Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-1968Record of Official -Proceedings of the Common Council • of the City of Rochester, Minn., Fehr„arV 1, 1968 r 431 , 1 • 1 1 • 1 Minutes of a special meeting of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in said City, on February 1, 1968. President DeVries called the meeting to order at 10:00 o'clock A. M., the following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Day, Ellison, Folkert, Larson, Perry, Postier. Absent:• None. The call of the special meeting was read and President DeVries ordered the same placed on file, the said meeting having been called for the purpose of considering putting an advisory referendum vote to the people at the March 12th election pertaining to Federal Urban Renewal and any other business the said Common Council may deem proper. Alderman Day moved that the question "should the City of Rochester have Federal Urban Renewal" be put on an advisory referendum vote on the March 12th election; Alderman Postier seconded the motion. Alderman Larson stated that a legal opinion had been given by the City Attorney that this was not legal. Alderman Postier stated that they were not so interested in the legal angle they just were asking for an opinion if the people were in favor or against. Alderman Folkert said he thought this was very important, that the City Attorney had given his opinion last May that the Council has no authority to put the issue to referendum vote and thought this should be discussed. Alderman Day said they had called this meeting at the request of Representative Harold Krieger, who was leaving twon for a couple of days this noon; he said he felt if the Council wanted to put this on the ballot on the March 12th election as an advisory referendum and ask the people to vote "yes" or "no" they could do so; he said he felt the people would be more fully informed if this was brought to a vote and he felt the people deserved this; he said at the TCD meeting someone had asked how much of the 3 mills would be paid by taxpayers and they had been told that this was not a part of it at this time, they were just considering the plan, he said he ghought they were doing it just backward andrIshould know the cost first and then consider the plan; he said he felt the small businessman would have more opportunity to get the situation explained more fully and get more answers, if the citizens of Rochester vote to go ahead with Federal Urban Renewal he feels they then will feel more concern for the small business man and will be more apt to help them; he said he felt if this were voted on by the people they would be more a part of the program; he said on smaller projects when bonds were issued for street projects the people voted on it and he felt on this large a project they should have a chance to vote on it and asked that the Council go along with putting this on the ballot. Alderman Folkert said many matters come, before the Council for them to decide and did not see why this was more unique than others. Alderman Day said the Housing & Redevelopment Authority are much different, that if the Council votes yes on the project the Authority has the right to commit -city money to finance the project. Alderman Postier also urged that the Council go along with putting this on the ballot on March 12th and then read the following letter which has been mailed to him,and Alderman Day by Harold Krieger, Attorney: P - 43 2 Record ' of Official Proceedings of the -Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn.,. February 1, 1968 "Mr. Dewey Day, Alderman Mr. Richard Postier, Alderman Rochester City Council Rochester City Council I' Rochester, Minnesota Rochester, Minnesota Dear Mr. Day and Mr. Postier: The undersigned represents a group of approximately 40 downtown Rochester retail merchants, and as such, I have been requested by them to ask you to move for a referendum vote on the Urban Renewal issue for the City of + Rochester before the City Council as soon as possible. - It would appear to me that the group of Rochester Downtown merchants were vitally concerned with this matter should be entitled to have such a referendum decision. The present Urban Renewal considerations should be decided by the entire Rochester community and therefore, it is our urgent plea that you place a motion before the council for consideration of a referendum vote on the issue of Urban Renewal on any plans submitted for final consideration or :.passage, including the plans entitled The Summary of Planning and Designed Recommendations for alternate 1-Broadway Closed Concept, Rochester Downtown Wevelopment Area, Project 4P'Minnesota $-41 dated November 7, 1967 and The Summary of Planning and Designed Recommendations for Alternate II Broadway Open Concept Rochester Downtown Redevelopment Area, Project #Minnesota R-41 dated December 6, 1967. It is the general feeling of the relatively small retail merchant whom I represent that not enough consideration has been given to the total costs of such urban renewal projects, for example, the $6,000,000.00 increase in the cost of the project since it was first discussed; second, the impact upon the local taxpayer, including everyone in the City, of Rochester; third, how the small retail merchant can preserve the life of his business during the period of time commencing from the time that the building he is now occupying is demolised to the point in the unforeseeable future when a new building space sill be available to him; fourth, what the new rental of that new building space will be, with serious doubt as to whether or not he can afford the tental. In summary I submit that a decision of such major proportions under any of the plans thus far proposed or any other urban renewal plan using federal funds should not be decided by the City Council but should be opened to referendum vote of all the voting citizens of the City of Rochester pursuant to provisions of the Minnesota state lava, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes which states as follows: "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the initiation of a referendum in any municipality on any resolution or ordinance of the governing body pursuant to the provisions of the home rule charter of that municipality." (Minnesota Statutes annotated Chapter 462.465, Subdivision 3). Very truly yours, /s Harold G. Krieger" `Alderman Postier stated that he didn't think that we as a group need to hide behind a 'l.technacility, all we are asking for is a vote from the Common Council so that they would give j ,! 'the taxpayer a chance to vote if it is legal. Alderman Folkert said he understood there was c1_ �Idifferent information than what we got from the City Attorney and we would like to hear this. �IPresident DeVries said that he was not willing to procrastinate to delay an issue, he said he !knew an election was coming up because he was running city wide and he would be willing to be '!the pawn, he would be willing to go on record as supporting Federal Urban Renewal and would it 11stand up and say that a vote for me would be a vote for Urban Renewal if the plan is right. R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney then read the opinion he had submitted on May 15, �11967 on whether the Common Council of the City of Rochester may legally submit to a "referendum" + I' (vote the issue of whether an urban renewal project should be undertaken in the City and said he ,;knew of no conflicting Attorney General Opinion and had no change in the opinion that he 'IIrendered at that time. Alderman Day said if the Common Council was today to ask to put it on as an :!advisory referendum what would they be doing wrong, every week we change laws and what would The deifferent if we did it to this. Mr. Ehrick said this was a broad question (1) the legal I '1 11 1 1 • 0- Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., February 1, 1968 L • 1 I- E authority and responsiblity is placed in you to decide the question after a public hearing (2) whether your question is,meaningful, in other words you are referring to Federal Urban Renewal and I don't know if this is a vote against renewal or strictly on Federal Funds, if it is based on local dunds or on federal funds, it could be meaningful becahuse you have, not had a financial need on urban renewal and also the question just what does a vote on this issue mean, will the people be voting on the philosophy of federal funds or on the two plans that have been submitted, or on the amount of the local sponsors share, or what; it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding about financing, there are various ways of financing (1) federal grant (2) the Common Council to take all the excess taxes from the project area (3) the imposition of a special tax 'on the area (4) some special assessments would be authorized and (5) contributions by city projects, like if the City was to erect a parking ramp and use parking meter funds and then use the funds derived from the parking ramp, it does not seem you know what the burdeniohudhe general taxpayer would be. Alderman Day said he was in hopes that the facts of financing would come about if we did have an election. Mayor Smekta then spoke, he said this is not an easy question to answer he has spent much time and thought on this, we are faced with the problem of what way is the City going; he said that in 1856-57 the Council, instead of exercising their right, asked the people to vote on a bond issue to repair the garage in front of the auditorium and they turned it down even though ti was needed; people are just not interested in raising their taxes; if we do not make a decision today we are going to be faced with one big problem, you are going to have undesirable business such as flop houses on Broadway, things and ite that you do not like, you are going to be forced out of business if you like it or not; he cited that in 1965 for 1964 taxes the property where the old Central Hotel, Kresges, etc. were located brought to the City, County and State $24,500 in taxes and the City received only 30% of this for that entire block; now since Cortland Silver had the initiative to build the Olmsted County Bank Building this property will now bring in about $425,000 in taxes, about $400,000 more than before; he urged that some action be taken soon. Alderman Folkert stated that the reason for this special meeting was that Mr. Krieger had different information than that submitted by our City Attorney and would like to hear ,this before making any comments. Mr. Harold Krieger then read the opinion that he had received from the Attorney Generals office on whether a federal urban renewal project has provisions to allow a local referendum on the project; he said he saw no legal bar to placing this issue on the ballot; he said we could change the mechanics by a Charter revision and he thought an advisory vote would give this Council a better Ioundation on which to vote and give the private citizens a better feeling as to what was going to happen and requested that this be submitted to the voters. 0 Record of. Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., February 1, * 1968 R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney, said there was nothing in the opinion read by Mr. Krieger that was inconsistent to his opinion; he read subd. 3 of*Section 462.465 which provides "nothing in this section shall prohbit the initiation of a referendum,in any municipality on apy resolution or ordinance of the governing body pursuant to the provisions of the home rule charter of that municipality", he said there is no such provision in our Charter and again this section is talking about resolution or ordinance;. he said there was no conflict with his opinion and he could see no reason to change his opinion. Alderman Folkert inquired what mechanics it would take to amend the Charter and would it be possible to get it on the March 12th election. Mr. Ehrick explained that • there were two ways to amend the Charter (1) the Charter Commission proposes amendments and (2) the Common Council has the authority to initiate an amendment to the Charter, as far as the Council initiating an amendment they would not have time before March 12th, if the Charter Commission.brought in an amendment immediately , within the next 10 days, there would be time; he said the Charter would have to be amended first and then at a later date the referendum submitted. , Mr. David Bishop, Attorney was present and stated that where we have representative government as we have here it would not be necessary to put this to a vote; he said these men have deliberated this a long time and could make a decision. Mr. James Klatke, Manager of Dayton's, was present and stated that he was surprised when he heard Mr. Ehrick's opinion that there would be any question in the Council's mind that :the referendum vote was not legal. Alderman Folkert stated that he came to the meeting today thinking that he would hear something different from the City Attorney's advise from before and find there is nothing different and to accomplish this it requires a charter amendment, and I think that should be considered carefully; I think as far as public opinion is concerned, we have the tool already set up with TCD; anyone who attended the meeting last night saw democracy in action; he said there are so many facits to this important problem and this Council and many before.them have spent hours trying to assimilate and digest the myriad of information • i that,has come out on the problem and we still have to gather and study the information and make our decisions. Alderman Larson said we dont have all of the details relative to the { cost concerned,right now we are faced with the issue at this stage of the program. Alderman Perry stated that he did not think we have all the information and should not ask the people to vote on something so clear cut, where we spent hours meeting on this,to put them in a poettion where they expect us to be; and thought the Council should followsthe opinion as submitted by the City Attorney. Alderman Ellison also stated that he was concerned with the small business man downtown, we cannot tell what is going to happen because we do not have the final plan and did not think this should be sent to the voters because we do not have the final or know exactly what we are going to do. o Alderman Day stated that he did not think Mr. Ehrick, City Attorney had been completely fair with them, he said he was the paid attorney for urban renewal for some time, Record of Official Proceedings of the -Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., February 1, 1968 1 �J 1 1 1 owned a portion of a block downtown where a redevelopment project is planned and may have a conflict of interest in urban renewal. Mayor Smekta stated that it had been his privilel to work with Mr. Ehrick for ten years and during all this time when he was acting as City Attorney on behalf of the City he has been a gentleman and fair at all times and I think the citizens of Rochester should be proud of the fact that we have an attorney like Mr. Ehrick who is respected throughout the middle west; we have a man that hasthe courage and ability to interrupt the law and I have no question as fareas Mr. Ehricks honesty and integrity. R. V. Ehrick, stated that this Common Council established the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and at that time they had no attorney and as City Attorney I worked with them for three years without any compensation and when the project moved into higher gear and they required additional legal assistance they requested me to take the job, which I did, but when the burden came to much I resigned; at the time of taking this job my partners and I did have the ownership of the Lawler building and I discussed this with the Housing & Redevelopment Authority and the Common Council and with that thought in mind he should personnally be opposed to urban renewal; he said the block developers were hoping tol ahedd with private monies only and were not requesting urban renewal; He said any interes he has have not at any time influenced his advice to the Common Council. President DeVries called for a vote on the original motion and upon roll call Ellison,.Folkert, Larson, Perry and DeVries voting "nay" and Day and Postier Voting "aye P,tsisdent DeVries declared the motion lost. adjourned. Upon motion by Day, second by Postier, and all voting in favor, the meeting was City Clerk