U) CJ r a O rlr
`
'
•
I Ln o r >
U
'J w
n G U CD U) S r i
C) O U) °
P
N °
P
cxi
-
? ?.
y Ln r i O r O?
l n ul O
w n o • 4-) U) U) •r1 .4 -
? r
C 0 U 4-t U
U LI) U) U n o,- C ('3 10 cJ C..) O
1 4-4 N r 4J U 75 1 ,
Ln r--1 .I-) r ? 'r1 a)
zs r-I
e)?-!UU U
C rM(D Wr
N U) O 4J o5
ro O 41 H 7
H a Q
o5 ro LL? 41 -H
C R
O
4--)
-4 :-l
C C J 41 GJ
41 O U v
-4 w U)
r >1 C r i >1 I
rU r0 C)
.J U 7? co 1:)4 •r:. .r. 3 4J ?A
,
- ?-4 1 Sa (N C) N \ r O w ?4
U rte -H -1 •r C0 ?-I a Z 4J r1
r .C i ?D a) •r! G F 4-1 ?5
r? I > 4, ? -H O r O U ?7' dA
W 4-a r I •1-1 41 H 41 Q) ?
r O •r 1 ci 2 S n V R-?' }+
4-) r-I U CG ? U r-, a) CJ
o Ln O --j G > U -H 4J -ri U)
Ln Ln [^ ?D O G 4J U) w ?
w
O O ? G ?
? I U)
~1 U Q r r O
I U O
ui ?4J
0
.}J
C;
-) -H
•r{ 0
-)
4
r G C) 4-4 r 1 4J •a O
? ,4 a) ? r 4-) V r
?-4
O Y U l". O U ~ 0Y R+
Q) OJ r C)
W n
W O
U
W
l,m a ti
i I raj
CP CO
S
Ln S C) U
N C O r
4-1 -Ij C) _ Ci
o .C ^ w o
C? O +1 C o L'IUI M O+ O
C Ui U -H L1 wo
M C-1
C 1 C
>i r-i C- O I v} c u)
4J I cr, 4-) 1 C ?, I! O rs
r? Ln ?:5 L,) L+-7 U-) -? :1.,
Lrl U? 7? Ln O r~. ?5 ?-j 41
S-1 ?-,
w c) w Cc, C {
O rJ ti O r N O u) r5
7? i
I
r--I S~
C) 0
.H U
W •ri ?
-A M
U O co
•ri Pa C ?'o
>
C N
U I?
C U}
Q:
I. C
• i C C
> Ll U C
^. C S-I > ?7) • O }.-I U
C C U C Cn M CC
C-J
• i i W O U: U r m C CLi >> C
I O I C vi L'1 u) ^ >1
4-) m tJ O C) Ln U O
C3 17? O rs U
C r co J
4-I >•+ oo r•-"i C S C
OLno O >j (N 2: u)O c,) w O
'v ?7 D
ri i I L?- co
n U 4-I C C?D
Cil O h
C L-t ?-q v?
4-i
C >•i
>r4 >I
• r-i -Z
C
O U r-i
I ;,, o r
Uf
JI Ji
r--i
H ?
U
U
O
C
O
C
O
41
O C
CJ
U)
I4 C
G ?-I
M C
C > O
C; •ri O
C U CD
H rv L'1
O O ?,
(?'? 'rJ iJJ
I u^.
`i cn
.4 C1
co
H
r'
U) 1J
C
C C v
?-i ?1J M
'? U1 N
0 4j
-,i M
? v
x ?
m C
v C
.U
C C
4--I ru > Ln
O r-i •? ?r
1J V)-
&P U) U
C C) C,
M C)
I >1 c? >y
O I L rS
•?i ? O r3
ca ^
C >I Ul
ct' ? 6l
r
(r, r-i o
U C-_ 1 M
> C
C >y
U H C
U -C?
4-j m w
:, C
3 O -I • r-I
_O • r-; ?-4
4a
a]: O 7? G
c;
U
'Q
0
>
C/l
M C.
C C
C •? O
O U N
.^a r?
C in v:-
C
a?
C
cr fv
o r-i
U ?
C
J
C) r-
(11 0
Q)
71 C
ri
C U; CO
U+?I?
O
U ? N
C, H
(? ?,o U -
-4.
U-4
G)
rv,
E
r
w
ti
O
y; Ln
F-. yr
O
r
>t U
C (IU) ?D4 lD ^
(? M CO
U
v
O E: Cl)
S ~ -H (D N
Y. U I-
fv x (/)
H F
r-'
41 C 41
co > I~
•ri O
U
4-? C, CD
O >1
L7
U) ?r
?a rv ^ U)-
C -I-J i C
r r- r r`
I O U
G r-
Ul
>1
H 4--)
I >1 i s~
C) `•-i •,-i U 4-i U
?-i 4-4 C r E? O ?4
O r-I >, - r_i
3 C (? c? 44
H c? Ci CQ O
r-i Ln co
rS L) -?
/W
M
? H r U ( ?
C NA
U m i co rz? ?-) C
(D r i • O U u; 41 co
> I 00 i U 'C co
U•? r ?I,- Y U ?bc-
U G `? H F- C) J v
C,
•
U
L?
F
rl C
S-a
J1 1
0.: O ,
E o
cn ~ U G
H GJ
cn 7?
O aJ
U
G+ G
O
us .H
dj
G: 7
U G
H
O +
G G C
? C
P +
G 41
O U
U)
ti
U) o
O G
U
f-I
14 1
H ?
C7 C
CG C
H S
L, C
S
W
u
w ?
U
a
O
a
G. G
O O
z?
O
ul A
H C
Z S4
? w JJ ?
U
O U c
u C
U
G
O
.1
n 4
.'J
34
1 C
O ?
U
4j
r{
:J
cl m Ln S CO M r M I?D Lr7 O co H m of
to N ,D O O "'1 Gl W CO L'1 M -7` Ln H
co ri M M O :J I'l CO C/J N
rH N M -1 -i -J M N C'J ti mot' 11 CD
1
Gl r- H M N lG ?D O Ln 0' O Gl O N Ln
Q0 V` N CJl Gl O L'1 d' U M I- In Lnn N
O ?1 ri 1 C O N M lG O .-1 rl M M
co M r- N N N V' r- r- m - rH Gl
N N N M M -7T T d' d' Lr) Ln V M
O M ?D N O Gl r- M r-1 M O h H O d'
H N CO O O O co M L'1 N ("I CO G) H d'
Lr) L1 N f? O l`J f? N ? to N Ln r N -7'
N N 6l lG l:J 6l M N M r-I (? Cl l7 r-I
N u Ln Ln r- Co co h r 1- G, co 0
O r- N Gl M lG M M VJ N N co Ln
Ln N r-{ h Ln (N H r- m O N co N
i11 I: Ur N lO f? d' 1 - r-i o O L1 c 1'
N O r- V' M r- --1 lD .H l0 O l0 r- In
d' O lG r- r O CO N Gl r- Lr) to m - Ln
V N N ?' r-i Gl -'1' M M Ln Ln ?o M r
M L'1 L7 N N Ln Ln m m Ln co l'J lG Ln
M f? N Gl V Ln N r-1 Gl L7 O O t` CO
M M <1' N t` N t` co m G O O
dT r- co 7 O -T -Y' L'l N M r- 00 r- N O
M N r- L7 O M O Ln v' O r- O
Gl -1` N ? rA O CJl T .-i Ln M :J N ?J' O
r- O M O m r: co O N c r- Ln ?r
-7' L1 L1 \J W Gl ^S L1 N V' L?l '.? VD 0 Lrl
l r- Co rn O r-I N M - L:1 l7 r- co G1 O
ID lG l.7 V. r- r- r- r- r- rl- r- r f? I- co
Gl cl Gl cl rn G, n Gl a G, m m cl G\
H .-! H H H H H ,? H .H .H r, r{ .H ?--1
L1
N
?O
J?
O
O
O
r
O
E,
O
JJ
r3
,H
uo
U
N
c.
U
J?J
c
rl
U
J
U
H
U
-l1
r3
G
U
ro
G
L'3
L
ro
c
w
C
r
C
H
U
U
J
J
J
H
n
Gl
0
v.-
I
O
co
c,
1
G`.
C=
a
.l
U
C
.a
a
Li
O
w
w
w
Lz
c
a
w
O
iJ
C
L•
C
I
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 373
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Preliminary Community Development Block
Grant Program Application
is
At the November 13, 1979 city council meeting, the council
conducted an informational public hearing on Richfield's use of
Community Development Block Grant Funds for the next two funding
years. The city staff has now prepared a preliminary application
based on the input received from the public hearing and from
various city departments.
Projects suggested for funding are as follows for Year VI
(8/1/807/31/81) and Year VII (8/l/81-7/31/82):
1. Housing Rehabilitation - Year VI: $105,000; Year VII:
$85,000. This project involves providing grants to low
and moderate income persons and the handicapped to re-
habilitate single family dwellings.
2. Site Acquisition and Clearance - Year VI: $42,000.
This project involves the acquisition and clearance
of a substandard dwelling. The lot will then be sold
to a low or moderate income family, or to a developer
for the construction of single family housing for
low and moderate income persons.
3. Handicapped Accessibility to Public Buildings- Year VI:
$80,000. This project involves the construction of an
elevator at the Community Center to provide interior
access to both floors for the elderly and handicapped.
Other handicap improvements such as railings will be
installed if additional funds are available.
4. L/H/N Public Improvements - Year VI - $125,000; Year VII
$245,000. This project involves construction of streets,
sidewalks, and landscaping to improve traffic and pede-
strian movement in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelop-
ment Project area. The funds will be used for the
planned improvements on Lyndale Avenue between 64th and
67th Streets and for improvements on 66th Street between
Lyndale Avenue and I-3564.
tr
Council Letter No. 373 -2-
November 29, 1979
5. Community Center Kitchen Remodelinq - Year VII-$22,000.
This project involves the remodeling of the existing
lower level kitchen to make it accessible to the handi-
capped. It involves replacement of cupboards, counters,
appliances, and a center work table.
The projects proposed above differ from the three-year plan
approved last year in the following ways:
1. The New Ford Town Park improvement project originally
proposed for Year VI has been eliminated because it is
ineligible for CD funding, as it does not serve an area
which is primarily composed of low and moderate income
families.
2. The amount of funds which may be available is $352,000
rather than $3301000 as was indicated in the three-year
plan approved by the city council last year.
3. The elevator project at the Community Center has increased
from $40,000 to $80,000 because of revised cost estimates.
4. A $42,000 site acquisition project has been added to
Year VI so that we can continue to meet our housing
assistance plan goals.
45 5. A $22,000 kitchen remodeling project has been added to
Year VII to meet those needs at the Community Center.
Additional eligible projects which have been suggested, but
which are not suggested for funding are as follows:
1. Handicap improvements to city hall including making the
public restrooms accessible to the handicapped and a
handicap ramp from the upper level parking area to the
main entrance.
2. Improvements to the Community Center, including the
following:
a. Extension of the foyer area for additional meeting
space and coat storage area.
b. Purchase of adaptive play equipment for the handi-
capp2d.
C. Construction of a storage room for building and
other equipment.
d. Correction of existing heating and ventilating
problems.
It is my recommendation that the city council approve the
projects suggested for funding and authorize the city staff to submit
the preliminary application to Hennepin County for review by the
i Council Letter No. 373 -3-
November 29, 1979
appropriate planning area citizen's advisory committee. Once
their input is received, the city staff will prepare a final plan
for council consideration in February, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Acting Planning Director
0
5
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 372
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor_
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that
the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials,
equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There
is one such item on the November 29, "1979 city council agenda.
Zamboni Pit Repairs
The coil in the snow melt pit at the Richfield :ice arena is
leaking badly and beyond further repair. The "snow" is from the
Zamboni, the ice resurfacing machine. This portion of City Project
No. 743 would call for replacement of the existing coil with a
copper fabricated coil with diaelectraic unions between the steel
fitting and the copper. In addition, the stand pipe in the bottom
of the pit would be repaired to make it removeable and to enlarge
the drainoff area in the top of the stand pipe. The stand pipe
would be screened to remove the dirt and lint and keep the system
from plugging.
r The staff has solicited quotations for this work, although the
r work is specialized and not done by many contractors. Holmsten Ice
I n?J, Rinks, Inc. has submitted the low estimate of $1,803 for the copper
fabricated coil and $75 for repairing the stand pipe. This vendor
"' is very knowledgeable in this area. They were a part of Drake Con-
tractors at the time the ice arena was built, and have been involved
in refrigeration maintenance over the years.
It is recommended that the city council approve this purchase
in the amount of $1,878.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Community Services Director
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 371
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Proposed Change in Park and Recreation
Advisory Commission
A Park and Recreation Advisory Commission was created by
city council- resolution in 1973. There have been amending resol-
utions since that time, the most recent in December of 1977, which
provided for youth representation on the Park and Recreation Comm-
ission, in lieu of a separate Youth Advisory Commission.
At its regular meeting in August, 1979 the commission was in-
formed of the city's administrative reorganization concept. At
the regular meeting in October, the commission requested an oppor-
tunity to further discuss the reorganization and the Community Ser-
vices Department organization and that of the rest of the city ad-
ministration along with financial ramifications. The Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission then discussed their role in the re-
organization. It was the unanimous recommendation of those members
present that the city council be informed that the present Park
and Recreation Advisory Commission is willing to undertake expanded
responsibilities in conjunction with the city reorganization and the
consolidation of functions embodied in the Department of Community
Services.
It is the position of the Community Services Director, in
which I concur, that the proposal of the Park and Recreation Comm-
ission to assume expanded responsibilities as a Community Services
Advisory Commission be given approval by the city council. The
council appointed commission membership is an effective advisory
board, and helps provided the needed "pulse of the community." The
membership keeps well informed on matters and gives careful, well
thought-through consideration to times brought before them, serving
as a sounding board for the staff, council and the whole of the
community, The Community Services Department includes many activ-
ities that are highly visible to the community, and I believe it would
serve the city well to have an advisory commission to monitor and
make recomme.r.dations regarding those activities and responsibilities.
r
Council Letter No. 371 -2-
November 29, 1979
Attached to this letter is a resolution for city council
consideration which provides for expansion of the Park and Recre-
ation Advisory Commission to serve as a Community Services Advisory
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
•
KN/ej a
cc: Community Services Director
4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING EARLIER RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO THE
• ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 4960, passed by the City Council
of the City of Richfield on April 9, 1979, the Richfield Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission was established and directed as to
membership and purpose, and
WHEREAS, subsequent resolutions have been adopted from time
to time by the city council for purposes of amending the membership
or purpose of the Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission,
and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is in the process of reorgani-
zation which will provide for an expansion of departmental services
from the former Park and Recreation Department to the Community
Services Department, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the interests of the city
can best be served by a correlating expansion of the Park and
Recreation Advisory Commission purpose to a Community Services Ad-
visory Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, that amendments to the establishment of the
• Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission be made as
follows:
1. That Resolution No. 4960, establishing the Richfield Park
and Recreation Commission, and all subsequent amendments
to said Resolution, are hereby repealed.
2. That there is hereby created a Community Services
Commission.
3. The Commission shall serve in a direct advisory capacity
to the city council. Staff services for the commission
shall be provided by the Community Services Department of
the city.
4. The commission shall consist of eleven (11) regular members,
all of whom shall be residents of the City of Richfield.
They shall be appointed by the city council and shall be
subject to removal, with or without cause, by the city
council. In making the appointments to the commission,
the city council shall undertake to secure a representa-
tive balance among various groups and interests within
the community. Two (2) of the eleven (11) regular members
shall be youth. Nine (9) of the eleven (11) regular
members shall be adults, and the city council shall give
due regard to representation from (a) senior citizens,
(b) handicapped persons and parents of mentally and
physically handicapped persons (c) the business community,
(d) the public and private schools, (e) the community's
athletic organizations, (f) the clergy, and (g) homemakers.
In addition to the eleven (11) members of the commission,
it shall have three (3) non-voting, ex-officio members.
Such ex-officio members shall be selected as follows:
One (1) member shall be appointed by the city council
from among its members; one (1) shall be appointed by
the school board from among its members or the school
district staff, and one(1) shall be appointed by the
planning commission from among its members.
5. Regular members shall be appointed in January of each
year by the city council to serve three (3) year terms,
except in the case of the original commission. The
regular members of the original commission shall be those
of the now disbanded Park and Recreation Advisory Comm-
ission including their current term of office. Terms
of the members of the commission shall begin on the first
day of February of the year of appointment and shall con-
tinue until the first day of February of the year in which
their appointment expires, or until their successors are
selected, subject, however, to prior termination as other-
wise provided in this resolution.
Selection of ex-officio members shall be made annually
and, insofar as possible, in January of each year, with
such ex-officio members serving for a term of one year
or until their successors are appointed.
6. The commission shall be advisory to the city council on
matters relating to community service facilities, programs
and finances. This shall include, but not be limited to,
community service related to capital improvement projects,
recreation programming, the community center, the nature
center, the ice arena, the golf course, the swimming pool
general government buildings, L/H/N maintenance, park
maintenance, street maintenance, sewer maintenance, water
maintenance, city motor pool and any other item referred
to it by the city council.
7. Any of the following shall cause the office a regular member
to become vacated: a) death; b) disability or failure to
serve, shown by failure to attend three (3) consecutive
regular meetings of the commission without written permission
of the commission to be excused; c) removal of legal resi-
dence from the city; d) resignation in writing; e) removal
by the city council; and f) election or appointment to
a public office.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 29th
day of November, 1979.
He
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 370
/6?
Agenda November 29, 1979
Subject: Establishment of a Date of Public Hearing
for Tax Exempt Financing, Lyndale Garden
Center Improvements
At the October 22, 1979 city council meeting, there was
a presentation regarding the redevelopment project of Lyndale
Garden Center. At the November 13, 1979 city council meeting,
the city council approved first reading of a:Planned Unit
Development ordinance for Lyndale Garden Center. These actions
were based on a timetable which envisions the construction to
be initiated in the summer of 1980. The November 13, 1979
. council action was a preliminary step and did not commit the
city to a course of action.
To maintain the summer construction schedule, it would be
desirable for the city council to take another preliminary step
related to financing the redevelopment. The redevelopment prop-
osal is based upon securing a tax exempt mortgage for private
placement. The city council, however, must authorize this type of
financing. Prior to considering authorization, a public hearing
must be held. Given the laws relating to publishing the notice
and the printing schedule of the Richfield Sun, the council
should establish a hearing date at their meeting of November
29, 1979. The recommended date of the hearing is December 27,
1979.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution establishing the date of hearing on tax exempt finan-
cing for the Lyndale Garden Center on December 27, 1979.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• KN/ej a
cc: Acting Planning Director
Exhibit A
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota will meet in the Council chambers in the
City Hall in the City of Richfield at 7:00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 27, 1979,
to conduct a public hearing on a proposal that the City undertake
and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474.
The project is proposed by Lyndale Fruit and Vegetable Inc.
(the "Company") and consists of the acquisition and improvement
of land in the City and the construction and equipping thereon
of additional facilities for and the expansion of the Lyndale
Gardens facility for use in its business of the retail sales of
• agricultural products. The principal amount of bonds or other
obligations proposed to be issued by the City to finance the
project is estimated to be not in excess of $1,500,000.
A draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and
exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office
of the City Clerk in the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota 55423 during regular City business hours
(8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays).
Any person wishing to express a view with respect to the
proposal to undertake and finance the project will be heard at
the public hearing.
BY ORDEP. OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Sylvia Berg
City Clerk
Dated: November 29, 1979.
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT
WHEREAS, Lyndale Fruit and Vegetable Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (the "Company") has proposed that the City
undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Indus-
trial Development Act Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474
(the "Act"); and -
WHEREAS, the Act, as amended, requires that a public
hearing on the proposed project be conducted by the Council
before any action may be taken by it relative to the pro-
posed project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield:
1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 27, 1979, to conduct a public hearing
on the proposed project requested by the Company
and to take whatever action in relation thereto
is as it deems appropriate.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to
publish notice of the hearing in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit A once in the official news-
paper in the Minneapolis Tribune, a newspaper
of general circulation in the City, not less than
15 days prior to December 27.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield
this 29th day of November, 1979.
Loren L. Law, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Actincq Citv Clerk
E
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 369
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Dates of Hearing for Renewal of On-Sale
Liquor Licenses
The municipal code requires that the city council set the
date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on-sale liquor
licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the
official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such a hear-
ing.
It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for
• the December 27, 1979 city council meeting to consider the renewal
of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Godfather, Inc. and
for the Left Guard Corporation, dba Maximillans and Chi Chi's.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
Environmental Health Director
0
KENNEL INSPECTION REPORT November 23, 1979
GARNETTE W. KELBER
6314 - 14th Avenue
15 Cats - 7 female, S male - 4k years to 20 years old
All the cats are neutered and declawed. They have the run of the house;
each cat has its ovm sleepin- wicker basket. r....
Mrs. Kelber has covered her furniture with cloths and the floor with
linoleum pieces. The house was very neat with no offending odor. Mrs.
Kelber is presently remodelin. the basement area to better accommodate
the cats. A wire fence was installed to allow the cats to exercise
outdoors. The back yard area was well maintained. Mrs. Kelber is
totally devoted to her cats.
I. F. Roesler
Environmental Health Director
IFR:ml
•)
•
KENNEL INSPECTION REPORT
DONALD ;i. ME
6915 - 19th Avenue
November 23, 1979
3 Dogs - 1 Poodle, Charrin, 14 yrs. 013.
2 black Dabs; Rebel, 6 yrs; Caesar, 2 hrs.
•
The roodie was present during the inspection. 11-ie Labs were with Mr. Moe's
son,. The Poodle barked and growled during the inspection and was fista.lly
placed in a bedroom. The Labs are prize wirnin s?ZOdr and hunting dog,.
The dogs have the run of the house and are kept inside r.:o,t of the time.
The Moes take the dogs to Mother's 7-ake for exercise.
The house was neat and well kept. Items noted in our letter of October 19,
1979 had been attended to. The yard was well. kept and the dog droppings
picked up regularly.
,... a -? a...t ..
I. F. Roesler
Environmental 14eaith Director
IFR: ;rl
Attac:Ied: Ltr. 10/19/79.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 368
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Release of Bond for Off-Street Parking Contract,
211 West 76th Street
On August 23, 1976, the city council authorized execution of
an off-street parking contract with Timothy J. Gleason to construct
an addition to the existing building and parking lot located at
211 West 76th Street.
An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that the
owner has complied with all terms of the off-street parking agree-
ment. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the
attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance bond
. for this off-street parking contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberg'J
er
City Manager
KN/jef
CC: Acting City Engineer
Acting Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
• ON OFF-STREET PT,RY.TNG
Mr. Timothy J. Gleason, President
Gleason Mortuary
7234 14th Avenue South
Location: 211 West 76th St.
Use: Funeral Home
WHEREAS, Timothy J. Gleason, 7234 14th Avenue South, had an
off-street parking agreement with the Citv of Richfield relating to
211 W. 76th Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract
No. 2222, and which contract was guaranteed by a personal check in the
amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000), and the provisions of
said agreement and now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under
said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring said
Timothy J. Gleason to continue to provide a bond for security on the
.performance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release
Timothy J. Gleason for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation
of said Contract No. 2222, on and after the 29th day of November, 1979.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 29th day
of November, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Sylvia K. Bergh,Acti_ng City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 367
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Traffic Control Matters
There are two traffic control matters on the November 29, 1979
city council agenda for city council review:
Request for stop sign, 65th and Upton: attached is a letter
requesting installation of a three-way stop at the intersection of
65th Street and Upton Avenue. The traffic volume and accident his-
tory of this intersection would not war installation of any rat\h"'
stop signs, and the large tree on the southwes corner only par-
tially obscures visibility on the intersec ion approach. Sixty-
fifth Street traffic is stopped in this vicinity on WWin, one
block west of this intersection, and at Sheridan, two blocks east.
Community Center Parkin Lot: as council members are aware,
from time to time we have had problems with parking congestion and
traffic flow in various city parking lots. These problems have pre-
viously occurred in the parking lot ajoining the municipal swimming
pool and ice arena. Most recently, however,we have received a large
number of complaints regarding parking and driving problems in the
Community Center parking lot. The problem in this area is particu-
larly critical because of the heavy use of the Community Center by
senior citizens.
The City Attorney and Public Safety Director have been discuss-
ing this matter in an effort to alleviate some of the safety problems.
Appropriate restrictions to deal with the problems experienced in any
city parking lot could be accomplished through a resolution of the
city council. However, in order to accomplish this, the council must
first pass an enabling ordinance to provide for such traffic control
regulations.
The City Attorney's office has drafted the necessary ordinance
amendment to provide the council with authority to pass specific
resolutions regarding traffic control regulations for our municipal
parking lots. A copy of this proposed ordinance amend.:?ent is attached.
0
Council Letter No. 367 -2-
November 29, 1979
Once this ordinance is in effect, the city council can adopt a
resolution which would establish the actual parking provisions appli-
cable to the Community Center lot, or to any other public parking lots
in the city. Although the exact details of the resolution would have
to be worked out, its general content could be as follows:
1. The resolution might begin with a recitation of the fact
that the lot is located immediately proximate to the park
and to the community center and that there is no other parking
specifically provided for the community center or the park.
The resolution could also recite the fact that there are other
activities in the area of commerical, residential and educa-
tional nature which compete for this space even though other
parking has been provided for those activities. The pres-
sure of this competition is such that it tends to result in
inadequate parking for the primary users of the adjacent fa-
cilities which were, in fact, the individuals for which the
lot was intended, and that in order to assure them access to
the lot, certain limitations and prohibitions are necessary.
2. The resolution might provide that a certain described part
of the lot be reserved for those participating in community
center activities and another part reserved for park users.
The reservation would possibly be best if limited to certain
time periods.
• 3. The resolution should then direct that suitable signs be er-
ected to accomplish the objectives of the resolution.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading con-
sideration to the attached ordinance amendment, and authorize the
staff to begin developing a resolution which would enable implementa-
tion of parking regulations at the community center lot.
Respectfully submitted,
I
? f
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jef
cc: City Attorney
Public Safety Director
0
s
6400 Upton Avenue South
Richfield, FFN
55423
•
The Hon. Loren Law
Richfield City hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, PN
55423
Dear Loren:
I enjoyed visiting with you a few weeks ago and sharing with
you our concern over a potentially dangerous intersection at
65th Street and Upton. This intersection serves as the
primary entrance to the Sheridan Park baseball/skating/tennis
area. The large pine tree located at the Northwest corner
and the curving nature of 65th Street combine in creating
a completely blind approach from all angles. Since most
neighborhood children use this entrance to the park, we feel
that it is critical that a three-way stop sign be installed
as soon as possible.
As you recall, you suggested I write a letter to you outlining
this concern in order that you may present it to the council
for prompt action..
It goes without saying that we are deeply disappotuted in the
recent election results; Richfield has perhaps lost its most
dedicated mayor in recent years.
Your attention is appreciated in this matter. Please call if
there is anything I can do to hasten this matter to its
completion.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen A. Spinner
KAS:bs
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX,
SECTION 9.03 OF THE ORDINANCE
lot CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN
Chapter IX, Section 9.03 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, regulating parking within the City is
hereby amended by amending paragraph (19) thereof and by adding
a new paragraph (21) thereto which amendments shall read as
follows:
(19) On any public property, including parks, playgrounds and
school grounds and including marked and improved parking areas
on public property during times when parking [on] in such
parking areas is either prohibited or is otherwise limited by
Council resolution and such prohibition or limitation is conspic-
uously posted-in the parking area.
(_21) On any part of marked and improved parking areas on public
property other than marked or lined parking spaces.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1979.
•
Loren L. Law, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk
r 1
J
a-
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 366
Agenda November 29, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Report of the Wine Licensing Study Committee
There is an item on the November 29, 1979, council agenda pro-
viding for presentation to the council of the final report of the
Wine Licensing Studv Committee. Council members have previously
received a copy of the committee's report. The report itself will
be formally presented by the committee chairman, Rev. Dr. Bernt
Opsal.
The Richfield Chamber of Commerce has indicated an interest in
having representatives in attendance at this presentation. Copies
• of the report have been sent to the Chamber representatives for
their review.
In summary, it might be noted that the Wine Licensing Study
Committee has examined this issue over a period of several months.
As a result of this study, the committee, on a five to three vote,
is not recommending the development of a wine licensing ordinance
for the City of Richfield. I believe the chairman of the committee,
as well as any committee members present, will elaborate on this
position at the council meeting.
If the city council wishes to take action on a wine licensing
ordinance, it would be possible for the council to give first read-
ing approval to the ordinance which is included in the committee
report, at the November 29, 1979 city council meeting. That council
action would enable publication of the proposed ordinance so that
second reading consideration of the ordinance could take place in
December, 1979. That might also be an appropriate time for council
members to suggest any changes that they may wish to see in the form
of a final wine licensing ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
is City Manager
KN/ ej a
cc: Public Safety Director