HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-1968Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council 53 ,
of the City of Rochester, Minn., November 27, 1968
1
11
�J
•
L
Minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the Common Council of:the City of
Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in.the City Hall in said City, on
November 27, 1968.
President DeVries called the meeting to order at 12:00 o'clock noon, with the
following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Brunnette, Ellison, Folkert,
Larson, Perry, Postier. Absent: None.
President DeVries stated this as being the time and place set for receiving and
opening bids for the sale of $1,255,000 Improvement Bonds, Series I. The City Clerk
presented affidavits showing publication of notice of sale of $1,255,000 Improvement Bonds,
Series I, to be dated as of December 1, 1968, in accordance with the resolution providing
for such sale at this time and place adopted November 4, 1968. Said affidavits were
examined and found satisfactory and directed to be placed on file in the office of the
Clerk. The Clerk reported that ten sealed.bids for the purchase of said bonds had been
received at her office prior to 12:00 o'clock noon, which bids were thereupon opened and
publicly read and considered, and the highest and best bid of each bidder was found to be
as follows:
Name and Address of Manager
Interest
Rate
Bid for
Net Average Rate
of Bidding Account
or Rates
Principal
Total Interest Cost
1. Halsey Stuart & Co. Inc.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
1970-73
3.90%
Fenner & Smith, Inc.
1974
4.0076
Kenower, MacArthur & Co.
1975-77
4.10%
($340,125.50)
N.W. National Bank-Rochesterl978-79
4.15%
$1,247,344.50
4.15801%
2. First National Bank of
Chicago
1970
3.60%
The Milwaukee Company
1971
3.70%
1972
3.80%
1973
3.90%
1974
4.00%
1975-76
4.10%
1977-78
4.20%
1979
4.25%
$1,243,287.50
4.22203% ($345,362.50)
3. LaSalle National Bank
Chicago
1970
3.60%
1971
3.75%
1972
3.90%
1973-74
4.00%
1975=76
4.10%
1977=78
4.20%
1979
4.25%
$1,247,816.13
4.18271% ($342,146.37)
4. American National Bank &
Trust Company, St. Paul
1970-72
3.80%
Bacon Whipple & Co.
1973-74
4.00%
Commerce Trust Company
1975-77
4.10%
1st Nat'l Bank, St. Louis
1978-79
4.25%
$1,242,506.00,.
4.2438 ($347,144.00)
Shearson,Hammill & Co.
Stern Brothers & Co.
George K. Baum & Co.
5. Smith, Barney & Company Inc.
And Associates 1970-76 4.00%
1977-79 4.10% $1,245,027.77 4,16847. ($340,977.23)
6. Mercantile Trust Co. N.A.
National Bank & Commerce 1970 4.50%
of Seattle 1971-78 4.25%
Austin,Tobin & Co. Inc. 1979 4.30% $1,255,105.42 4.2650% ($348,884.58)
Carleton D. Beh Company
0
5-4
r f Proceedings of the Common Council
Record o Official i 1 c a
of the City of Rochester, Minn., November 27, 1968 •
7. Continental Illinois National Bank
and Trust Comp any'of Chicago
A. G. Becker and Company, Inc.
8. Chemical Bank N.Y. Trust Co.
9. The Northern Trust Company
The Illinois Co., Inc.
Robert W. Baird & Co.
Shaughnessy & Company, Inc.
10. The First National Bank of
Saint Paul
Carlton D. Beh Co.
Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc:
Northwestern Bank of Mpls.
Piper,Jaffray & Hopwood
The First National Bank of
Rochester
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974-75
1976-77
1978
1979
3.75%
3.90%
4.00 %
4.10%
4.20%
3.60%
3.75%
3.90%
4.00%
4,10%
4.20%
4.25%
4.30%
1970-73 3.907.
1974-75 4.007.
1976
4.05%
1977
4.107.
1978
4.15%
1979
4.20%
1970-74
3.90%
1975-77
4.007.
1978-79
4.10%
$1,246,898.50 4.15768% ($340,099.00)
($340,099.00)
$1,245,697.50
$1,245,336.00
$1,245,838.50
4.2463936%
($347,355.00)
4.17449%
($341,474.00)
4.1141%
($336,541.50)
Upon motion by Folkert, second by Brunnette, and all voting in favor, the bids were referred
to the Finance Director and bonding Attorney for tabulation and report.
A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf
of the City of Rochester the license to the City of Rochester for water main under the
Chicago and North Western Railway Company track (I0I property) was read. Upon motion by
Larson, second by Ellison, and all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
A resolution authorizing and directing the Public Utility Board to enter into a
purchase order contract with K & K Electric Company for furnishing one transformer, was read.
Upon motion by Postier, second by Ellison, and all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
A resolution authorizing the Public Utility Board to enter into a contract with
Westinghouse Electric Company for furnishing two transformers, was read. Upon motion by
Larson, second by Ellison, and all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
A resolution approving transfers of appropriations in the 1968 budget, was read. Upon
motion by Folkert, second by Postier, and all voting in favor, resolution adopted.
Alderman Ellison introduced a resolution awarding the sale of $1,255,000 Improvement
Bonds, Series I to the First National Bank of St. Paul. Alderman Folkert moved the adoption
of the resolution and Alderman Brunnette seconded the motion and all voting in favor thereof,
President DeVries declared the said resolution duly passed and adopted and was signed by the
President of the Common Council, which was attested by the City Clerk.
Alderman Ellison introduced a resolution authorizing and directing issuance of
$1,255,000 Improvement Bonds, Series I, payable from the Improvement Bond Account of the
Sinking Fund and appropriating special assessments for the payment thereof. Alderman Folkert
moved the adoption of the resolution and Alderman Brunnette seconded the maotion and all
�I
•
1
1
•
'J
L..J
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., November 27, 1968
55
•
1
E
�7�
voting in favor thereof, President DeVries declared the said resolution duly passed and
adopted and was signed by the President of the Common Council, which was attested by the City
Clerk.
A motion was then made by Folkert, second by Postier, that the City Clerk be
authorized to return the checks of the unsuccessful bidders; all voted in favor thereof.
R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney,,then read the following letter:
"City of Rochester
Common Council
City Hall'
Rochester, Minnesota
Following the Council meeting of November 18, 1968, I met with the attorney
for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to discuss and attempt to reconcile
the differences in our interpretations of the meaning of the recent charter
amendment on public redevelopment projects. Both Mr. Gowan and I agreed that
different interpretations of the amendment are possible and plausible. Mr.
Gowan's''interpretation emphasizes the provisions in the first two paragraphs
of the amendment which seem to indicate that the question to be put to the
voters is a''general question on whether public redevelopment projects of
urban renewal should be undertaken or carried on without any reference to a
specific plan.
My interpretation emphasizes the third, fourth and last paragraphs which.
indicate to me.that the question to be be submitted to the voters is one
involving a specific plan of redevelopment. References in these paragraphs
to plans or proposals for public redevelopment projects of urban renewal and
to an additional vote being required on further proposals or plans, has lead
me'to conclude that the most plausible interpretation of the amendment is
that the voters will vote on a specific plan.
However, in my opinion the safest procedure to follow is for the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority to submit its proposed plan to the Common Council and
for the Common Council to set the public hearing required by Section 462.521
of Minnesota Statutes. If the Common Council rejects the plan, the problems
raised by the new charter amendment will be moot for the time being, unless
the rejection is with respect to specific matters which the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority is instructed to reconsider and revise.
If the Common Council ultimately determines to approve the plan as submitted
or as revised and re -submitted, then the approval should be of a conditional
nature subject to approval or ratification by the voters.
In my opinion, if this procedure is followed, all requirements of the
amendment should be met including the inconsistencies pointed out by Mr.
Gowan and me.
Although it may be possible to argue that the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority does not even have the power to submit the redevelopment plan which
is now virtually complete, I do not believe that any court would refuse to
allow the Common Council to consider this plan, especially in veiw of the
inconsistent language of the amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s R. V. EHRICK
City Attorney"
Mr. Ehrick stated that the plan should be submitted to the Council by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, then after the Council receives the plan they would set a date for
a hearing on this plan and then after the hearing make a determination and set a date for
a public vote. Alderman Postier inquired what the specific wording in the question on the
ballot would be and Mr. Ehrick told him it would be determined after the hearing and at the
time the Council adopts a resolution setting a date for election, the words to be put on the
ballot would be included in that resolution; Mr. Ehrick said if the Council vetoes the plan
as submitted, there is no need for a vote but if the plan is approved, the approval should be
subjectto voter ratification; he said he could foresee no legal problems, it was his
conviction that the procedures he was suggesting would resolve the differences of the opinions
of the attorneys. Alderman Postier inquired if the vote was not approved by the people
0
56
Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., Novemger 27, 1968 •
would this mean that the Council would not go ahead with the project. Mr. Ehrick said this
was his opinion, that another plan would have to submitted and voted on. President DeVries
stated that he understood the plan would be ready to be submitted to the Council by the
0
second meeting in December and if this were done a public hearing could be set at this time.
Upon motion by Larson, second by Ellison, and all voting in favor, the meeting was
adjourned.
City Clerk
I. -
I
1
9
1
0