Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19900716_regular136 MINUTES OF THE REGUIAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 16, 1990 ROILCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Member Rice to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGlJIAR MEXTINGS OF 6/4/90, 6/18/90 AND 7/2/90 APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of June 4, 1990, June 18, 1990 and July 2, 1990 as submitted. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *PUBLIC HEBRING ON PRELIMR?ARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR -ELL, ADDITION (LOT 1. BLOCK L. DANEN'S MEADOWS) CONTINUED TO 8/20/90 seconded by Member Rice to continue the public hearing on preliminary plat approval for Lindell Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Danen's Meadows (7017 Antrim Road) to August 20, 1990. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. Motion was made by Member Smith and was *PUBLIC HEBRING ON mEEpT TO EDINA COMPREHENSIVE PIAN - COHHlJTKtTp FACILITIES ELEMENT - PARK PLAN CONTINUED TO 8/20/90 Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to continue the public hearing on the amendment to the Edina Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Element - Park Plan to August 20, 1990. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. FIRST READING GRANTED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 312-A2 (TO DECIARE CEXTAIN AN- NOISES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE1 stated that the amendment is in response to the recent decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals which ruled that the City's animal control ordinance as it pertains to dog barking was unconstitutional. review the case and as such the decision of the Court of Appeals stands. Manager Rosland presented Ordinance No. 312-A2 and The State Supreme Court refused to Manager Rosland referred to a letter dated July 6, 1990 from Marsh Halberg, City Prosecuting Attorney, indicating that based upon his research into this problem, he would propose two options to the Council summarized as follows: Option I - Modify the existing ordinance phrase that says "disturb the peace and quiet" to say "unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet." option is that is involves a minimal change to the ordinance and it allows flexibility to address the unique fact situation of each case for enforcement. The advantage of this Option II - Rewrite the ordinance to include greater specificity as to what may cause a violation. definite definition of a certain fact situation where the ordinance would be violated. One of the criticisms by the Court of Appeals is that the current ordinance does not give enough notice to people as what would cause a violation. Option I1 is drafted to say that if a dog barks continually for five minutes, and it could be heard anywhere off the premises, it would be a violation. The advantage of this option is that it includes a very The Prosecuting Attorney and staff would recommend that the Council consider adoption of the ordinance amendment as stated in Option 11. 7/16/90 137 t Member Rice asked if a named complainant is a requirement under either option. Manager Rosland responded that staff would probably continue the existing policy. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the proposed ordinance amendment. Nancy Dreher, 1 Spur Road, stated that the subject case heard by the Court of Appeals involved their dog. Regarding the proposed ordinance amendment, she made the following comments. 1) The Council should keep in mind the statement of the Court of Appeals that cities are required to be as specific as they possibly can with respect to something that can be vague and subject to abuse. important matter and should not be treated lightly. It is now a matter of state concern, there are other municipalities that are concerned and she would hope that the Council would allow citizen input from both sides of the issue. 2) The second option is better than the first but still has some problems. procedure is probably as important as what the ordinance says. It is the means by which citizens can be harassed. She pointed out that they still do not know which neighbor complained about their dog. She said she would like to see some language in the amendment that would say there has to be a willful violation. use of words like "unreasonably" and rrany" makes it more vague. This is an 3) The precomplaint Also, the Mayor Richards commented that this issue has been addressed by the Council on a number of occasions. It is a serious matter - that we deal in a neighborly fashion with one another to create a hospitable environment for all. the feedback from the citizens who have called him have indicated that we are on the right approach in trying to deal with this subject. He said that Member Smith said he would support Option I1 and felt that a precomplaint process similar to that being used by the City of Minneapolis should be considered. Member Rice observed that he, too, favored Option I1 but felt that the Minneapolis process was unreasonably burdensome. Regarding citizen input, Member Kelly submitted that the Edina Sun-Current had published a front page article on the , issue noting that the City planned to revise the ordinance at this meeting. Mayor Richards elaborated that if First Reading were granted that prior to Second Reading a precomplaint process should be outlined for review by the Council so that any policy issues could be resolved as part of the ordinance amendment adoption procedure. Prosecuting Attorney Halberg, they agreed that it would be best to leave the complaint process as an administrative procedure as opposed to putting it into the ordinance. ordinance if it was determined administratively later that another process would be better. Attorney Erickson said that in discussing this with It would be easier to change the procedure if it were not part of the That would not preclude review of the process by the Council. Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 312-A2 - To Declare Certain Animal Noises To Be a Public Nuisance, for First Reading as follows, with the understanding that . prior to Second Reading the administrative policy on the precomplaint process would be presented for Council review and comment: ORDINANCE NO. 312-82 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 312 TO DECLARE CERTAIN ANIMAL NOISES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE Section 1. Sec. 29(j) of Ordinance No. 312 is hereby amended to read as (j) No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying, any building or premise shall keep or allow to be kept, any animal which shall, by any noise, unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of any person in the vicinity. The phrase "unreasonably disturb the peace and quite" shall include, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any animal which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, TJ3.E CITP COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDIHB, MNNESOTA, ORDAINS: f ollovs : 7/16/90 138 from a location outside of the building or premises where the animal is being kept and which animal noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five-minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. seconded by Member Kelly. Motion for First Reading of Ordinance No. 312-A2 was Chief Swanson said he had talked with Prosecuting Attorney regarding the precomplaint process and that they felt the Minneapolis process is excessive. suggested process would be that when calling the Police Department regarding an alleged violation the complainant must give hisher identity. Data privacy law says that a complainant's name is confidential regarding complaints against property. specific ordinance violation and would be delivered to the dog owner's home whether the owner was there or not. Then, prior to formal notice of complaint of ordinance violation, the Police Department would secure the cooperation of the complaining party to be part of the proposed prosecution with waiver of confidentiality. Mrs. Dreyer commented that if the precomplaint process is not included in the ordinance amendment, the citizens should be informed as to the process and also that a police officer should visit the dog owner's home. Mayor Richards then called for rollcall vote on the motion for First Reading of the ordinance. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. The Two warning notices would then be issued, the first would include the Manager Rosland stated that Ordinance No. 312-A2 would be on the Council Agenda for Second Reading on August 6, 1990. FIRST READING GRANTED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 715-81 - TO PROVIDE MANDATORY SEPARATION AND STORAGE OF RECYCLABLES FROM PRD AND M)D DISTRICTS AND ORDINANCE NO. 1301-85 - TO REOTJIRE HBULERS TO OFFFX RECYCLABIX COLTXCTION SERVICE AND REPORTS Richards recalled that at the meeting of July 2, 1990 the Council had considered the recommendation and proposal of the Recycling Commission for a recycling program for apartments and condominiums and had approved the drafting of ordinances to implement the program. Mayor Recycling Coordinator Chandler advised that apartment and condominium owners were notified by mail that the Council would consider the proposed ordinance amendments on July 16, 1990. program were in the audience to speak about their concerns. ordinances were summarized as follows: She said that several owners who had called her about the The proposed Ordinance No. 715-A1 - Requires that as of January 1, 1991: - - Residents of such buildings (except nursing homes) shall be required to - Recycling programs shall be set up in all multi-unit housing buildings separate recyclables from other refuse Apartment and condominium managers or associations shall report recycling program information to the City. Ordinance No. 1301-A5 - Requires that as of January 1, 1991 garbage haulers: - - Shall report to the City, on a quarterly basis, the tonnage of Shall offer recycling service to their apartment and condominium customers recyclables collected from Edina apartments and condominiums. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the proposed ordinances. 7/16/90 139 Sandy Lattu, Manager of Cedars of Edina, 7340 Gallagher represented 600 units which is 20% of the apartments in although she supports recycling, the proposed ordinance programs for multi-unit housing buildings would place a Drive, stated that she the City. She said that to mandate recycling financial burden on Cedars of Edina of an additional $12,000 per year for recycling service from their hauler. Ms. Lattu asked that the Council consider: 1) Subsidizing the recycling program cost for multi-family housing buildings the same as for the single family dwelling program (20%), and 2) Delaying the start of the mandatory recycling program for multi-family housing buildings until the haulers install weighing equipment on their trucks for trash/refuse in order to reduce those hauling costs. Meanwhile, they would like to start a voluntary recycling program to teach their residents to recycle before it becomes mandatory. Carl Weisser, Manager of Point of France, 6566 France Avenue, stated they have had a recycling program for a number of years and have hauled their own recyclables. He said it would cost them extra money to have licensed haulers pick-up their iecyclables. that the garbage haulers shall offer recycling service to apartment/condominium customers. However, apartment/condominium managers are free to select their hauler or haul the recyclables themselves and make reports to the City. Coordinator Chandler clarified that the intent of the ordinance was John Rocheford, Rocheford Management Company, stated that he manages over 800 condominium units in the City and that voluntary recycling has worked well. Without recycling, their hauling costs would be 30-40% more that they are now. He asked for the support of the Council in requesting Hennepin County to also pay for the recycling program in multi-family housing buildings. Mayor Richards said that at the meeting of July 2, 1990 the Council recognized that the question of funding was an issue. It was the consensus of the Council that the funding issue be considered as part of the 1991 budget process in the budget hearings scheduled for August 23, 28 and 29 and final hearings when the 1991 budget will be certified in December. Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 715-Al. for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. Member Paulus introduced Ordinance No. 1301-85 for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. It: was the consensus of the Council that the ordinances should be considered for Second Reading on Tuesday, September 4, 1990 following the budget meetings. CONCERN OF RESIDENT HEARD REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION AT 7121 GLOUCHESTER AVEm Manager Rosland provided background information on the involvement of the Planning Department with Dr. Joyce Anderson, 7121 Glouchester Avenue. He explained that in late March, 1990, a resident on Glouchester Drive near Dr. Anderson’s home registered a complaint alleging the following: . 1) Dr. Anderson is a psychologist who regularly sees clients in her home. 2) Approximately 20 clients visit the home on a scheduled basis per week. 3) The clients park on the street. Between late March and April 6, 1990, the Planning staff observed the activity at the property and after confirming the complaints Dr. Anderson was contacted by telephone and advised that she was in viohtion of Ordinance No. 825.7.D, 140 7/16/90 specifically the following provisions: (e) parking demands not accommodated on site, (f) more than 10 automobile trips weekly; (d) professional who typically conducts meetings in home. Since that time Dr. Anderson has indicated that she intends to continue her business. She maintains that a handicap forces her to conduct her business from her home. Staff has also received two additional complaints regarding Dr. Anderson's business activity. Dr. Anderson and her attorney, John Mooty, have been advised by letter dated July 3, 1990 of the following potential: 1) 2) Appeal the staff's contention that she is indeed in violation; Seek an Ordinance amendment which could specify a handicap related exception. Mayor Richards commented that there are a number of people that have different views on the situation and that often the Council Members are cast into a position where they become a quasi-judicial body as to compliance or non-compliance. said-that the focus should be on the process and any judgement should be based on that. to an administrative decision or interpretation of the ordinance. involves an appeal to the Board of Appeals which decision can then be appealed to the City Council. case. After hearing comments from the parties involved, he suggested the Council instruct the individual asking for relief to either enter into the appeal process or seek an ordinance amendment. He Attorney Erickson observed that the City has a process when a party objects That process He recommended that the process be followed in this kind of Dr. Joyce Anderson, 7121 Glouchester Avenue, commented that the statement has been made in the letters that she must cease her practice on July 19. the average number of clients she sees per week is 15 and not 20 which is the maximum. She said she is requesting a variance to th.e ordinance requirements because of her disability and need to practice in her home. is in violation by 5-6 client hours a week but she stated that she needs that for her livelihood because she cannot work in an office as evidenced by a letter from her physician. neighbors but that nine families in the neighborhood support her position. Those neighbors state that they have no problem with what she is doing and that the activity is not disruptive. She said since receiving the letter of April 6, 1990 from the Planning staff she has asked all clients to park in her driveway and has been spacing her clients 10 - 20 minutes apart so that there is no overlap. She stated that It appears that she Dr. Anderson commented that there have been complaints by three Mayor Richards pointed out to Dr. Anderson the need to go through the appeal process; that the process does not begin with the Council but ends here. Dr. Anderson alluded to the date of July 19 when she must cease practicing. Attorney Erickson commented that the City could put in abeyance any enforcement until the appeals process is completed and the Council has made a decision. Member Smith made a motion that the City stay any type of enforcement of the ordinance until August 31, 1990 to allow time for Dr. Anderson to go through the appeals process. Speaking in support of Dr. Anderson were Mayo Brandjord, 7112 Glouchester; Harold Bagley, 7113 Glouchester; Paul Johnson, 7108 Glouchester; and Jim Reichardt, 7109 Glouchester. Michael Patera stated he lived across the street from Dr. Anderson. He said the Council should make sure before voting on the motion to stay enforcement that it would not affect the appeals period and may affect some substantive rights which could in essence give an indefinite stay to resolution of this particular problem. neighbors, Annette Rissman, 7125 Glouchester Avenue, and Robert and Alice Kravig, 7117 Glouchester Avenue, who did not object to her practice. Following lengthy discussion, Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. I Dr. Anderson referred to letters from her adjacent 7/16/90 141 Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVlCMENT NOS. STS-207 AND STS-208 Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for.award of bid for Storm Sewer Improvement Nos. STS-207 and STS-208 to recommended lov bidder, Glendale Contracting, Inc., at $159,880.50. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 7/10/90 APPROVED Smith to approve the following recommended action listed in Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of July 10, 1990: 1) To install "NO THRU TRUCK TRAFPIC" signs at the north and south ends of Tracy Avenue; to install "25 HPH" advisory signs with the "PEDESTRIAN" sign; to install yellow centerline striping to eliminate cars from passing; to notify NSP and companies that will be working in the Cahill redevelopment area, discouraging them from utilizing the road; and to recommend that the neighborhood seek a sidewalk petit ion, 2) To install "NO PARKING" signs on Overholt Pass, 30 feet from the end of the street on the west side; and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Motion was made by Member MANAGER PReSENTS "SUPERIOR TO NONE" AWARD TO ASSESSOR Rosland the annual Manager's "Superior to None" Award for presentation to the City Assessor as recommended by the Manager. He explained that the award was contrived following a misstatement by Manager Rosland several years ago. said that, in all seriousness, he was proud to present the award to Assessor Ralph Johnson.for his excellent performance as evidenced by the minimal number of appeals to the annual Board of Review. Member Smith gave Manager Manager Rosland VACANCY ON COMMUNITP mTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD NOTED that Anne S. Francis is moving out of state and has resigned from the Community Health Services Advisory Board. He asked the Council Members to give him names of individuals they may wish to nominate for appointment so that the vacancy could be filled at the August 6, 1990 meeting. Mayor Richards advised MTC PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF ROUTES 36. 51. 78, 88 AND 89 NOTED Manager Rosland advised that notices have been received from the Metropolitan Transit Commission for public hearings on July 25 and August 30 on the following proposed changes: 1) 2) 3) 4) Discontinue Route 36 weekday service serving the areas of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. Discontinue Route 78 weekday service serving the areas of Bloomington. Discontinue Route 88 weekday and Saturday service serving Richfield and Bloomington. Discontinue Route 89 weekday and Saturday service serving and Bloomington. Minneapolis, Edina, Edina, Richfield and the areas of Edina, the areas of Edina He suggested that this be announced in the Edina Sun-Current so that affected riders could submit their comments. PARK BOARD RECOMMENDATION APPROVED THAT EHA PURSUE HOSTING OF NATIONAL BANTAM TO- AT BRAEMAR ARENA APRIL 4-7. 1991 presented the Park Board recommendation of July 10, 1990 that the Edina Hockey Park and Recreation Director Kojetin 142 7/16/90 Association (EHA) pursue hosting the National Bantam Tournament at Braemar Arena to be held April 4-7, 1991. Peter Warner, EHA, explained that they have an opportunity to host the National Bantam Hockey Tournament next April. consist of 10 hockey teams, with the Edina Bantam Team being an automatic entry as hosts. The other teams would be coming from throughout the United States. A presentation will be made Saturday, July 21 in Brainerd to the Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association (MAHA) and commitments have been secured from several potential vendors. Mr. Warner said the EHA would like the opportunity to show off a first class facility. He asked that the Council consider a letter of support that would encourage the committee to award the tournament to Edina and that the City would be willing to support the event. The tournament would Member Paulus asked if there would be any costs to the City. hoped this would be a revenue/fund raising venture for the EHA and they did not intend to ask the City for funding. Mayor Richards asked if they would have enough volunteers to do it right - that it would be a typical Edina affair that would meet the City's high standards. Mr. Warner said that would be the intention of the EHA Board and that the history of the community has been that volunteers do come forward. Mr. Warner said he Member Rice made a motion directing staff to prepare a letter of support from the Council for the Mayor's signature that vould encourage the HAHA committee to award the tournament to Edina. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PROPOSED BOARD CHBNGES/APPOIXRBWTS FOR EDINLL FOUNDATION PRESENTED James Van Valkenburg, President of Board of Directors, presented proposed board changes and appointments for The Edina Foundation. He said that currently there are nine members on the board, 3 appointed by the Council, 3 by the School Board, and 3 by the board members. They are proposing the following: 1) Expand the present working Board of Directors from 9 to 12 members to 2) spread the work load, and regular Board of Directors two or three times each year. of individuals who would be well known in the community, could give advice on funding raising and could assist on that. the School Board. Board day-by-day management and direction. Develop a "Super or Advisory" Board of 9 members who would meet with the This would be comprised It may include the Mayor and Chair of 3) Engage an individual on a parttime basis who could give the Foundation Mr. Van Valkenburg mentioned that these proposed changes would require an amendment to the by-laws and that if the Council and the School Board approve the concept he would draft an amendment and being that back for approval. Member Kelly said that an issue has been the resident requirement. She said she has always felt that the board should include individuals from the business and professional sector that work in the City but may not reside here. In response, Mr. Van Valkenburg said that was considered at one time but the Council and the School Board felt board members should be residents. that he would not support the non-resident concept. Member Rice said he felt the proposed changes would be positive but questioned if a 21 member board might be unwieldy. expansion of the working board to 12 members. Council Members that the proposed changes be pursued. Mayor Richards commented I Member Smith stated he would encourage the It was the general consensus of the 7/16/90 143 *PETITION FOR SIDEWALK ON RIDGEVIEW DRIVE REFZRRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for sidewalk on Ridgeview Drive to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. REPORT GI" ON TRANSIT MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER LEVINE Mayor Richards reported that on July 11th he, Member Rice, Manager Rosland, Assistant Manager Hughes and a City Attorney representative had met with Commissioner Len Levine, MNDOT, together with individuals from the private sector and officials of Bloomington and Richfield. looked at intermodal transportation systems. He presented a proposal to explore the possibility of linking Southdale, the Mall of America and the airport with a rail transit system that could possibly be funded by federal and state funds. Mayor Richards said this could impact the proposed transit system for southeast Edina for which the City sought special legislation. that Edina could be a model community to implement some of the concepts that are being used in Europe because the City has set aside right of way. Commissioner Levine had recently returned from Europe where he had Commissioner Levine felt After hearing the proposal as presented by Commissioner'Levine and his staff, the Commissioner suggested that the cities get back to him within 45 days to let him know what the cities and the private sector felt about the proposal. The meeting concluded with no specific views expressed. officials and business/community leaders meet to explore the proposal further or consider alternatives. The suggestion was made that Edina PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED: RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE REF"DING BONDS PIERNON TERRACE PROJECT) Pursuant to due notice given, a public hearing was conducted on a proposal that the City issue Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project) in an amount not to exceed $6,850,000. The bond proceeds would refund in part Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds issued by the City in the original principal amount of $12,600,000 to refund prior obligations of the City issued to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of a 152-unit multifamily housing rental project developed on an approximate 3.5 acre parcel of land located at 5420 Vernon Avenue. I James Van Valkenburg, representing the Electrical Workers Union Pension Plan, said the matter is before the Council for final approval of the refinancing and the refunding bonds. First Trust of St. Paul, current trustee for the bondholders, has obtained approval of the proposal from the District Court of Ramsey County. Mr. Van Valkenburg recalled that when the Council gave preliminary approval to the bond refunding proposal at its meeting of May 21, 1990 several questions were raised. As to the bondholders, many of the bonds are listed in street names. However, some 40 Edina residents are listed as owners of bonds. totaling approximately $485,000. and/or bankruptcy. they would under the current proposal. the bondholders but also to the tenants. promptly receive approximately 58% of the principal amount due. Audits attached to the bond documents indicace that in April, 1990, the Electrical Workers Union Pension Fund had net assets in excess of $42 Million and assets in the Annuity Fund in 1989 were in excess of $27 Million. current time 129 of the 146 Vernon Terrace units (80%) are leased. The question was raised as to the effect of a foreclosure Either would mean that the bondholders would receive less than Under the proposal the bondholders would It would also be disruptive not only to One other figure of importance is that at the Attorney Erickson stated he was concerned that a firm settlement agreement with the prior owner has not been worked out. Mr. Van Valkenburg said that, in reality, any approval by the Council would be conditioned on having the settlement 144 7/16/90 agreement with the prior owner worked out. there will be no issuance of refunding bonds. Obviously, it that does not happen Kent Richey, Leonard, Street and Deinard acting as bond counsel, stated that there has been one slight modification in the security structure of the refunding bonds. At the May 21, 1990 meeting the Council was told that the bonds would be guaranteed by two pension funds having $70 Million in assets. governing pension plans requires that the guarantee be split 25% - 75% between the two funds, with the 25% being guaranteed by the smaller fund. Member Smith asked who would manage Vernon Terrace. Building Corporation proposes to enter into a management contract initially with Great Lakes Management Company who is presently managing Vernon Terrace on site for the Trustee as it is in receivership. heard on the bond refunding proposal. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Legislation Mr. Richey said Ohmega No further comments or objections were RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HULTIFBMLY MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (VERNON TERRACE PROJECT) SEBIES 1990 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "C-cil") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Minnesota non-profit corporation (the "Company"), that the City undertake to refinance a multifamily rental housing development as herein described pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4628 and 462C, as. amended (the "Act"), through issuance by the City of its Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project), Series 1990 in an aggregate principal amount of $6,735,000 (the "Bonds"), to refund in part Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project) issued by the City in the original principal amount of $12,600,000 (the "Prior Bonds") to refund prior obligations of the City issued to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of a 146-unit multifamily housing rental project (the "Project") together with related costs, developed on an approximate 3.5 acre parcel of land located at 5420 Vernon Avenue in the City. The Project is reserved for rental in part by persons of low and moderate income, with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units held for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted income not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis/St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement proposed to be dated as of July 1, 1990, between the City and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), the City will loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company in order to satisfy and refund the Prior Bonds. made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient (together with revenues derived from the investment of funds and accounts relating to the Bonds) to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. rights to the Loan Repayments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to First Trust National Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust proposed to be dated July 1, 1990 (the "Indenture"). Prior to the date of issuance of the Prior Bonds, the City approved and submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ("MHFA") a "financing program" for the Project as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4626, and MHFA approved the financing program, and no nev or amended financing program need be submitted to MHFA in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. approval : 1. The Council has received a request from Ohmega Building Corporation, a 2. 3. The Loan Repayments (as defined in the Loan Agreement) to be It is further proposed that the City assign its 4. 5. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to this Council for . 7/16/90 145 the Loan Agreement; the Indenture; a Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage") from the Company to the Trustee proposed to be dated July 1, 1990: (d) Electrical Workers Local 292 Pension Fund (each a "Guarantor", or collectively, the "Guarantors") and the Trustee; (e) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") among the Company, the City, the Guarantors and Hiller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Underwriter"); (f) Company, the Trustee and Hiller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Remarketing Agent") proposed to be dated July 1, 1990; (g) Company; and (h) (a) above constitutes a multifamily rental housing development' authorized by the Act; (b) public welfare by providing additional decent, safe and sanitary rental housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons within the City; (c) the Project is located within the City limits; (d) the refinancing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture, and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment, Indenture and Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terns, are authorized by the Act; (e) it is desirable that the Prior Bonds be refunded and that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (f) the Underwriter has determined that the Loan Repayments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project premises and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and Indenture; (8) under the provisions of the Act, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, .the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof: the City is not subject to any liability thereon: no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which has been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which has been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture. 7. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the provisions of a Guaranty Agreement among Electrical Workers Local 292 Annuity Plan, a Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement") between the a Certificate of Amendment between the City, the Trustee and the Preliminary Official Statement with respect to the Bonds. the Project described in the Loan Agreement and Indenture referred to .* 6. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: the purpose of the Project is and the effect has been to promote the , paragraph 12 hereof, the forms of the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the 7/16/90 146 Remarketing Agreement, the Guaranty, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Certificate of Amendment and the Indenture and erbibits thereto are approved in substantially the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Certificate of Amendment and Indenture, in substantially the form submitted, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City Manager. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in said Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Certificate of Amendment and Indenture. authorized and the City hereby authorizes the use of a final Official Statement reflecting the terms of the Bonds approved hereby for the offer and sale of the Bo-hds. and makes no representations either express or implied as to the content or adequacy thereof. the terms and conditions set forth in the.Indenture and at the initial annual interest rate of eight percent (8%) subject to adjustment as provided for in the Indenture. The aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall be $6,735,000. The . offer of the Underwriter to purchase the Bonds at the price set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Hanager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Underwriter. and directed to prepare and furnish to the Underwriter certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance vith the terms hereof. In the absence of the officers specifically named herein, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by a person authorized to act in their absence. 12. This Resolution shall be in full force 'and effect from and after its I 8. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement is hereby The City had not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement 9. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon 10. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized 11. passage. Adopted: July 16, 1990 ATTEST : -- I- - City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. Member Kelly introduced the follov3ng resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLTJTION RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolution is contingent upon the Company and the Guarantors reaching a settlement vith First Trust Nationaldssociation for payment of the existing Multifamily Hortgage Revenue Bonds issued by the Cim for the 7/16/90 147 Vernon Terrace Project prior to rescission of the foregoing resolution by the City Council. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. *Cm PAID Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 07/16/90 and consisting of 33 pages: General Fund $1,644,235.04, Communications $13,096.21, Art Center $11,428.17, Capital Fund $354.27, Swimming Pool Fund $16,215.58, Golf Course Fund $57,543.01, Recreation Center Fund $1,596.94, Gun Range Fund $1,328.00, Edinborough Park $8,272.92, Utility Fund $43,887.53, Storm Sewer Utility $64,876.71, Liquor Dispensary Fund $112,886.20, Construction Fund $354,695.33, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $363,205.00, Total $2,693,848.33 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 06/30/90 and consisting of 19 pages: General Fund $413,954.34, Communications $2,233.92, Art Center $1,783.00, Swimming Pool Fund $632.39, Golf Course Fund $22,872.50, Recreation Center Fund $13,627.85, Gun Range Fund $498.93, Edinborough Park $11,479.03, Utility Fund $30,248.67, Storm Sewer Utility $474.41, Liquor Dispensary Fund $286,556.59, Total $784,361.63. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. City Clerk