1977-03-2250
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1977 at 7:30 P. M. AT
THE MOUND COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmen Gordon Swenson, Orval Fenstad,
Ben Withhart and Bob Polston; City Manager Leonard Kopp; Attorney Curt Pearson;
Prosecuting Attorney Gary Pfleger and. Lyle Swanson, engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Item 1
Oswin Pflug
Lots 7 to 11, inclusive and part of Lots 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 including
vacated alley, Shirley Hills Unit A
Request Parking Variance
Mr Pflug was present a.nd. stated that he had been told he did not need more parking
some time ago by the Building Inspector.
A motion to table was defeated.
Polston moved. and. Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-138 RESOLUTION REFERRING REQUEST FOR A PARKING
AREA VARIANCE BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
THE ADVISABILITY OF REZONING -Lots 7-11, Incl.
and. Part of Lots 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block 1,
Shirley Hills Unit A
Roll Call Vote
Fenstad Nay
Polston Aye
Swenson Aye
Withhart ~ Aye
Lovaas e.n Aye
So resolved
Item 2
Owner wishes to sell
Lots 26, 27 and 28, Block 24 Seto.n
No action
LYNWOOD BLVD DRAINAGE
Lyle Swanson outlined the project and. stated that Hennepin County would partic~te
with 11% of MSA Fu.nd.s a.nd the City would participate with 11% of MSA Funds, the
usual city pickup for storm drainage a.nd the remainder to be assessed.
Swenson moved a.nd Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-139 RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING
FORA PUBLIC HEARING ON PROJECT 76-65
LYNWOOD & GRANDVIEW BLVD STORM DRAINAGE
- April 26, 1977, 7:30 P.M.
The vote was u.na.nimously in favor
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Swenson moved. a.nd Withhart seconded a motion to remove this matter from the table.
The vote was Fenstad -Nay and all others -aye.
~,.
Speaking for the Prosecuting Attorney was: Ray Thara.lso.n and Don Ulrick from the
audience and Councilman Fenstad.
Withhart moved a.nd Polston seconded a motion
51
RESOLUTION 77-140 RESOLUTION REQUESTING REPORT AND RECOMMEND;
ATION FROM THE STAFF ON PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY POSITION AT APRIL 12, 1977 MEETING
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED: i
1. Why was a polygraph test taken?
2. Could the case have been dropped before
before going to court?
3. What did the Judge say in his chambers?
Roll Call Vote
Swenson Nay
Withhart Aye
Fenstad Aye
Pots ton Aye
Lovaas e.n Aye
So resolved.
NOTE' Check Managers recommendation when last prosecuting attorney was terminated.
ANNUAL RA®IO LEASE
Swenson moved a.nd Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-141 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
THE MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT FOR
1977 WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR LEASE AND
MAINTENANCE FOR RADIO EQUIPMENT
Withhart was temporarily absent a.nd did not vote, alt others voted i.n favor.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT
Oswin Pflug - He said that the mayor had stated that the Planning Commission did their
job -and he would. come to the council when he rented. the property; he did not want
to wait for his building permit .now. No action.
Information Memos :
Shorewood. Policing
SIDEWALKS
Withhart moved a.nd Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-142 RESOLUTION DIRECTING ENGINEER AND PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR TO INSPECT AND REPORT ON
SIDEWALKS IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
AREA AND ESTIMATE APPROXIMATE COST FOR
NEE~ESSARY WORK.
The vote was unanimously i.n favor
COVER THE CLOCK
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded amotion to waive the requirements of Resolution
77-16 and ignore the time. The vote was unanimously in favor
TELEPHONE CASE
52
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded. a motion
RESOLUTION 77-143
R~so.LUTIO?V IdO. 77-143
A P.ESOLUTIO'J ACCEPTITJG PETITIOIS r~~0''I RL'SIDEiITS
OF THE CITY 2EG~!P.DI'JG TI;LEPIIO?JE IZ~mES A?ID
'.PELEPFIO:JE SEI;VICE, AND DIR°CTIt•IG TfIL `~L~Y7R,
CI`1'Y ;'IA?JAGEr. A'ID CITX ATiOn~:1EY TO FIJJ A PE`i'ITIOTJ
AND CO.-.'~!PLAI~IT [•IITF-i THE III?I\ESOTA PUF3LIC SERVICE
COr•2.MISSIOV REQUESTING A REDUCTION I:'I ^ET~EPIiOVE
RATES AND/OR A R VOCATIO'.•: OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
TERRITORIAL AL i i£ORITY HE:.,D BY CO::TI'rIE~~T^tAL TELEPuO:~Il?,
COP~IP:~~IY FOR ?'FIE '~4JU~dD EXCrIAdGE
t•,iiERF:AS, in the sp. ing of 1975 Continental Telephone Company
filed a petition with the T.'ublic Service Co+*~ission for authority
to change its schedule of rates and charges, and
WHEREAS, the City of ~4ound and its residents were very con-
cerned about the proposed =aLe chances for telephone service and
this Council did decide to intervene in the case in an effort to
protect the public interest and the welfare of its citizens and the
City of Mound became the only intervenor in the rate case, and
tVHEREAS, a public hearing was held in the City of Mound on
August 15, 1975 and this Council and citizens ca*_ns out en masse anc:
presented evidence and testimony regarding service and rates, and
t~TF3EREAS, the transcript of hearings throughout the state
was 1210 pages long and the exar.~ir_er who heard all of thQ testimony
filed a Proposal for Decision which refused to authorize any rate
increase because Continental Telephonz Company was in violation of
state statutes and PSC regulations and had failed to provide the type
of service required by PSC rules and policies, and
I^IHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Public Service Commission
on January 8, 1976 and only the City of ~•4ound supported the hearing
examiner while the Company and the. participating departrlent staff
of the PSC argued against the examiner's proposal; and on~April 16,
1976 the PSC issued its final order which increased average rates
for telephone service in t?~e City of Mound from $8.65 to
$15.05 , which amounted to a:~ increase of approxi.;,ately 74~, and
WHEREAS, this rate increase or approximately $6.50 per tele-
phone per month for over 4,000 telephone subscribers is approximately
$26,000 per month or $312,000 per year for subscribers to the t•2ound
exchange, and
...~....
~vHERSAS, the appro:{imate increase of $336,000 per year for
telephone service has been revie~,ec? by this Council anc~ we are shocked
to find that the increase is more than the ad valore"l tax levy in
this com*nunity for fire, police, streets, sr_ow removal and all other
53
govern:*.~ent services, and
~IHEP.EAS, residents of the co^~*-!unity carte to tra City Council
ar_d deraande3 that the City seek =. revie~•~ of this increase or petition
the Public Service Cor.~*nission to ~evo:<.e tha ~ertiLica~e of Territorial
Authority granted to Continental and further to grant said Certificate
to *7orth~~estern Bell Telephone Conoany, and
~VHERyAS, our neighbors to the east in the City of Spring Park
are served by .Northwestern B~11 and the comparative rates are
approximately as follows: $ 15.05 per month for t4ound; $ 8.45
.per month for Spring Park, and residents of the City of Mound can not
ur_derstand why the same service should cost 78 ~ more in Mound,
since the City has had EAS since 1958 and no riajor new equipment has
been required or installed to serve residents of the. City of Mound,
and
WHEREAS, the Public Service Commission in the Continental case
broke out and charged Mound customers for Extended Area Service-and
Metro Extended Area Service, and that case and one later case decided
by the PSC (Benton Telephone Company) are the only cases in the state
establishing a specif is charge for EAS, and this r:-anner of establishing
rates has been rejected by the PSC in the following cases decided
since Continental:
Park P.egion Alutual Telephone Company 12/30/76
.Wikstrom Telephone Company
Sherburne Telephone Company ~ .
Albany rZutual Telephone Co::t?~any
Peoples Telephone Corapany
Clara City Telephone Company
Citizer_s Telephone Company
Consolidated Telephone Corlnary
A review of PSC records and decisions ravea is the confusion of
the PSC in establishing telephone rates and in a memorandum attached
to the Park Region case the Commission acknowledged that the Benton
Telephone case was:
:'approved with little or no discussion and the
Commissioners had neither read the order nor
read the transcript, even though the exariiner
was reversecl. "
54
Later in the same -_newiorandum Con~.^.?issioner Ronald L. Anderson
said:
"But even if the decision on Continental and
Benton were to be ta;:en as Commission statements
of policy for telephone rate makinc; in ~Zinnesota
(which they clearly are not) they state only that,
where the company either proposed. or agreed to
"cost based" charges for EAS and itemizing those
charges on the monthly bill, the Commission had
no objection in those cases."
However, designing rates based solel upon management prerogative
has been recognized tv result in "an unlawful delegation of this
Commission's rate making authority to the industry Ethey] are supposed
to regulate~~(Park Region Mutual Telephone Company, Sasseville dissent)
and results in discrimination against 2gound residents as compared to
the customers in the aforementioned cases and the customers of North-
western Bell which appears to oppose EAS charges being broken out,
and
P7E~iEREAS, in the conclusions as set forth in the Park Region
case the PSC said:
"The Commission further concludes that in view of
this customer confusion and dissatisfaction from
EAS itemization as .ordered in the Continental
Telephone Company case earlier this year, it is
in the best interest of all parties to allow the -
petitioner in this case to continue its past
billing practices, and therefore, not to require
the Company to show EAS charges as separate items
on the customer's monthly bills,"
all of which indicates that without directly adz~itting error in the
Continental Case decision, the PSC ~lo~s not intend to make the same
mistake again, all of which is discriminatory to Continental's Mound
customers.
Co:nmissior_er Sasseville in a dissenting opinion in the Park
Region case made reference to this fact whin she snit?:
"It is understandable that the Commission should
wish to retrent from its ill-advised position in
the recent Continental Telephone case which
resulted in widespread customer confusion and
dissatisfaction as the COII'~''Tl1SSion points out.
IIocaever, it is a misccnception to believe that
customer unhappiness resulted from. itemization -
of EAS charges per se. It resulted instead from
a complex of interrelated difficulties .f_unda-
. mentally arising fro*~^. th~~ross disparities and
high increases inposed by the Order. Ctxsto*~ar_s
with 100 rate increases were unhappy. Their
uul-~appiness cans e:cacerbated by the concurrent
itemmization of EAS charges, and their perception
that the quality of their basic phone service was
erratic and unreliable', and
VJFiLREAS, this Council cites the afore=~er.tioned confusion and
the unfairness of the current rates and complains that the rates
.... w ., . ,...... .... .. ,
for telephone service to I~lound custo~ers are not fair and reasonable 55
as required by M.S.A. 237.06 and 237.08, treat in excess of 82g of
the customers of the A~iound exchange have filed *r~ith this. Council a
petition directed to the i~2innesota Public Service Coy, fission re-
questing a reduction in rates and requesting that reasonable rates
be established and/or in the alternative they petition the PSC to
revoke Continental's Certificate of Terx'itorial Authority pursuant
to M.S.A. 237.16, Subd. 5, and
WHEREAS, rates that are fair and reasonable should and must
be judged by a standard of reasonableness and our residents do not
believe that it is reasonable or fair that a customer living in
Mound pay $ more for poorer telephone service than his neighbor
across the street who lives in Spring Park.
NOPJ, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of _~Iound
1. The petitions of residents of the r?o~and exchange directed
to the Minnesota Public Service Commission regarding Continental
Telephone Company are hereby accepted. The Clerk is directed to
note in the official records of this City that ir_ excess of 82~ of
the telephone subscribers have filed written corzplaints and have
requested action by the Minnesota Public Service Cor.1*nission to reduce
telephone rates or authorize Moun~? to become a part of the North-
western Bell Telephone system.
2. This Council finds and determines that current telephone
rates being charged in the City are not fair and reasonable and
violate Sections 237.06 and 237.08 of the ~-iinnesota Statutes.
3. This Council further finds and determiners that its
residents are being discriminated against by Continental Telephone
Company and the Minnesota Public-Service Cor.2mission, in that the
current rates and charges for EAS and ?`fietro EAS are not based on
substantial evidence, are contrary to Commission oolicies and
decisions in recent telephone cases and should not be allowed to
continue merely because the Company requests or c?~sires these rates
and agrees to EAS. and Metro EAS charges.
4. The Mayor, City ?tanager and City Attorney are authorized
and directed to deliver the residents' petitions on file to the
Minnesota Public Service Commission and to file the attached Petition
and Complaint (Exhibit A attached hereto anti made a part of this
56
resolution}, complaining, pursuant to M.S.A. 237.08, that telephone
rates being charged in PZound are unreasonable. They are further
authorized and directed to request a hearing for the revocation of
Continental Telephone Company's Certificate of Authority because the
holder has failed to furnish reasonably adequate telephone. service
within the City.
5. The Mayor, City Manager and City Attorney are further
authorized and directed to solicit the aid and participation of
other persons and com*nunities in a joint venture to oppose the
i
unfair and unreasonable rates being charged to all .'Continental'
,,
customers in the metropolitan area. ~ ;' ,
The vote was unanimously in favor.
S`T'ATE OF r1I?d`dL SOTA
BEFORt. THE P•II\~•JESOTP. PUBLIC
SERVICE COM:~ZISSIO~?
In the 'flatter of Continental
Telephone Co*~tpany's Telephone
Rates and Service for the
Exchange of Mound, 'Minnesota
CO'"_Pi-AI:3T A~:D PETITInr1 FO'? A IiEARI:r'r
OF THE CITX OF ti10U=•.D, 1~IIi~I_IESO'~'A -
1. This Petition is *nade pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 237.08 and Public Service Commission ("Cor.~nission") Rule
PSC 502 (a) requesting a hearing on the reasonableness of the - -
present rate structure and design of Continental Telephone Company
in the State of Minnesota, and in the alternative, asking for a
hearing on whether Continental Telephone Company`s certificate of -
authority for the Mound exchange should be revoked pursuent to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.16, Subd. 5.
2. This-Petition is made on behalf of the City o£ Mound,
Minnesota and on behalf of the Continental Telephone Company
customers who reside within Mound's corporate limits. The dissatis-
faction with the present rates of Continental Telephone Company for
the P2ound exchange is demonstrated. by petitions of riore than 82 ~
of Mound telephone customers requesting this Co~,+mission to either
reduce telephone rates for the Mound exchange or transfer that
~'
57
exchange to the idorthwestern Bell Telephone system. Said petitions
are subr,-itted and filed with the PSC in support of this Petition but
are too nura~rous to photocopy or dupli.~ate .
3. The City of ~~tound states anc~ alleges as grounds for its
1
fl
request for a hearing on Continental Telephone ~onpany's rate design
that the present rates of said Corlpany•are unreasonable and contrary
to Commission policy in light of the consistent approach talcen by
this Gor:~-!iission in recent telephone rate proceeuings. In the most
recent rate proceeding for said Company, this Corunission accepted a
rate structure tihich attempted to reflect the costs of I;~1S and •
P•Ietro .ii~S as adc:itions to the basic telephone .rate. 'In Ile Contin-
ental meleohone Coronary, Docket Ito. PR--121--1, April 16, 1976.
notl2JEr, ir. telephone. ratz proc2e?inns su?~seq~e*_^t to the Continental
proceeding, this Co~nrlission has consistently rejected proposals for
rate designs t~~nieh ~•~ould attempt to reflect the costs of EA5 and
'Ietro ~S. I•n Re Park ReSio.~ 2.2utual Telepi-i.on2 CoTMtpany, Docket DIo.
P-422/GR-75-373, Dece*~-ber 3%, 1976; I:: Re S:^_eYh•~rne County Rural
Telephone Company, Docket rap. P-427/GR-76-67~~, January 11, 1977;
In Re ~lba_n ~~Iutual Telephone Company, Docket i~o. P-500/GR-76-691,
January ll, 1977; Tn Re Peoples Telephone Corlpa::y, Docket No.
P-544/GR-76-821. Jar_uary ll, 1977; In Re Wikstron Telephone Com~aiy,
Docket t1o. P-432/G:t-76-608, February 2, 1977; 7n Re Chara City
Telephone Company, Docket No. P-511/GR-76-874, February 24, 1977,
In Re Consolidated Te lephonz Comoanr~ of Brainerd, . Docket .No:
P406/GR-76-828, March 15, 1977; ~In Re Citizens Te lephone Corn~any
of Maynard, Docket No. P510/GR-76-868, f4arch 15, 1977. Thus, con--
sistent line of Commission decisions requires that the Commission
reexamine the propriety and reasonableness of its rate design order
for Continental Telephone Company.
4. The City of Mound states and alleges as grounds for i'cs
alternative request for a hearing on the revocation of Continental
Telephone Company's certificate, of authority for the Mound exchange
that Continental Telephone Company is unwilling or unable to provide
r~asorably adequate telephone service for the :sound exchange in light
of t:z~ rate which is charged.
58
YJY.ER.FORE, the City of Mound respectfully petitions, complains
and requests that the Com^iission order a hearing to bP held to deter-
mi^e the reasonableness of the present rate structure of Continental
telephone Company, ar_d in the alterrat~;ve to date?-,iine t•~hsther
Centinental telephone Company's certificate of authority for the
I•Iound exchange should b? revoked pursuant to :~iinnesata Statutes,
Section 237.16, Subd. 5.
Respectfully submitted,
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney, City of :sound
1100 First _iational Aank Building
r•Tinnea?olis, r~innesota 5502
~lilliam E. Flynn
Assistant City Attorney,
` City of 2found
3944 IDS Center
• ~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Swenson moved and Withhart.seconded a motion to adjourn until the adjourned meeting
of March 2y, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor, so carried and
adjourned. ~ ~
_-~~
Attest : _,, ,' ~--y
Leonard L. Kopp, Ci y pager