03-13-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED 2000 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
STAFF REPORT NO. 6
•
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28,
2000
PRESENTATIONS
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
is
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH
27, 2000 FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
HOPES CHOW MEIN RESTAURANT; 6700 PENN AVENUE--S:R. NO. 67
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF SWEEPER FROM MAC
QUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $106,451 S.R. NO. 68
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SALE OF 1984 ELGIN PELICAN STREET
SWEEPER TO PEARSON BROTHERS, INC. IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $15,975 S.R.
NO. 69
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
PURCHASE OF NEW TILT CAB CHASSIS FROM FALLS AUTOMOTIVE, INC. IN
AMOUNT OF $44,186 S.R. NO. 70
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
ORDERING CITY PROJECT N0. 401-30-524, AND AUTHORIZING BID FOR
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION OF 67TH STREET AND NICOLLET
AVENUE S.R. NO. 71
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS
UNDER URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY YEAR 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION
STAFF REPORT NO. 72
5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMPLETION OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GRANT FOR FRIENDS OF WOOD
LAKE CHILDREN'S FOREST SHELTER
STAFF REPORT NO. 73
6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION MODIFYING RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN AND I NTERSTATE-LYN DALE-
NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
STAFF REPORT NO. 74
7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO
• ALLOW 5,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION ONTO WOODLAKE
LUTHERAN CHURCH, 7525 OLIVER AVENUE
STAFF REPORT NO. 75
8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW USE OF
PORTION OF OFFICE BUILDING AT 1515 EAST 66TH STREET AS LIMITED
MEDICAL FACILITY
STAFF REPORT NO. 76
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 6225
BLAISDELL AVENUE
STAFF 'REPORT NO. 77
10. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FOR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FROM SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
STAFF REPORT NO. 78
11. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL SALARIES
STAFF REPORT NO. 79
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
12. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT REZONING PROPERTY TO ZONING DISTRICTS CONSISTENT
WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STAFF REPORT NO. 80
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
AIRPORT BUSINESS
13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
14. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
15. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
16. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
0 17. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
AGENDA SECTION: Proposed Ordinances
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 80
=Oda STAFF REPORT
NAME, TITLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
•
SIG A RE
I
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property to zoning districts consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct first reading of an ordinance amendment
rezoning property to zoning districts consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is in the process of bringing the zoning ordinance into
consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Part of this process is to rezone
properties with zoning that is inconsistent with the Plan but with land use that is
consistent with the Plan.
Fifteen of the properties to be rezoned are currently zoned C-2 (general
commercial). They are currently used as single family residences. The
Comprehensive Plan designates them as single family residential, either low or high
density. The proposed zoning is R (single family residential).
0313rezoning
1?-
One property is zoned C-2 and was originally recommended to be rezoned MR-2
(medium density multiple family residential). The Comprehensive Plan designation
for the property is R-SFH (high density single family residential). The Commission
recommended against rezoning this property.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• State law requires that cities' Zoning Ordinances be made consistent
with their Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission
reviewed the City's zoning classifications and identified those parcels
with zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Of
those parcels, the Commission determined that one category of
parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not, should be rezoned. One
group of these properties was rezoned by the City Council in
December, 1999.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Planning Commission recommended against rezoning one of the
properties originally in this group. The property at 1100 East 66th
Street is currently zoned C-2 (general commercial) and is used as a
day care facility. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as
single family, high density residential (R-SFH). When the day care
facility was approved two years ago, the Commission at the time
suggested that the property eventually be rezoned to a multi-family
designation that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but
would still allow a day care facility as a conditional use. The property
owner testified at the Planning Commission public hearing in February
that the property should keep its C-2 zoning district to allow the best
reuse of the property in the event that the daycare facility is no longer
a viable use at this location. The Commission considered rezoning
the property C-1 (neighborhood commercial) to provide commercial
reuse of the property but at a lesser intensity. This motion failed on a
4-4 vote. The final vote was 7-2 to leave the zoning C-2. Consistent
with the Planning Commission recommendation, the staff
recommendation does not include this property.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The Planning Commission reviewed the rezonings and recommended
approval of rezoning all but one property (7-2).
• A public hearing would be scheduled on Monday, April 10, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
is-a.
Decide not to rezone the properties at first reading.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed ordinance amendment
• List of properties to be rezoned (Attachment A).
• Map of properties to be rezoned (Attachment B).
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
40
IQ-3
BILL NO.
. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield
Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended:
A. Section 3, Paragraph (46) is amended to read as follows:
(46) M-3 That area between the west line of 11th Avenue and the center
line of OedaF 13th Avenue, and between the center line of 66th Street and aline
distant 250 feet northerly thereof and parallel thereto; except Lot 17 Eliason Second
Addition.a?nd the rth 20 feet of Let Q Ble& 12, Nokomis GaFdens Rea ffangement
-„ Y1e?z???-?
Of BIGGlis 7 11, and 12 I _iFaFd Parl(yiew• except Le iF E, BIG& 5, Nokomis GaFdens
Rea Rangement of BleGkG 'I 2, 3, 1, and 5, GiFaFd RaFkVi
B. Section 3, Paragraph (47) is amended to read as follows:
(47) M-4 That area lying between the west line of 11th Avenue and the
• center line of GedaF Avenue, and between the center line of 66th Street and a
line distant 250 feet southerly thereof and parallel thereto;
z 2 (6) evedaps with said zene in the blook bounded by GedaF and 18th
AvemiorJ ond by 66th and 67th .
C. Section 3, Paragraph (70) is added to read as follows:
(70) M-4 That area Ivina between the center line of 13th Avenue and the
center line of 14th Avenue. and between the center line of 66th Street and the
center line of the allev southerly thereof and oarallel to.
D. Section 3, Paragraph (71) is added to read as follows:
(71) M-4 That area Ivina between the center lines of 14th and 15th
Avenues. and between the center line of 66th Street and a line distant 158 feet
southerlv thereof and oarallel thereto.
E. Section 3, Paragraph (72) is added to read as follows:
(72) M-4 That area Ivina between the center line of 15th and Cedar
Avenues. and between the center line of 66th Street and a line distant 250 feet
southerly thereof and parallel thereto: except that area where zone PC-2 (5)
overlaps with said zone in the block bounded by Cedar and 18th Avenues and by
66th and 67th Streets.
F. Section 3, Paragraph (73) is added to read as follows:
Ia-,
1731 M-3 That area Ivino between the center lines of 13th and Bloomington
Avenues. and between the center line of 66th Street and the center line of the alley
• northerly thereof and parallel thereto. and Lot 16. Block 4. Nokomis Gardens
Rearrangement of Blocks 1-5. Girard Parkview.
G. Section 3, Paragraph (74) is added to read as follows:
(74) M-3 That area Ivina between the center lines of Bloominaton and
Cedar Avenues. and between the center line of 66th Street and a line distant 250
feet northeriv thereof and parallel thereto. and the north 20 feet of Lot 8. Block 12.
Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7. 11. and 12. Girard Parkview.
H. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: 6535
11th Avenue South, 6533 13th Avenue South, 6609 13th Avenue South, 6530 14th
Avenue South, 6537 14th Avenue South, 6608 14th Avenue South, 6627 14th
Avenue South, 6631 14th Avenue South, 6528 15th Avenue South, 6529 15th
Avenue South, 6533 15th Avenue South, 6548 15th Avenue South, 6612 15th
Avenue South, 6616 15th Avenue South, and 6542 Bloomington Avenue South
from R to C-2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 2000.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
i
Comprehensive Plan Rezonings-Group 2
ADDRESS ZONING
6535 11TH AVE S C-2
6533 13TH AVE S C-2
6609 13TH AVE S C-2
6530 14TH AVE S C-2
6537 14TH AVE S C-2
6608 14TH AVE S C-2
6627 14TH AVE S C-2
6631 14TH AVE S C-2
6528 15TH AVE S C-2
6529 15TH AVE S C-2
6533 15TH AVE S C-2
6548 15TH AVE S C-2
6612 15TH AVE S C-2
6616 15TH AVE S C-2
6542 BLOOMINGTON AVE S C-2
•
Attachment A
LAND USE COMP PLAN NEW ZONING
RES R-SFH R
RES R-SFH R
RES R R
RES R-SFH R
RES R-SFH R
RES R R
RES R R
RES R R
RES R-SFH R
RES R-SFH R
RES R-SFH R
RES R-SFH R
RES R R
RES R R
RES R-SFH R
?u
Friday, March 03, 2000
Page 1 of 1
•
KEY
Zoninq
C-2 General Commercial
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
R Single family residential
MR-2 Medium density multi-family residential
Land Use
RES Single family residential
Como Plan
R-SFH High density single family residential
R Low density single family residential
0 0
1
Attachment B
•
1 I
11I
N1
I 1 ?I
1 I ?I
I
I
Comprehensive Plan Rezonings
Group 2
I I
I ? I i i
II
I
I I I
I
I
I I I I I i I I I
I I I I I
I i I I I
I
I I
? I W
ICI WI
ICI I %
I;I I .
? I i
a I
i
I I I
I I I I ?
I I
I I I i- i
I I I I I ? i
i t i i I i i I
I 6WH ST E
I
I
I
I
I I I I , I
I I I I
I
I I
I I ? INI I I i
is---
{I ? I
II I
IWI I IW
Iii I I?
II I
I i -
_ I i i i I I I I ,I I i I?? ? I I I I-
I I I I ICI I I I I I I-
m I-
(CO. RD NO 53) 1100 88th St E (CO RD NO 53) - - 961H Sr E -
II iI I, ?i Ii II i II
I I I I ! I I I I ? ? ;I ) I I I I I I
it II I II I i I II I II I II II II
II I Ii i? I- li I Ii i it I INf { II I II I
i I I i t I I I I I I I I I{ I i?I I i t I I I
TIH ST E 87TH ST E % I I I I Sr
I {E I I I _ STTH INI I I i INI V V I ' I l I L I I I I I I i i
IN i I I I l i i I I I ? -
I<i I I I<I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN -
IWI i i`I I W I I"i I I"I i II I I I I I I I h I I? -
I I=1 I I I I I? I fa i I I? V I ? I I ?I I INI I I? I I` _
i t I I ?I I I? I { I? I ? f it i t I ?I I I? I I I` I I?
I I I I I I { I I I I'I I'I I ?i I Iml I I I I ?I { I? -
I I I I I I I i t I I I I I I I ?I I I I I I€ I I I I I_
M ST i I I I I I I I W7H 1 ST E I I I I I I 691H I ST I E I i I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Properties to be Rezoned Q
N
0 1000 Feet
March 2000
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 79
•
? ]] Y
.A
SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST.
NAME, TITLE
0
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, E
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
ATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d
V \
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve
second reading of an ordinance amendment relating to City Council
salaries.
II. BACKGROUND I
At the February 7, 2000 Study Session, the City Council requested that a proposed
ordinance amendment to increase Council salaries by 3% be prepared for consideration
at the February 14, 2000 City Council meeting.
The 3% increase would adjust the Mayor's salary to $8,235 per year and Council
Member salaries to $6,392 per year.
•
First reading of the proposed ordinance was held at the regular City Council meeting of
February 14, 2000 and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for
March 13, 2000.
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
0214salaries.doc
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City
Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed
by December 1 of each year in which an election is held.
• The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by
ordinance. Section 2.07 of the Charter states that no change in salary shall
take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. Therefore, if
approved, the effective date would be January 1, 2001.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The
policy statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the
Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the
Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to
employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would be
used as a guideline. The salary increase for employees in the General
Services and Management pay plans was 3% in 1998, 3% in 1999 and 3% in
2000.
• The required legal notice for the public hearing was published in the Richfield
Sun Current on February 23, 2000.
C. FINANCIAL
• Preparation of the 2000Revised/2001 Proposed budget will begin in a few
months. The Council's decision on a salary adjustment will be necessary to
provide adequate funding, should an adjustment be approved.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. However, budget
preparation timelines should be considered.
• Do not approve second reading of the ordinance and take no further action.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed ordinance
• Salary survey.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0
BILL NO. / 1-02.
AMENDMENT OT SECTION 210
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by
amending Subdivisions 1 and 2, Subsection 210.01 to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Mayor. The salary of the mayor is $7;995 $8.235 per year.
Subdivision 2. Council. The salary of a member of the council is $606 $6.392 per
year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of March,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
//-3
METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL SALARIES
2000 Annual Salary -- Mayor
(Listed from Highest to Lowest Salary)
•
City
(selected cities
of comparable
size)
1. Blaine
2. Golden Valley
3. Maple Grove
4. Minnetonka
5. Roseville
6. St. Louis Park
7. Fridley
8. Apple Valley
9. Richfield
10. Eden Prairie
11. Edina
# of Regular
Meetings (does
not include Study
Sessions)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Average Salary:
Population
40,814
21,029
42,682
49,285
33,487
43,764
28,287
38,261
35,538
42,442
46,984
Mayor
$10,524
10,245
9,900
9,600
2 9, 000
3 9, 000
8,820
8,400
8,235
'7,200
7,050
$ 8,907
'in addition to salary, the Eden Prairie Mayor/Council receive an additional per diem if
they are required to attend more than the two regularly scheduled meetings -- $25 per
diem for under two-hour meeting; $50 per diem (maximum) for over two-hour meeting.
2In January 2002, the Roseville Mayor and City Council salaries will increase to $9,300
and $7,020 respectively.
'The St. Louis Park Mayor/Council also serve on the Economic Development Authority.
The additional salary compensation for the Commissioners is $3,600 and $5,400 for the.
President.
•
•
0
1 0
`{
City
(selected cities
of comparable size)
1. Maple Grove
2. Blaine
3. Golden Valley
4. Minnetonka
5. Roseville
6. Fridley
7. Richfield
8. St. Louis Park
9. Apple Valley
10 . Eden Prairie
11 . Edina
METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL SALARIES
2000 Annual Salary -- Council
(Listed from Highest to Lowest Salary)
# of Regular
Meetings (does
not include Study
Sessions)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Average Salary:
Population
42,682
40,814
21,029
49,285
33,487
28,287
35,538
43,764
38,261
42,442
46,984
Council
$8,100
7,704
7,668
7,200
36,840
2 6,405
6,392
46,000
6,000
'6,000
5,100
$ 6,674
In addition to salary, the Eden Prairie Mayor/Council receive an additional per diem if
they are required to attend more than the two regularly scheduled meetings -- $25 per
diem for under two-hour meeting; $50 per diem (maximum) for over two-hour meeting.
2The Fridley Council Member at-large receives $7,245.
I In January 2002, the Roseville Mayor and City Council salaries will increase to $9,300
and $7,020 respectively.
4The St. Louis Park Mayor/Council also serve on the Economic Development Authority.
The additional salary compensation for the Commissioners is $3,600 and $5,400 for the
President.
•
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 10
REPORT # 78
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
d
119' wD
N , TITLE
SIGMA
ICGj
'40 1 -- . ----
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital
improvements from the Special Revenue Fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: approve
second reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain
capital improvements.
III. BACKGROUND
At the December 13, 1999 City Council meeting, the city Council authorized $487,000
of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City parks and other City capital
improvements in 2000. In addition, the 2000 Capital Improvement Budget provides for
expenditure for all types of funds contained in the budget document including county
funds, municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants, however,
authorization by ordinance is not required for these expenditures.
Since the first reading of the ordinance, a number of minor changes in the projects has
1 occurred. While the following minor changes are needed, the total dollar amount has
not changed:
0313revenue
•
• Playfeatures has been reduced from $120,000 to $115,000.
???r • Park Building Replacement-Monroe Park ($10,000) has been removed.
• Wood Lake Trails and Bridges - $15,000 has been added.
• Public Safety-Remodel Detention Facility has been changed to Public Safety-
Remodel to encompass the cell area, CSO office area and front counter
adjustments.
At the August 9, 1999 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution
adopting a plan for expenditures of residual assets of the Police and Fire consolidation
pension plans. The City received these assets in December 1999. This plan
essentially states that expenditures of the residual assets be restricted to police and fire
uses, that the principal amount of the assets be preserved and that annual interest
earnings of the assets be used to fund expenditures. Therefore, an alternative
recommendation has been added to this staff report recommending the use of these
assets' interest earnings to fund the two Public Safety expenditures contained in the
transitory ordinance. A copy of the approved plan is attached.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds
for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance.
• This process provides for public input through a public hearing.
0
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes
effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The
ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2000 so that
capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and funds
expended. This needs to be completed promptly so payments can be
made for projects authorized.
' C. FINANCIAL. I
• While the total 2000 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total
budgeted expenditures of $33,054,000 the portion of CIB concerning
proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $487,000 as shown
below:
Playfeatures $ 115,000
Wood Lake Trails and Bridges 15,000
Park Capital Maintenance 100,000
Ice Arena Second Sheet (repayment) 100,000
Public Safety - 80OMHZ Radio System 107,000
Public Safety - Remodel 50,000
w
• A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations
pursuant to City Charter.
• The source of Special Revenue funds are municipal liquor profits.
D. LEGAL
First reading of the ordinance was approved at the February 14, 2000 City
Council meeting and a notice of public hearing was published on
February 23, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The City Council could postpone the second reading of the transitory ordinance to a
future City Council meeting.
• The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures
identified from the special revenue in the CIB.
• The City Council could decide to remove the two Public Safety items from the
transitory ordinance and use the interest earnings from the Police and Fire
consolidated pension plans residual assets to fund all or a portion of these
expenditures.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue
Fund for certain capital improvements.
• Plan for expenditure of residual assets of the Police and Fire Consolidation Pension
Plans.
' VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
a
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
/U-3
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in
Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Playfeatures $ 115,000
Wood Lake Trails and Bridges 15,000
Park Capital Maintenance 100,000
Ice Arena 2nd Sheet (repayment) 100,000
Public Safety - 80OMHZ Radio System 107,000
Public Safety - Remodel 50,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as
are authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of March, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
/0 -14
Exhibit A
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE OF RESIDUAL ASSETS
RICHFIELD POLICE AND FIRE CONSOLIDATED PENSION PLANS
General Statement
The City of Richfield recognizes that the residual amounts defined and authorized by
the Omnibus Pension Bill of 1999 represents a one-time opportunity to benefit from
prudent fiscal management and appropriate contribution levels to the Police and Fire
Pension Plans. It is the City's intention to fully utilize this opportunity to enhance
Richfield's police and fire services through expenditures for capital
equipment/improvements and human resources.
II. Receipt of Assets - Special Accounts
1. Upon receipt of the residual assets of the Police and Fire Consolidated Pension
Accounts, the following actions shall be taken:
a) The funds shall be received by the Finance Manager and immediately deposited
in a specially designated accounts (Special Account) established solely for such
residual assets.
b) The police and fire portions of said assets shall be recorded and deposited in a
special account so that the respective residual assets of the Police and Fire
Pension Plans are recorded and maintained separately.
c) Future interest earnings of each such residual asset's Special Account shall be
annually apportioned between the Police and Fire Fund assets and available for
eligible expenditure.
III. Residual Asset Account Expenditures
1. Future expenditures of the funds contained in the Special Accounts will be in
conformance with Minnesota statute provisions governing such accounts.
2. Each year, as part of the annual budget process, the City Manager shall prepare and
submit a listing of eligible police and fire related Special Accounts expenditures for
consideration to be included within the annual City Budget and/or Capital
Improvement Program and Budget.
3. The City Council shall annually consider and review each recommended Police and
Fire Special Account expenditure. Upon such consideration, the City Council may
approve, add to or subtract from, such proposed expenditures.
4. It is the City's general policy to retain the initial Special Account fund balance and to
use the annual interest earnings for eligible expenditures. However, the City Council
may change this policy as deemed necessary.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 77
NAME, TITLE
STAFF REPORT
=Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d
SIG
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance approving the sale of real property
located to the north of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve
second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of City-
owned real property as described in the transitory ordinance
(adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue), and direct staff to undertake the
sale of the property.
9
III. BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1999, the owner of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue requested a vacation of
excess right-of-way (approximately 15 feet by 130 feet) located to the north of his
property. A right-of-way vacation was processed and approved by the City Council
on November 22, 1999. At the time of recording, Hennepin County determined that
the property was not right-of-way to which the City held an easement but property to
which the City holds title. The only way to transfer the property is to sell it by
transitory ordinance.
0313blaisdell
0
q-/
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The owner of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue is still interested in the property.
He is planning to build an addition onto his home on that side of his
house.
• The Public Works Department has no need for the property. They will
retain a twelve-foot area behind the curb for the standard City
boulevard.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Upon approval of the transitory ordinance, staff will prepare a
purchase agreement to effectuate the sale of the property to the
property owner.
•
C. FINANCIAL I
The Hennepin County Assessor has placed a value of $500 on the
property, which is the sale price. The City apparently obtained title to
the property from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT). The City paid nothing for the property and MnDOT does
not expect reimbursement for the original cost of purchasing the
property. The City will reimburse the buyer for the original $350
vacation application fee.
D. LEGAL
• The City Charter requires the City to sell City-owned property by
transitory ordinance.
• First reading of the transitory ordinance was held on February 14,
2000.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Deny the request for a sale of property.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance
• Survey showing property to be sold, Attachment A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• John Hawkins, owner of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue
0
BILL NO.
0 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE
OF MINNESOTA
ADJACENT TO 6225 BLAISDELL AVENUE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1:
The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of,
and conveyed by the City as herein provided:
A Parcel of land lying North of the north line of Lot 10, Block 1, Betcher's
Addition to the City of Richfield described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence northerly along the
northerly extension of the west line of said Lot 10 a distance of 20.50 feet,
thence southeasterly to a point 10.00 feet north of the northeasterly corner of
said Lot 10 as measured along the northerly extension of the east line of said
Lot 10; thence south along last described line 10.00 feet to the northeast
corner of said Lot 10; thence west along the north line of said Lot 10 a
distance of 133.63 feet to the point of beginning.
Section 2:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing
Section 1, including by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents,
purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such
sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
March, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
W . B RONVN - LAND S URA EYING z INC.
8030 Cedar Avenue South Suit.. _ Z28 WOODROW A. BROWN, R.L.S.
Bloomington, MN 55425 President
Phone (612) 854-4055 Survey For: n
Fax (612) 854-4268 NORTH.
JO?IIl Hawkins ATTACHMENT A
132.2 C X.
TO BE SOLD
LLJ ci
132.4 T.C.
131.2 T. C.
? 12' FROM gqC
?, K OF CURB
•
fuv :D
ox
rai LLI
z
Q
J
LLJ
0
J
Cqx
A M
b
N
n
133.66 ?
N 25.Q % 28.2////
O /1 Frame Story/
E ? ? 6225 LOT
133.2
1//20 /
r-.?30' Mapla
o 1I, IR LO ...I
'o Scale: 1 "=30'
!A I /'? T -s
10
I^ 9
N Ion
1 1
?-3L%q ...
133.88
.3 133. //38??//
1 Story Brick
#6229
131.0 1C
.x
0
GO
O 1 n-r
N J L_?./ I u
.731.5
0 Denotes Iron
Monument.
T.C.= Top Curb
q = Centerline NOTE: No Search Was
130-Ox Denotes Spot Elevation Made For Any
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Easements.
63-99
60/71
Lot 10 and the northerly 20 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, BETCHERS ADDITION,
Washington County, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
" r?Zz
Woodrow A. Brown, R.LS NO. 15230
Dated: June 15, 1999
1 of1
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 8
REPORT # 76
STAFF REPORT
=099A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
0
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: IT
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1?
A ', 4SIGNA RE , C,4(-
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding a conditional use permit to allow use of a portion of the office building
at 1515 East 66th Street as a limited medical facility.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve a
conditional permit to allow use of a portion of the office building at
1515 East 66th Street as a limited medical facility.
II. BACKGROUND
New Life Family Services is proposing to convert part of their existing office space
to a medical facility in order to perform limited medical services for pregnant
women. The clinic and related waiting areas would take up approximately 1,500
square feet of their existing offices. The office building has a total of approximately
38,000 square feet.
New Life Family Services currently provides pregnancy counseling services. They
want to add some limited medical services to the facility. The services to be offered
include pregnancy testing and ultra-sounds. The clinic will be open from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
0313clinic
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• The current parking facilities should be adequate to meet the needs of
the clinic. There are seventy-one parking spaces available for the
current facility, which provide adequate parking for the existing office
uses. The clinic will have one exam room, which is unlikely to
significantly increase parking needs.
• A doctor will consult with the clinic but will not serve on staff. The
program is staffed primarily with volunteer nurses. The program
anticipates an increase in clientele with the clinic, but with one exam
room, it is likely to be spread throughout the day.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A medical clinic is a conditional use in the C-2 (general commercial)
district (Section 526.27, subd. 10).
• Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the
Sun-Current.
• The Planning Commission reviewed the request on February 22, 2000
and recommended unanimously to approve the permit.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Deny the request for a conditional use permit with a finding of fact that the
proposed change would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties
or the City as a whole.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Site Plan, Attachment A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
0 Debra Cornell, Nurse Manager, New Life Family Services
66TH STREET 1515 EAST 66TH ST ET
MEDICAL FACILITY
a
m
HC 1
' W v
r W
W 1 y LEr"ANCE
Q IFS 1 Z
O
_
NEW LIFE
I LL FAMILY SERVICES Z
T 1 Q ?
U
--? W I O
1 0
1 m
I
1
LOADING DOCK
I 'A. W
' p
1 1
SITE PLAN
• . PLANNING
ZONING NORTH
t;mmmw4ty Deuekvimnt Dep utmnt SCALE: 1" = 40' DATE: 2-15-00
AGENDA SECTION: Public HearinES
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 75
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing on a conditional use permit amendment to allow a building addition onto
Woodlake Lutheran Church, 7525 Oliver Avenue.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve a
conditional use permit amendment to allow a 5,500 square foot
building addition onto Woodlake Lutheran Church, 7525 Oliver
Avenue.
111. BACKGROUND
Woodlake Lutheran Church proposes to add 5,500 square feet onto the southeast
corner of their existing facility to create a larger narthex/hospitality space. Some
site changes will be made to accommodate the addition. The addition exterior will
match the brick of the existing church. The addition will also have a pitched roof to
complement the sanctuary roof.
The area where the addition will be constructed is currently a drive aisle and a
grassy area. The north drive aisle will be relocated to the south of the addition. The
center median currently located in the parking lot will be removed to allow for better
emergency vehicle access.
0313woodlake
/-I
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
I I
• N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• There is a power pole located next to the proposed drive aisle area
that may impact the driveway. The driveway location and width may
need to be adjusted to accommodate the power pole.
• The trash area will be relocated to the north side of the building. A
drive will be constructed to provide for garage truck access. A
wooden enclosure will be constructed to screen the trash dumpsters.
• The number of handicapped parking stalls is currently less than is
required. That number will be increased from four to six stalls,
reducing the total number of parking stalls by one. The church shares
parking with the middle school providing it with more than adequate
parking.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL I
• Churches are conditional uses in the R (single family residential
district). A building addition requires an amendment to an existing
conditional use permit. (Section 521.07, subd. 13)
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Deny the request for an amendment to the conditional use permit with a
finding of fact that the proposed change would have an adverse impact on
surrounding properties or the City as a whole.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Existing conditions, Attachment A
• Proposed site plan, Attachment B
• Elevations, Attachment C
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Nina Ebbighausen, architect for Woodlake Lutheran Church
9
•
0
ATTACHMENT A
7525 OLIVER AVENUE SOUTH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
75TH STREET
6`c.ZM`e„y+eaK\47'\-y 3? 1'YFf ?' +.•2r^.'fi??i3??a •,M1,-?+":.
R7 as f \Z?lia',cr"+fa ."..! sM'.t7
c r i uY "sir
x N
• L
EXISTING }
s
i CHURCH
? rt~
'` ENTRY
W W
W l it t k \? c ?4 W
+ ? w ? 1 2i Sa ? y ft xt
\
y t,
?, '?•. _
O
` t i
S?. r
/_
? }ls
..Y f
0 + i y W
t
y
1{?
'p
s'?"'i?\+Fiwr
76TH STREET
EXISTING SITE PLAN
• . PLANNING
ZONING NORTH
Ca nny Deyelopms? Dap?ran?nt SCALE: 1' = 90' DATE: 3-6-00
•
ATTACHMENT B
7525 OLIVER AVENUE SOUTH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
J ` 7,3
75TH STREET
PROPOSED
ADDITION
Lu
W
> r? r
?. .
W s'
HC HC
r. HC
1
s i?
UFM
•?Y
t
ALTERNATE EDGE OF ADDITION
.?tl
it
a
O
Y.: W
1 s
b
Z
76TH STREET
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
CITY • . PLANNING
ZONING NORTH
Community Deveiwmnt Dapartr?wnt SCALE: 1"= 90' DATE: 3-6-00
7 S a S t 7. S
ATTACHMENT C
mlu
- A 1
alsw ('
MUG". ` .
MAIy
feE7ao1 `
yb
SOYM UOS101C e
Icm
SSK TT \ ba
?11001cm
AR601m wYlllmt -,mm (eml ISM OAQ) MARM
BMW rlm" (ow m rnm w Stmt Fm m m "TCH s m) I. QMf Am SIO06 -- AmSy ow 6 H1606D woo Klm of I_(a-ml
.l
C1 ISop, 4LEVATION AT ENTRY
MN1?
omum ro>.o.s1.
Wvoom)
onwm mm - >•o I--I '?j vsaos» Fes{ rn
ewuMM..c itir.oi's:r I 11 tFll ?xnu SIl?'?kl`:9t11 _
p? EAST - WEST SECTION THROUGH •PROPOSED NARTHEX
TOM
sArcnAn7 ??
PWIM -.0 1100!
? - L( ? 151wifu : 1111 1 t) iii,
M0
MLQ~
3 I tff+71o1 11 a v
e ?
PRWM D NAME} ADOM WM Sml ESSMO FAWN (NODI wM GA1Mfr
4ADa - mice -twx 306 Emo) -- ES5030 ATM sArcwa. ua6 E'1'JU)
TI EAS ELEVATION
?I
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 74
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
® SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding proposed approval of a modification
to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (I-L-N) Tax
j Increment Financing Plan.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution modifying the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan
and I nterstate-Lyndale-N icol let (I-L-N) Tax Increment Financing Plan.
III. BACKGROUND I
The proposed modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan
(Redevelopment Plan) and the I nterstate-Lyndale-N icol let (I-L-N) Tax Increment
Financing Plan (TIF Plan) contemplates a budget modification to authorize the
issuance of bonds whose funds will be used for activities related to the Lyndale
Gateway Project (Project). Specifically, funds will be used for land acquisition, site
clearance, and relocation activities.
The overall Project consists of approximately 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial property,
35,000 sq. ft. of office space, 40 units of owner-occupied townhomes and 161 units
0313ilntif
of senior apartments. However, bond funds will be used only for activities related to
• the 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and 40 units of owner-occupied townhomes.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY I
• The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and
Lyndale Gateway redevelopers have contractually agreed to the
amount of financial assistance to be provided to make the elements of
this project feasible. This proposed plan amendment will effectuate
these contractual commitments.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• Approval of this modification is necessary to implement the contractual
agreements made between the HRA and the developers for the
commercial and townhouse elements of the project.
C. FINANCIAL I
• The TIF Plan identifies a bond issue in an amount not to exceed $2
million.
• The Sources and Uses Budget on page 4 of the TIF Plan indicates a total
amount of $4,750,000. All sources of revenue, increment and bond
proceeds must be shown in the budget. However, the. uses of revenue
also show payment of bond principal and interest and other costs.
Therefore, sources and uses balance.
• Increment from the Candlewood Hotel project located within the I-L-N TIF
District will be used to pay debt service on the bonds.
D. LEGAL
• On February 22, 2000, the HRA approved the modified Redevelopment
Plan and TIF Plan.
• The Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act (TIF Act) requires that prior
to the adoption of a modification to a tax increment financing plan for a
redevelopment tax increment financing district, the City must notify the
County Board member representing the affected area at least 30 days
prior to publishing the notice of public hearing. On behalf of the City, staff
notified County Commissioner Randy Johnson by letter on January 25,
2000 of the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan and TIF
Plan.
• The TIF Act also requires that prior to the holding of a public hearing on
the modification of a tax increment financing plan, the City must provide
an opportunity to the members of the affected county board to review the
fiscal and economic implications of the proposed modified or new tax
increment financing plan 30 days from the transmittal of the fiscal
implications or until the County Board has presented written comment on
the proposal, whichever is less. On behalf of the City, the HRA's
development consultant, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., notified Chairperson
Johnson, and the County Board Members, and Superintendent Barbara
W-oq---
Devlin and School Board Members of Independent School District No.
• 280 by letter on February 10, 2000 of the proposed modification to the
Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and the fiscal and economic
implications of the plans. A response from the Deputy Administrator of
the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, dated March 3, 2000 is
attached.
• The Planning Commission reviewed the modified Redevelopment Plan
and TIF Plan for conformance to the City's Comprehensive Plan on
February 22, 2000.
• A legal notice for public hearing on the modified Redevelopment Plan and
TIF Plan was published in the local newspaper on March 1, 2000.
• Following approval by the City Council, the modified Redevelopment Plan
and TIF Plan will be filed with the County Auditor and State Revenue
Department.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Delay action, with consequence to the Lyndale Gateway Project, on the
proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan.
Do not take action, with consequence to the Lyndale Gateway Project, on the
proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Council Resolution.
Memo from Richard P. Johnson, Deputy Administrator, Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners (Attachment A).
• Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the I-L-N TIF District (Attachment 3).
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
0
RESOLUTION NO. 6.3
i RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND ADOPTING THE
MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ILN TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT RELATED THERETO
.BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01 The City has heretofore established the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area and adopted the Redevelopment Plan related thereto. It has been proposed that the
City adopt the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area and adopt the Modification to the tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN
Tax Increment Financing District (collectively, the "Modifications"); all pursuant to and in
conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through
459.047 and 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the
Modifications, and presented for the Council's consideration. Generally, the substantive
changes to the current Modification a budget modification to authorize the issuance of
bonds whose funds will be used for activities related to the Lyndale Gateway Project.
Specifically, funds will be used for land acquisition, site clearance, and relocation activities.
1.02 The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Modifications.
1.03 The City has performed all actions required by law to be preformed prior to
the adoption and approval of the proposed Modifications, including, but not limited to,
notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over
the property to be included in Modifications, notice of the proposed modification of an
existing redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review.of and written
comment on the Modifications by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a
public hearing upon published notice as required by law.
Section 2. Findinas for the Approval of the Modifications.
2.01 The Council hereby finds that the Modifications are intended and, in the
judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be to provide such other facilities
and improvements as shall further the objectives in the Plan and Minnesota Statutes
Sections 469.001 through 469.047.
2.02 The Council hereby reaffirms the.original findings for the ILN Tax Increment
Financing District as modified herein, namely: that Modifications is in the public interest
and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10
(a)(1) and that the proposed development would not occur solely through private
investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, that the increased market value on
the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment
financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the project tax increments for
the maximum duration of Modifications permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan;
(0 / (-
that the Modifications conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment
of the City as a whole; and that the Modifications will afford maximum opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of
Modifications by private enterprise.
Section 3. Findinas for the Modifications.
. 3.01 The Council hereby finds that the Modifications, are intended and, in the
judgment of the Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for the
development in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the
Modifications, which are hereby incorporated herein.
Section 4. Aaaroval of the Modifications; Filing.
4.01 The Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the ILN Tax Increment Financing District are hereby approved, and shall be placed on file
in the office of the HRA Director. Approval of the Modifications does not constitute
approval of any project or a Development Agreement with any developer.
4.02 The staff of the City is authorized to file the Modifications with the State
Department of Revenue and the Hennepin County Auditor.
4.03 The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Modifications and for this purpose to
negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans,
resolutions, documents an contracts necessary for this purpose.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
March, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Attachment A
•
•
•
NP
M1
Date: March 3, 2000
6r5
To: Board of Commissioners 1 - /
From: Richard P. Johnson, Deputy Administrator's
Subject: Proposed Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
Hearing Date: Monday, March 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
HISTORY: Richfield created the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) redevelopment tax increment financing district on
November 12, 1985, initially projecting total tax increment of $27,369,791. The of district has generated $7,338,566.17
through 1999 and may remain active through 2012. The district has undergone sevetal budgetary modifications and 20
parcels were permanently decertified in 1999 so that they could be incorporated as part of the Interstate West and
Lyndale Gateway TIF District
PROPOSAL: The proposed ILN modification will permit the HRA to spend tax increment generated by ILN in any of
district in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, or, essentially, in any of district in the City of Richfield.
The 37 parcels that comprise the Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interstate West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District
created in 1999, are slated for acquisition, site clearance and relocation activities that will be funded with ILN-generated
tax increment These parcels are located on Aldrich, Lyndale and Garfield Avenues South between 76"' and 7r Streets.
Sixteen of these parcels were a part of the ILN TIF District from 1985 until 1999, when they were decertified from ILN and
certified as part of the Lyndale Gateway TIF District The ILN Redevelopment TIF District cannot be enlarged.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The City or HRA intend to issue general obligation bonds with a principal amount not to
exceed $2,000,000. Tax increment revenue of $2,750,000 from ILN will also be used to pay the identified costs of the
Lyndale Gateway TIF District.
Prooosed Use of ILN-Generated TIF Funds for the Lvndale Gatewav TIF District:
Land/Building Acquisition $1,400,000
Bond Principal Payments 2,000,000
Bond Interest 1,300,000
Administrative Costs 50.000
Total Use of Funds $4,750,000
SUMMARY: The proposal is technical in nature and does not change the redevelopment activity identified in either the
ILN or Interstate West and Lyndale Gateway TIF Districts. The proposal may negatively impact an early decertification of
the ILN TIF District, but is otherwise neutral as it relates to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for
use oftif, as identified in Resolution 92-10-917R1, adopted October 27, 1992.
FZeWPiChf 1d1LNModWWM132000J
A copy of this report will be sent to the City of Richfield with a request that it be entered into the record of the City of
Richfield public hearing on Monday, March 13, 2000, to reflect the county's position on this proposal.
E[ ;uawgaa14,
Attach /m__ent .B
MODIFICATION TO THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE
ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Public Hearing: March 13, 2000
Adoption:
Prepared by:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Phone: (651) 697-8500
Fax: (651) 697-8555
V ;uauigau4V
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(provided for references purposes only)
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR .
THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ........... I
Introduction . ........................ .. ..................... ....... I
Statement of Public Purpose ..................................................... I
Statutory Authority ...................... .. .............................. I
Statement of Goals and Objectives ............. ...................... ......... I
Estimated Public Costs ............................ ......... 1
Boundary of the Richfield Project Area, Parcels in Acquisition, and Legal Description ...... I
MODIFICATION NO.7 TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTINCT ........... ............ ..... 2
Introduction ........................................... ........ 2
Boundary of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District ............................... 2
Parcels Identified for Acquisition .................................................. 3
Estimated Project Costs .............. .................:..................... 4
Bonded Indebtedness ............................... ....................... 4
BOUNDARY MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND
THE ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTINCT ................ ...... .... A-1
0
?9
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
March 13, 2000
Introduction
The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area. The Modified Redevelopment Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the
original Plan. Generally, the substantive changes to the current Modification include the authority to spend tax
increments generated from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District in the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
dated June 14,1993 or the most recent Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area dated November 22, 1999 is recommended.
Statement of Public Purpose
See also the Statement of Public Purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
1
Statutory Authority
See also the Statutory Authority found in Section C of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Statement of Goals and Obiectives
Additional goals and objectives can be found in Section D of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993.
Estimated Public Costs
This modification authorizes the HRA to expend tax increment from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
for qualified activities identified in the budget of the Modification to the ILN Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Boundary of the Richfield Proiect Area. Parcels in Acauisition. and Legal Descrintion
The boundary for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is not being modified from the November 22, 1999
Modification.
•
City of Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District I
I
UYG
•
Modification No. 7 to Tax Increment Financing Plan
for ILN Tax Increment Financing District
March 13, 2000
Introduction
The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Tax Increment
Financing District. The Modifications to the ILN Tax Increment Financing Plan represent a continuation of the
goals and objectives set forth in the original Tax Increment Financing Plan. Generally, the substantive changes
to the current Modification include the identification of additional parcels for acquisition, the authority to spend
tax increment,generated from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District in the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area, and the authority to issue bonds.
For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing
District adopted October 21,1985, and modified November 25,1985; January 12,1987;September 18,1989; May
17, 1993; March 24, 1994; October 21, 1996; and November 9, 1998 is recommended.
Boundaries of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
The boundaries of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District are not being modified with this Modification.
However, the map- of the ILN Tax Increment Financing District has been adjusted to reflect the parcels that have
been previously decertified by Hennepin County on July 13, 1999. A map of the Modified ILN Tax Increment
Financing District is included in Appendix A.
City of Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District 2
?,-(O
•
Parcels Identified for Acauisition
The following parcels in the Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and adjacent rights-of-way are
being identified for acquisition with increment funds from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District.
Lvndale Gatewav
•
Address
7600 Lyndale
7608 Lyndale
7614-16-18 Lyndale
7620-26 Lyndale
7628 Lyndale
7630 Lyndale
7632 Lyndale
7634-36 Lyndale
7638-40 Lyndale
7642-42a Lyndale
7644-44-1/2 Lyndale
7601 Aldrich
7609 Aldrich
7615 Aldrich
7621 Aldrich
7627 Aldrich
7633 Aldrich
7639 Aldrich
7601 Lyndale
7609-11 Lyndale
7613-27 Lyndale
7629-33 Lyndale
7645 Lyndale
7600 Garfield
7608 Garfield
7614 Garfield
7620 Garfield
7626 Garfield
7632 Garfield
7638 Garfield
7639 Garfield
7633 Garfield
7627 Garfield
7621 Garfield
7615 Garfield
7609 Garfield
7601 Garfield
City of Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
PID
33-028-24-44-0036
33-028-24-44-0037
33-028-24-44-0038
33-028-24-440039
33-028-24-44-0041
33-028-24-44-0042
33-028-24-44-0040
33-028-24-44-0043
33-028-24-44-0044
33-028-24-44-0045
33-028-24-44-0046
33-028-24-44-0056 ,
33-028-24-44-0055-
33-028-24-44-0054
33-028-24-44-0053
33-028-24-44-0052
33-028-24-44-0051
33-028-24-44-0050
34-028-24-33-0078
34-028-24-33-0077
34-028-24-33-0084
34-028-24-33-0074
34-028-24-33-0073
34-028-24-33-0065
34-028-24-33-0066
34-028-24-33-0067
34-028-24-33-0068
34-028-24-33-0069
34-028-24-33-0070
34-028-24-33-0071
34-028-24-33-0058
34-028-24-33-0059
34-028-24-33-0060
34-028-24-33-0061
34-028-24-33-0062
34-028-24-33-0063
34-028-24-33-0064
3
b.,( ?
•
•
0
Estimated Project Costs
The City is proposing a modified budget for ILN TIF District which will include funds for land acquisition, site
clearance,and relocation activities for the Lyndale Gateway Project. The project consists ofapproximately 45,000
square feet of commercial property and 40 units of owner occupied town homes.
This modification authorizes the HRA to expend tax increment from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
for qualified activities identified in the budget of any of the Tax Increment Financing Districts and the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area.
Totals as Modified Additional for
Sources of Funds November 9,1998 Lyndale Gateway
Tax increment revenue $1,382,000 $2,750,000
Bond proceeds $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Total Sourcesof Funds; $2,382,009 $4,750,000
Uses of Funds
Land/building acquisition $42,105,000 $1,400,000
Site imp./prep. costs $65,000 t$0
Streets and sidewalks $900,000 , $0
Loan/note int. payments $32,800,000 $0
Bond Principal Payments $0 $2,000,000
Bond Interest $0 $1,300,000
Administrative costs $8,430,000 $50,000
Bond deposit $0 $0
Total Uses of funds $84,300,000 $4,7509000
Bonded Indebtedness
Totals as Modified
March 13, 2000
$4,132,000
$3,000,000
$7,132,009
$43,505,000
$65,000
$900,000
$32,800,000
$2,000,000
$1,300,000
$8,480,000
$0
$89,050,000
Public improvement costs, acquisition, public utilities and site improvement costs, interest costs and other costs
outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City
or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state
aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer
and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The City or HRA intends to issue general obligation bonds with a principal amount not to exceed $2,000,000.
The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment
financing will not exceed without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other
debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also
finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to
reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer.
City of Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District
4
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND
THE ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
City of Richfield Modification to the Plan for the ILN Tax Increment Financing District A-1
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANC
ING DISTRICT
yWZy12ZW ? x9Z ? ? ? Q}? ? ? ? ? ? s
_n.uLL1111ItIIIitilLJL?UJU-xL'U1&??? "WWLIJw
e2NOSr. - -- U 111'" L-----NWWWw,
83RD ST. 1,? - - C?UUUI 3 ? o' 1 J
84TH ST. ll = -;r- ,r- ?, --; T ????????? - % V? -- ??U?.,ll__ - --- - Q nu
-::?
WMST. -
86TH ST. - -?T
87TH ST.
WMST f.
WrHST. Wm ST
- 1
701!1 Sr.
71ST ST.
71 W ST.
72ND ST.
73RD Sr. l
741H ST. ?.
76TH ST. =- -
78TH ST. =
?MST.
78TH ST.
70TH ST
71ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
76TH ST:
76TH ST.
am ST.
WM ST
86TH ST:
WrH ST.
?J IF-11 a 11 1 n
Richfield Redevelopment Rojed Area Boundary
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Feet ' : •:: ILN Tax Increment Financing District
•
????? ?aU?? s<nH sr.
sr.
DODD 0000001 InUe?
n- 11 effmST.
A
N
MARCH 13, 2000
Nieraw??r.iriwr.w •
Y
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 5
REPORT # 73
•
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 13, 2000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME TITLE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER
SIG ATURE
1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution authorizing the completion of an application
for a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) grant.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution authorizing the completion of a Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) grant for the FOWL Children's Forest Shelter.
III. BACKGROUND I
Wood Lake Nature Center staff has plans to develop a Children's Forest, a four-
acre educational and recreational area on the east edge of the park. The
centerpiece of this project is the renovation of an old, open-sided picnic shelter into
an enclosed shelter to be used for educational and interpretive purposes.
The Minnesota DNR is currently accepting Outdoor Recreation Grant applications
that require a local match. City staff has identified $10,000 in local contributions,
including an $8,000 contribution from FOWL and a.$2,000 donation from other
sources. Staff would be requesting a matching $10,000 from the DNR for a total
project cost of $20,000.
0313 dnr grant
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• DNR policy requires a public hearing and the passage of a resolution
authorizing the grant application.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The grant application is due on March 31, 2000. Staff requests action
at the March 13 Council meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• Without the DNR grant, the project would be indefinitely stalled as
staff would have to explore other financing options.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not approve the resolution authorizing the DNR grant application.
f V. ATTACHMENTS I
• Resolution authorizing the completion and submittal of the DNR grant
application.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FORA MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT TO ASSIST WITH THE
FUNDING OF THE WOOD LAKE CHILDREN'S FOREST.
WHEREAS, the Wood Lake Nature Center will act as legal sponsor for the project
contained in the Outdoor Recreation Grant, Conservation Partners Grant and
Environmental Partnership Grant applications to be completed and submitted by March 31,
2000, and
WHEREAS, Karen Shragg, Nature Center Manager, is hereby authorized to apply
to the Department of Natural Resources for funding of this project on behalf of the Wood
Lake Nature Center; and
WHEREAS, Wood Lake Nature Center has the legal authority to apply for financial
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the proposed project for its
design life; and
WHEREAS, the Wood Lake Nature Center has not incurred any costs detailed in
the application related to the development of the Children's Forest; and
WHEREAS, that the Wood Lake Nature Center has not violated any Federal, State
or Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or
other unlawful or corrupt practice; and
. WHEREAS, that upon approval of its application by the state, the Wood Lake
Nature Center may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-
referenced project, and that the Wood Lake Nature Center certifies that it will comply with
all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Nature Center Manager Karen
Shragg is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement
the project on behalf of the applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
March, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
9 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: Public HeaTinas
AGENDA ITEM # 4
REPORT # 72
STAFF REPORT
=Oda CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
•
PAMELA BOOKHOUT,
REPORT PREPARED BY: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 11
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
/ SI TUM
l
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding the use of funds from the Community Development Block Grant
allocation for Year 2000.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution authorizing use of funds under the Urban Hennepin County
Year 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation
and authorizing signature of subrecipient agreement.
III. BACKGROUND I
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 13 to authorize
Richfield's use of the 2000 CDBG allocation of $243,938, as proposed. As in past
years, Richfield proposes public service, home improvement, and substandard
property acquisition components.
Richfield supports three public service agencies through the CDBG allocation:
10 Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly ( H.O.M.E.), Community Action for
Suburban Hennepin (CASH), and Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association
(GMDCA). Third party agreements with these agencies are prepared annually. The
Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human
0313cdbg2
Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service
needs. RCHSPC makes recommendations to the City Council regarding public
service funding for CDBG funds. This year's recommendation by RCHSPC is
attached. The recommendation for public service funding with the prescribed
county guideline of 15 percent would provide a total allocation of $36,590.
Richfield supports two home improvement programs: Rehabilitation of Owner-
Occupied Property (Deferred Loans) and Acquisition of Property on Scattered Sites
(New Home Program). Through the Deferred Loan program, the CDBG Year 2000
funds will serve approximately 15 low-income households that need home repairs
and improvements during the year 2000. Currently, there are approximately ten
homeowners going through the loan process and six homeowners waiting for
funding. A total amount of $127,348 is requested for rehabilitation. The New Home
Program allocation will remove a substandard property and increase the number of
single family housing units constructed by one additional unit. The project request
for 2000 is $80,000 for acquisition, demolition and site preparation.
The chart below summarizes the recommended funding:
Project
1. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E.
b. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare
c. CASH
2. Housing Improvements:
a. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property
b. Acquisition of Property
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION
Allocation Total
Per Project Recommendatio
n
$ 22,700
$ 12,390
$ 1,500
$ 127,348
$ 80,000
$ 36,590
$ 207,348
$ 243,938
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit
the number of projects funded to three. The Richfield proposal is divided into
two projects: public service and housing improvements meeting the
objective stated.
• Public service funding is as recommended by the Richfield Community
Human Services Planning Council (attached).
• Housing improvement funding has been allocated to housing rehabilitation
(Deferred Loans) and acquisition of substandard property (New Home
Program). Of the amount requested, $127,348 would be used for housing
rehabilitation. The $80,000 allocated for scattered site is required to
purchase a property, complete the demolition and prepare the site. Other
funds will be used to construct an affordable new.home on the site.
A. POLICY
q_?
• Allocation of CDBG funds is an annual activity.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 13,
2000. The deadline for submitting the 2000 CDBG application to
Hennepin County is no later than March 17, 2000.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation from the
federal government in 2000 is $3.467 million, $15,000 less than last
year. Richfield is receiving $1,511 less than last year.
D. LEGAL I
• Notice of public hearing was published March 1, 2000.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still
achieves funding guidelines.
• Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for
funding.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• RCHSPC recommendation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
r
4-3
RESOLUTION NO.
•
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2000 URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds
made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 13, 2000 to obtain the views of
citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs
and priorities for the City's proposed use of $243,938 from the 2000 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the
proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2000 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program.
Project
•
1. Public Service:
d. H.0.M.E.
e. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare
f. CASH
Housing Improvements:
c. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property
d. Acquisition of Property
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION
Allocation Total
Per Project Recommendation
$ 22,700
$ 12,390
$ 1,500
$ 127,348
$ 80,000
$ 36,590
$ 207,348
1 $ 243,938
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize
and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any
required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2000 CDBG
Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
March, 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
q- q .
0 RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL
Memorandum
Date: February 28, 2000
To: Bruce Nordquist
From: Camillo DeSantis
Subject: 2000/2001 Allocation for City Public Service Programs
The RCHSPC and representatives of the Richfield Community Council met on November 15,
1999 to hear presentations fro the applicant agencies. At that time the CDBG allotment from
Hennepin County for 2000/2001 was not known. At the November 1999 meeting we framed our
preliminary recommendation.
Our findings indicated that:
• The three applicant agencies were providing valuaable and effective service to the people of
Richfield.
• They each had evaluation processes in place.
• Each is involved in collaboration with other agencies and linked with South Hennepin
FamiLink and the Richfield FamiLink Resource Center.
• All three clearly meet the CDBG definition of Public Service.
• In a variety of ways these programs support the City's housing goals by maintaining
dwellings and contributing to the stability of the community.
CDBG ALLOCATION FOR 2000/2001
Aaencv_ Recommendation
Senior Community Services Home Program 22,700
Greater Mpls. Day Care Association 12,390
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin 1,500
TOTAL 36,590
0
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 3E
REPORT # 71
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
0
REPORT PREPARED BY: PATRICK DOLAN, ENGINEERING
TECHNICIAN
NA& E; TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MICHAEL EASTLING, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
Or I?q 0
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval of plans and specifications, ordering of City Project No. 401-30-524
and authorizing advertisement for bids for a traffic signal at 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the plans and specifications, order City Project
No. 401-30-524, and authorize advertisement for bid for a traffic signal
at the intersection of 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
•
II. BACKGROUND I
The City of Richfield and Hennepin County are proposing to remove an existing
mid-block pedestrian crossing signal located on Nicollet Avenue between 67th
Street and 68th Street. The proposed location for a new signal would be at the
intersection of Nicollet and 67th Street which is located approximately 200 feet north
of the existing signal. This project would also eliminate St. Peter's Church driveway
onto Nicollet Avenue and widen and realign Holy Angel's driveway onto Nicollet
Avenue. The reconstructed driveway would serve both St. Peter's and Holy Angels
and would be aligned with 67th Street. City staff has worked closely with officials
from St. Peter's Church and the Academy of Holy Angels in arriving at the proposed
design.
0313Signal
This project is in the 2000 capital improvement budget for $235,220. Municipal
State Aid (MSA) will fund $190,000, Hennepin County will fund $34,120 and St.
Peter's will finance the remaining $11,100.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A Signal Justification Report was done by BRW, Inc. in July 1999 and
submitted to Hennepin County. Due to funding and other constraints,
the County has developed a system to identify locations where traffic
signals are warranted. Based upon Hennepin County's ranking
system, this intersection can be considered for signalization.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The signal will provide a safer access to an elementary school, a high
school and a church. The Academy of the Holy Angels operates an
athletic dome on its property for a variety of uses including soccer and
football. There will also be two baseball fields which will be used for
public recreation.
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated cost of the project is $235,220 which will be financed
by Municipal State Aid, Hennepin County and St. Peter's
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to delay action to approve the plans and specifications
and the advertisement for bid; however, delay could affect the time schedule
for the construction season and Richfield could lose their ranking for the
signal.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
0 None
0
•
J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 3D
REPORT # 70
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 13, 1000
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
•
RICK BEANE, GARAGE SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
oef
Ci
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval to purchase a tilt cab chassis.
L6
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept bid minutes/tabulation and approve the purchase
of a new tilt cab chassis in the sum of $44,186 to Falls Automotive,
Inc.
II. BACKGROUND
Unit #343, a 1989 Ford flush truck, is fully depreciated and scheduled to be
replaced in 2000.
A formal bid opening was held on February 22, 2000 for the purchase of a new tilt
cab chassis for a flush truck for the Garage Motor Pool. Three vendors submitted
bids as shown below:
Lakeland Truck Center, Inc. $47,500
• Boyer Trucks, Inc. $46,882
Falls Automotive, Inc. $44,673
0313000CSR
0
SD, I
The Falls Automotive bid also included a deduct of $487 which staff is accepting,
making the total purchase price $44,186.
1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the
purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction
exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City
Council for consideration.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES I
• Approval at the March 13, 2000 Council meeting will facilitate delivery
of the chassis, and staff can then order the tank/box and other
accessories needed to make up a total flush truck unit.
C. FINANCIAL
• The approved 2000 Garage Motor Pool budget contains $90,000 for
the purchase of a flush truck. The balance will be used to buy the
flush tank/box.
0
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to delay a decision on this purchase, as the bidders are
bound to stand by their formal bids for 60 days.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes/tabulation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
February 22, 2000
Purchase of Tilt Cab Chassis
Bid No.: 00-03
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the purchase of a Tilt Cab
Chassis, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 2, 2000.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Contractor's Name
Lakeland Truck Ctr. Inc.
Bruce Rioux Boyer Trucks Inc.
Falls Automotive
Bid Security
5%
5%
5%
Base Bid
$47,500.00
$46,882.00
$44,673.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
March 13, 2000 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 3C
REPORT # 69
-Ago STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RICK BEANE, GARAGE SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 13
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ?-
SI ATIP
1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the sale of a 1984 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper to Pearson Brothers, Inc. in
the amount of $15,975.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the sale of Unit #276, a 1984 Elgin Pelican Street
Sweeper to Pearson Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $15,000 plus
sales tax of $975 for the total sum of $15,975.
II. BACKGROUND
Unit #276, a fully depreciated 1984 Elgin Pelican street sweeper is scheduled to be
replaced in 2000. Purchase of a replacement vehicle was coordinated through the
State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. The bidder, Mac Queen
Equipment, Inc., offered a trade-in price of $12,000 for the old sweeper. In early
February, staff advertised the old sweeper for sale to see if a better price could be
obtained. Pearson Brothers, Inc. submitted a quote of $15,000 (plus tax) for the old
sweeper.
•
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
Pearson Brothers, Inc. will buy the unit for $3,000 more than was offered on the
Mac Queen bid.
031300SELLSWEEP
The City of Richfield is not bound to accept the trade-in price from Mac Queen
Equipment.
A. POLICY
• Policy does not dictate formal staff reports on sales under $25,000;
however, staff has set a precedent with prior sales, and would like to keep
the Council informed on fleet management.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• Selling the 1984 Elgin sweeper to Pearson Brothers, Inc. would bring
the purchase of the new sweeper in under budget by about $8500.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 3B
REPORT # 68
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: RICK BEANE, GARAGE SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
S1GrTURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: A
i
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval for a purchase of a Sweeper in excess of $25,000.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the purchase of a sweeper from Mac Queen
Equipment Inc. in the amount of $106,451.00.
III. BACKGROUND
Unit #276, a 1984 Elgin street sweeper, is fully depreciated and scheduled for
replacement in 2000. Purchase of a replacement vehicle has been coordinated
through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program.
Under this program, the State of Minnesota solicits bids from a variety of dealers for
specific motor pool vehicles. The bidder for the type of vehicle required is then
awarded a contract to supply vehicles to the participating members of the
Cooperative Purchasing Program at the lowest possible price. The City of Richfield
participates in this program.
Mac Queen Equipment, Inc. submitted the bid for the type of vehicle required.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
031300SWEEP
A. POLICY
• City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the
purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction
exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City
Council for consideration.
• The City of Richfield participates in the State of Minnesota
Cooperative Purchasing Program.
• Mac Queen Equipment, Inc. submitted the bid for the type of vehicle
requested.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the March 13, 2000 Council meeting will facilitate delivery
of the new sweeper.
C. FINANCIAL
• The approved 2000 Garage Motor Pool budget contains $100,000 for
this purchase.
• On the state bid, Mac Queen Equipment, Inc. offered $12,000 as a
trade-in on the old sweeper. Staff offered the old sweeper for sale
independently in an informal process, and received a quote from
Pearson Brothers, Inc. to buy the sweeper for $15,000. This sale is
addressed in a separate Staff Report for the March 13, 2000 Council
meeting.
• The revenue from the sale of the old sweeper to Pearson Brothers,
Inc. will more than balance out the $6,451 overage on the estimated
budget amount.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may delay a decision on this purchase for one Council meeting.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 3A
REPORT # 67
to
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
MARCH 139 2000
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
?0
SIGNA
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the issuance of a new 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Hopes Chow Mein
restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue South, and setting date of public hearing.
1. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: approval of a public hearing to be held March 27, 2000 for
the issuance of a new 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Hopes Chow
Mein restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
An application for a new on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Hopes Chow Mein
restaurant was received by the City on January 18, 2000.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public hearing to
consider all on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license applications and that a
date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing.
The Hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be
considered.
0313HopesPublicHearing
•
The process for the new 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Hopes Chow Mein
restaurant has been initiated.
• Holding a public hearing on March 27, 2000 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES J
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
•
D. LEGAL l
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Reject the application for a new 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Hopes Chow Mein
restaurant.
• Schedule hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process.
' V. ATTACHMENTS J
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
0