8-26-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12,
1996
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
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 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR
REPLACEMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT AT ROOSEVELT PARK FROM ST. CROIX
RECREATION CO., INC. IN AMOUNT OF $57,916 C.L. 266
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT
LICENSE AND FEE WAIVER FOR CHURCH OF ST. PETER, 6730 NICOLLET
. AVENUE, 1996 FALL FESTIVAL ON AUGUST 5 AND 6, 1996 C.L. 267
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT
LICENSE AND FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD CATTAIL DAYS EVENTS ON
SEPTEMBER 21 AND 22, 1996 C.L. 268
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL KENNEL
LICENSES:
• WOODLAKE VETERINARY HOSPITAL, 6436 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 269
• ANIMAL CARE CLINIC, 6521 CEDAR AVENUE C.L. 270
• ELAINE'S GROOMING, 7429 HUMBOLDT AVENUE C.L. 271
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF RESIDENTIAL KENNEL
LICENSE:
• 6830 COLUMBUS AVENUE; THREE DOGS C.L. 272
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING TO APPEAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF
DECISION MADE BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT USE OF
BUILDING AT 6722 PENN AVENUE FOR MOTORCYCLE REPAIR IS CHANGE IN USE
FROM PREVIOUS USE FOR SMALL ENGINE REPAIR
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 273
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
VACATING PORTION OF WEST 77-1/2 STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 274
6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SPECIALLY ASSESSING 77TH
STREET PROJECT AREA FOR CURRENT MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR PERIOD
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997, CITY PROJECT 922
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 275
7. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SPECIALLY ASSESSING LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET
AREA FOR CURRENT MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997, PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 923
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 276
8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SPECIALLY ASSESSING CURRENT
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CITY ALLEYS FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1997, PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 924
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 277
9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1995
•
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 278
10. PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT
NO. 900, L/H/N MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
1995
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 279
11. PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT
NO. 901, 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1995
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 280
12. PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT
NO. 902, 1995 ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1995
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 281
RESOLUTION
13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING PRIVATE ACTIVITY TAX EXEMPT
FINANCING GUIDELINES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 282
• ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
14. CONSIDERATION OF CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 283
AIRPORT BUSINESS
15. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
16. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
18. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
0 19. 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 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 283
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of conducting a City Council Study Session on September 3, 1996.
Background:
The City Council regularly conducts a Study Session on the first Monday of each
month. The first Monday in September is the Labor Day holiday. The Study Session
could be rescheduled to Tuesday, September 3. However, any business can be carried
over to the October 7 Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for September 2, do not
reschedule the meeting to September 3 and carry any business over to the October 7
Study Session.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. September 2 is the Labor Day holiday.
2. The meeting could be rescheduled to September 3 but any business can be
. carried over to the October 7 Study Session.
3. The holiday may cause a problem with a quorum for the Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Conduct the September Study Session on Tuesday, September 3.
2. Reschedule the Study Session to a date other than the one recommended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the August 26, 1996 City Council agenda so proper
notification can be made.
submitted,
ReYe
osser
Ja
Citr
JDP:cak
0
i3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 282
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of resolution adopting Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing Guidelines.
Background:
Under Minnesota statutes, cities may issue certain types of bonds for private activities
which may be of benefit to the City. The City considers requests for tax exempt
financing subject to the provisions of law and any municipal guidelines in place.
However, City approval of tax exempt financing is a privilege not a right which may be
extended to eligible applicants.
Tax exempt financing is used on a selective basis to encourage certain types of
development that offer a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant
employment and housing opportunities. In instances where an applicant approaches a
City for approval of private activity tax exempt financing, it is the applicant's obligation to
demonstrate the benefit of such project to the City, both in writing and at a public
hearing. The applicant should also understand that although approval may be granted
by the City for the issuance of financing for a similar project or a similar debt structure,
• that would not be the basis upon which approval would be granted. Instead, each
applicant for private activity tax exempt financing must be judged on the merits of the
project as it relates to the public purposes of the Housing Act or the IDR Act and the
benefits to the City at the time of the request for financing.
Providing tax exempt financing may be a significant benefit to any particular activity
being financed. In addition, the consideration by the City for tax exempt financing
involves a significant amount of administrative activity. Thus, in consideration of the
benefit to the applicant of a tax exempt financing tool, the potential benefit to the
community of an appropriate activity, and the administrative costs associated with
processing such an application, it would be appropriate for the City to establish a set of
consistent guidelines to be used for each such application for tax exempt financing
approval. Contained within such a guideline process would be appropriate application
of materials, administrative procedures, and a fee structure paid to the City from the
ultimate proceeds of any approved financing. Such guidelines and fee provisions are
relatively common in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, especially in communities where
significant numbers of requests for tax exempt financing approval occur. Attached to
the Council Letter is a proposed set of Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing
Guidelines which outline a process that may be approved by the City Council for such
applications in the City of Richfield. The Guidelines provide for a sliding fee structure
up to a maximum fee of $35,000 per issuance. If the City Council wishes to adopt the
Guidelines as attached, a resolution accomplishing that purpose has been provided.
0
13--(
• The City has received a number of requests for private activity tax exempt financing in
the past. The most recent request was from the owner of the Market Towers project.
Staff believes that the City will be receiving more requests for private activity financing
in the future, and as such, it is important that the City have in place a systematic
process of guidelines and fee structures to deal with those requests before staff
receives them.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution adopting Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing
Guidelines.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield has statutory authority under the IDR Act and Housing Act to
issue tax exempt financing for projects that would benefit the community.
2. Such approvals do not present a financial obligation for the City of Richfield.
3. Requests for private activity tax exempt financing are a benefit to the applicant as
well as an administrative cost for the City of Richfield.
4. A number of other cities in the metropolitan area have adopted guidelines to deal
. with requests for such tax exempt financing approval, including a similar fee
structure.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to adopt the uniform guidelines in dealing with
these requests and deal with them as requests are submitted.
2. The City Council could decide to modify the proposed guidelines, including either
increasing or decreasing the maximum fee.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been included on the August 26 City Council meeting so that the City of
Richfield may put in place a set of guidelines dealing with requests for tax exempt
financing as soon as possible. Consideration of this matter would allow the City to have
set guidelines and fee structures in place before any such requests are received.
Respectful`y submitted,
Jam DJJProsser
City KarAger
JDP:cak
/3-a
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING PRIVATE
ACTIVITY TAX EXEMPT FINANCING GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has the authority to issue bonds and notes to
assist in the financing of various private development activities with the City; and
WHEREAS, providing of such financing assistance can be of a significant benefit
to the activity financed; and should also be a valuable tool to the City in encouraging
and fastening certain types of development; and
WHEREAS, the public objectives can best be accomplished through the
administration of consistent guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed guidelines for private activity financing
as proposed by the City staff and is fully informed as to its content.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that the document entitled Private Activity Tax Exempt Financing Guidelines, a
copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, is hereby approved and adopted.
• Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
%3-3
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PRIVATE ACTIVITY
TAX EXEMPT FINANCING GUIDELINES
City Council Resolution No.
1996
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
BMB 106156
RC125-130
13-4
TAX EXEMPT FINANCING GUIDELINES
Table of Contents
Page
Part I General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Part II Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Part III Miscellaneous Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Part IV Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Commercial, Industrial or Health Care) . . . . . . 8
Part V Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Multi-Family Housing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Part VI Addendum to Application for Tax-Exempt Financing 14
Part VII Indemnification Letter of Agreement . . . . . . . . 18
BMB106156
RC125-130
/3-,45
E
PRIVATE ACTIVITY
TAX EXEMPT FINANCING GUIDELINES
PART I
GENERAL
Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165 (the "IDR Act"), the City of
Richfield has authority to issue industrial, commercial, and health
care revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically
sound industry and commerce to the City.
Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Housing Act"), the
City is authorized to issue housing revenue bonds to finance multi-
family residential housing projects for low and moderate income
persons and elderly persons. Projects must be embodied in a
Housing Program, as defined in the Housing Act.
The Council is aware that such financing for certain private
activities may be of benefit to the City and will consider requests
for tax exempt financing subject to these Guidelines. The Council
considers tax exempt financing to be a privilege, not a right.
It is the judgment of the Council that tax exempt financing is to
be used on a selective basis to encourage certain development that
• offers a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant
employment and housing opportunities. It is the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate the benefit to the City, both in
writing and at the public hearing. The applicant should understand
that although approval may have been granted by the City for the
issuance of financing for a similar project or a similar debt
structure, that is not a basis upon which approval will be granted.
Each application will be judged on the merits of the project as it
relates to the public purposes of the Housing Act or the IDR Act
and the benefit to the City at the time the request for financing
is being considered.
If tax exempt financing is to be issued by the Richfield Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, the Authority will conform to these
guidelines.
BMB106156 1
RC125-130
13-1?
PART II
GUIDELINES
1. The Council will consider tax exempt financing for commercial,
industrial and health care projects under the IDR Act and
housing projects under the Housing Act. An applicant for tax
exempt financing pursuant to the IDR Act must submit to the
City the application set forth in Part IV of these Guidelines.
An applicant for tax exempt financing pursuant to the Housing
Act must submit to the City the application set forth in Part
V of these Guidelines.
2. Projects must be compatible with the overall development plans
and objectives of the City and comply with the zoning and land
use regulations of the City.
3. An application will not be considered by the Council until
tentative City Code findings and requirements have been made
with respect to zoning, building plans, platting, streets, and
utility services. The application must be accompanied by the
addendum set forth in Part VI of these Guidelines and must
provide information as to the project's need for municipal
services including, but not limited to, street improvements,
water and sewer services, and police and fire protection. A
report based on a review of the project by the Community
Development Department must be presented to the Council prior
to consideration of a resolution giving preliminary approval
to the project.
4. The project must be a positive benefit to the City. The
project must be of a nature that the City wishes to attract,
or an existing business which the City wishes to have expand
within the City, considering employment opportunities,
incentive for further development, impact on City services,
and support for the industrial, commercial or health care
operations currently located in the City. A housing project
must provide significant housing opportunities for low and
moderate income persons or the elderly.
5. The Council will, if requested, grant an applicant a pre-
application review. The purpose of the pre-application review
is to inform potential applicants of the possibility of
certain rejection. The fact that the project is not rejected
at the pre-application stage is not to be construed as
approval of the project nor as an indication that the project
will be approved upon formal request to the Council. Requests
for tax exempt financing may be rejected by the City whether
or not the project was submitted to a pre-application review
and regardless of the outcome or recommendation of that pre-
application review.
• A request for pre-application review must be in writing,
addressed to the City Manager, and set forth the name of the
DJK40101 2
BU155-37
13--7
project, the type of improvement intended and the name,
address and telephone number of the person who will be
representing the potential applicant at the pre-application
review, together with such additional information as the
applicant desires to submit.
6. The applicant must select a qualified financial adviser or an
underwriter to assist the applicant in preparing all necessary
application documents and materials. The financial adviser
will submit a letter that establishes the financial
feasibility of the project. Applications may, in the
alternative, include a signed letter from a responsible
financial institution indicating that the project is
economically feasible and viable and stating that bonds can be
successfully sold for the project or that an individual or
institution intends to purchase all of the bonds.
The applicant must receive approval from the appropriate state
agencies, secure financing and commence construction within
one year of the date of the resolution giving preliminary
approval to the project or the housing program. Upon
application, the Council may approve an extension of the
preliminary approval.
The City will appoint bond counsel for the bond issue, which
will normally be the City's regularly retained bond counsel.
7. Pursuant to the IDR Act and the Housing Act, consideration of
an application for tax exempt financing must be done at a
public hearing held by the Council. Modifications to the
project after the public hearing and preliminary approval must
be consistent with the scope of the project as proposed at the
time of preliminary approval.
8. The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from
any out-of-pocket expenses related to the tax exempt financing
including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst
fees, bond counsel fees, and the City staff's expenses in
connection with the application. A non-refundable filing fee
in the amount of $5000 to insure reimbursement of the above
expenses must be included with the submission of the
application. The applicant must execute a letter to the City
undertaking to pay all such expenses even if they exceed the
deposit. A form of the required letter is set forth as Part
VII of these Guidelines.
9. Prior to closing and delivery of the bonds for the project,
the applicant must pay, or commit to pay as the case may be,
administrative fees determined as follows:
(i) Industrial, commercial and health care projects:
•
DJK40101 3
BU155-37
13-8
to the City, a one-time fee equal to 1/2% of the first
five million dollars of bonds plus 1/4% on the remaining
balance, with a maximum fee of $35,000.00.
(ii) Housing projects
A one time fee will be paid by the applicant to the
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority at the time
of the bond sale closing in the amount of 1% of the
bonds, not to exceed $35,000.00:
10. The City Manager must annually submit to the Council a summary
report of all project applications made in that year and
financings completed for the year. The report must include:
a. Total number of applications processed;
b. Total number and dollar volume of proposed projects;
C. Total amount of bonds issued;
d. Amount of tax base provided;
e. Number of jobs created; and
f. Number of new housing units constructed and occupied.
. 11. Applications for financing must be made on the forms attached
to these Guidelines. In addition, the applicant must furnish
a description of the project, a plot plan, elevation of
proposed buildings, landscape, lighting, and site preparation,
together with a brief description of applicant and the
proposed financing in such form as required at the time of
application.
13. The Council may, in its sole discretion, impose conditions
exceeding those required under the City building code in
respect to exterior building materials, landscaping, signage
lighting, and such other aspects as the Council may consider
appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
14. The Council may, in its sole discretion, withdraw its
preliminary approval of a project any time if in its judgment
the purposes of the Act will not be served by going forward
with the project and its financing.
•
DJK40101 4
BU155-37
/3-9
• PART III
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
1. Ratings. The City will give its most favorable consideration
to proposed tax exempt bond issues that have the same rating
as the City's obligations by Moody's Investment Service or
Standard & Poor's Corporation. Issues carrying lower ratings
or non-rated issues may be sold only to institutional or other
investors on a private placement basis and must be in
denominations of at least $100,000. The Council may depart
from this guideline when in its judgment the project is of a
level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure;
and in case of such a departure the Council must state its
reasons therefor in the resolution awarding the sale of the
bonds.
2. Refundings. The Council will normally approve the refunding
of a tax-exempt issue but only upon a showing by the applicant
of (i) substantial debt service savings, (ii) the removal of
bond covenants significantly impairing the financial
feasibility of the project, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). In
the case of, refundings of bonds for which the administrative
fees listed in paragraph 9 of Part II have been and are being
paid, no new administrative fees are required; but the non-
refundable application fee must be paid together with all City
expenses in excess of that fee.
In the case of refundings of bonds where no administrative fee
has been paid, the administrative fees listed in paragraph 9
of Part II must be paid. The application form is to be
appropriately modified.
3. Subsequent Proceedings. Where changes to the underlying
documents or credit facilities of outstanding bond issues are
to be made and require Council action, no administrative fee
is charged but a non-refundable fee of $2,500 must be
deposited with the City to cover administrative costs. No
formal application form is required.
4. Issue by Another Political Subdivision. The City will
consider requests for tax exempt financing of projects in the
City by other political subdivisions. In these cases the non-
refundable application fee must be paid and all procedures
through the approval of the preliminary resolution followed.
No administrative fee is charged.
5. City Contact. Initial contacts about tax-exempt financing are
made by contacting:
•
DJK40101 5
BU155-37
I3-10
Assistant City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
(612) 861-9702
All subsequent correspondence is to be similarly addressed
with a copy to bond counsel:
Kennedy & Graven Chartered
Attorneys at Law
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Attention: David J. Kennedy
or other bond counsel appointed by the City.
6. Deadlines. The Council conducts all tax exempt financing
matters at regularly scheduled Council meetings held on the
first and third Monday of each month. Documents for Council
consideration must be at the City office on the Tuesday
proceeding the Council meeting at which the matter is to be
considered. No exceptions to this requirement will be made.
In the case of a publicly offered bond issue the documents,
when submitted, may specify a maximum price and maximum
effective interest rate if prices and rates have not yet been
• established.
•
DJK40101 6
BU155-37
/3-//
PART IV
APPLICATION FOR
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Commercial, Industrial or Health Care)
1. APPLICANT
a. Business Name -
b. Business Address -
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, etc.) -
d. Authorized Representative -
e. Principal contact person and telephone number
2. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING:
a. New Facility (describe) -
b. Expansion (describe) -
C. Refunding (attach explanatory letter)
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC.:
4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding)
Land $
Building
Equipment
Architectural, Engineering
Costs of Issuance
Capitalized Interest,
including discount
Other
• Total Financing Requested $
DJK40101 7
BU155-37
/3-- ?Q
5. AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $ ( of
project costs)
6. TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED:
Bonds Tax Exempt Mortgage
Expected Term of Financing Years
Security:
Mortgage
Letter of Credit
Guaranty (third party)
Guaranty (personal)
Unsecured
other (specify)
7. BUSINESS PROFILE: (Not required for refunding)
a. Is the business located in the City of Richfield now?
• b. Number of employees in City:
1) Before this project -
2) After this project -
C. Approximate annual sales -
d. Length of time in business -
Length of time in business in City -
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
8. NAMES OF:
a. Corporate Counsel (name and contact person) -
b. Underwriter -
C. Underwriter's Counsel -
9. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start -
b. Construction completion -
DJK40101 8
BU155-37
f3--13
10. Attachments (Items b., c., d., e., f. and h. prepared by Bond
Counsel):
C. Draft comprehensive statement of Mayor -
e. Draft preliminary resolution -
f. Draft application to Department of Trade and Economic
Development with necessary attachments -
g. Financial feasibility letter -
h. Preliminary bond counsel opinion -
i. Initial filing fee ($5,000) -
j. Planning Commission recommendation and background
material -
k. Indemnification Letter of Agreement
• The applicant further states that it has been furnished a copy
of the City of Richfield's Private Activity Tax Exempt
Financing Guidelines and is aware of its content and agrees to
be bound by its terms and the terms of the indemnification
letter.
Applicant
BY
-
b. Draft resolution calling for public hearing -
a. ProjNoticeect of despubliccription hearing - materials
DATE
For Further Information Contact:
Assistant City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
(612) 861-9702
?.J
DJK40101 9
BU155-37
i 3-4
PART V
APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Multi-Family Housing)
•
•
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Efficiency
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
Parking (included in rent/
not included in rent)
CONTACT PERSON:
TITLE:
PHONE NUMBER
PROJECT NAME:
DATE OF APPLICATION:
RENT
UNITS
Laundry $
Utilities included in monthly rent:
OPERATING EXPENSES
% of Gross (Annual)
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $ DEVELOPER EQUITY: $
DEBT SERVICE: $ *HARD COSTS: $
LAND VALUE: $ SOFT COSTS: $
*(Hard Costs are all project costs the IRS has determined to be
eligible items for depreciation.)
DJX40101 10
BU155-37
13-16"
ANTICIPATED INTEREST RATES:
is HRB:
If the project was convention-
ally financed, what interest
rate would you expect to pay?
SALES ASSUMPTION:
How many years do you plan to
hold the property before you
sell?
years. At what percent do you
feel the value of the project
will appreciate?
EQUIPMENT:
AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE:
30-Year Amortization Schedule?
Yes
Other:
No (Circle One)
DEPRECIATION METHOD:
Years:
Type:
Amount of Total Basis: $
$ of project cost is for equipment (e.g.,
washers/dryers)
ANTICIPATED INCREASES: ANTICIPATED VACANCY RATE:
Revenue: % per year
Expenses: % per year
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
First Year:
After First Year: %
Anticipated construction commencement date:
Anticipated construction completion date:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
I certify that the information provided above is correct and
contains no misrepresentations or falsifications, omissions or
concealments of material facts and that the information given is
true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
to Title
Date
DJK40101 1 1
BU155-37
/3_/?
The following items must be attached to the application:
APPENDIX A
A brief description of the organizational structure of Applicant,
including parent subsidiary and affiliate organizations (if
applicant is other than an individual).
APPENDIX B
Statement of Applicant's business history, including any multi-
family rental projects.
APPENDIX C
The name, address, and telephone number of:
1. The Applicant 's legal counsel
2. The Applicant 's accountant
3. The architect of the proposed Project
4. The engineer of the proposed Project
5. The general c ontractor of the proposed Project
APPENDIX D
1. Present ownership of the proposed Project site and Applicant's
46
2 interest therein.
Present zoning of the Project site and a description of what
. city land use approvals are needed for this project.
added to the
b
3. e
The projected number of new employees to
e of the Project.
4. Applicant's permanent work force becaus
other financing attempted or available to the Project including
5 any interim financing.
Statement regarding whether or not this project has all
. required city approvals. If the project does not-have all of
rovals still needed and a
h
e app
the required approvals, list t
tentative time schedule.
APPENDIX E
Indemnification Letter of Agreement.
APPENDIX F
Proforma Analysis of the Project
E
DJK40101 12
BU155-37
13,1`7
PART VI
S ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Not required for refundings)
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Checklist of Required Submissions for Project Review
1. The following information, where applicable, must be submitted
for review by the Development Review Committee at least three
weeks prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which it is
to be considered.
a. A copy of the application
b. A copy of the proposed plat (at scale of 1" - 100')
C. Legal description (lot, section, township, village,
county)
d. Name of proposed subdivision, if applicable.
. e. Graphic scale
f. North arrow
g. Date
h. Property owners name and address
i. Covenants, liens, and encumbrances
j. Name and address of licensed professional engineer,
surveyor, and/or land planner involved in the preparation
of the sketch plat or proposed plan.
k. Location of property lines
1. Existing easements
M. Burial grounds
n. Railroad rights-of-way
o. Water courses
p. Existing wooded areas
DJK40101 1 3
BU155-37
l3r?8
q. Trees, eight inches or more in diameter measured four
• feet above ground level
r. Location, width and names of all existing or platted
streets or other public ways within or immediately
adjacent to tract
s. Names of adjoining property owners from the latest
County, City, or Township assessment roles within 300
feet of any perimeter boundary of the subdivision
t. Location, sizes, elevations, and slopes of existing
sewers, water mains, culverts, and other underground
structures within the tract and immediately adjacent
thereto
U. Existing permanent buildings
v. Utility poles on or immediately adjacent to the site and
utility right-of-way
w. Approximate topography, at the same scale as the sketch
plan
X. The approximate location and widths of proposed streets
Y. Preliminary proposals for connection with existing water
supply and sanitary sewer systems, preliminary provisions
for collecting and discharging surface water drainage
Z. The approximate location, dimensions, and areas of all
proposed or existing lots
aa. The approximate location, dimensions, and areas of all
parcels of land proposed to be set aside for park or
playground use or other public use or for the use of
property owners in the proposed subdivision
bb. The location of temporary stakes to enable the Planning
Commission to find and appraise features of the sketch
plat in the field
CC. Whenever the sketch plan covers only a part of an
applicant's contiguous holdings, the applicant shall
submit, at a scale of not more that 2001=111, a sketch in
pen or pencil of the proposed subdivision area, together
with its proposed street systems and an indication of the
probable future street and drainage system for the
remaining portion of the tract.
dd. A vicinity map showing streets and other general
development of the surrounding area at a scale of
40 1"=100'. The sketch plat must show all school district
DJK40101 14
BU155-37
13-19
lines and zoning district lines with the zones properly
• designated.
2. Required submissions for building permit review:
Certificate of Survey
a. Parcel number as recorded at the County
b. All land divisions to be recorded at County prior to
obtaining building permit
c. Parcel square footage
d. A location map showing this parcel's location within the
plat
Site Plan
a. Existing topography at a scale of not less than 1"=100'
with two foot contour intervals
b. All required building and parking setbacks should be
illustrated on the plan
c. Building locations and square footages
• d. Existing vegetation and other natural features including
water bodies or water courses, rock outcrops, etc.
Landscape Plan
a. The location of all areas to be sodded or seeded
b. The location and size of plantings, indicate both common
and botanical names
c. Planting details which clearly illustrate the manner in
which each different material will be planted
Lighting Plan
a. Type of fixture, type of lighting (high pressure sodium,
metal halide, etc.), and intensity of proposed lighting
system
b. Location and height of all fixtures
c. The petitioner should also supply an Isolux diagram
(available from lighting distributor) to illustrate at
least the intensity of light at the property lines.
However, on major projects it is advisable for the
petitioner to supply the plan showing the photometric
contours of varying light intensity throughout the site.
DJK40101 1 5
BU155-37
/3-c-?0
Signage
a. The location, size, and design of all signs including a
description of all materials to be used in the
construction of said signs. Any proposed use of color,
or use of lighting should be clearly described and
illustrated.
b. In the case of major developments the City encourages the
development of signage programs to govern the use of
signs throughout the project. For additional information
regarding such programs, please contact the Planning
Department.
Parking
a. Number of spaces provided, floor area, and occupant load
b. Concrete curb area and design
c. Bituminous area and design
d. Parking lot striping
e. Location of handicapped parking
Building Plans
a. Floor layouts
b. Building elevations (front, sides, and rear, including
detailed explanation and illustration of all exterior
building materials)
C. Rooftop unit screening (architecturally designed and
compatible with building)
Trash Handling
Requirements of Zoning ordinance (inside or screened)
C7
DJK40101 16
BU155-37
O--a.1
PART VII
INDEMNIFICATION LETTER OF AGREEMENT
The Mayor of the City of Richfield
and Members of the City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
RE: Application of for Tax Exempt Revenue Bond
Financing by the City of Richfield
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This letter of agreement is given by . a
under the laws of ("Applicant"), as
required by the City of Richfield in connection with its
consideration of an application for tax exempt revenue bond
financing for the project described in the application.
Applicant hereby covenants, warrants and agrees as follows:
1. Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all
costs and expenses which the City may incur in connection with
• its consideration of the project and the granting of tax exempt
revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the project is
preliminarily approved by the City, whether or not the project
is approved by the State of Minnesota, whether or not revenue
bond financing is, finally approved by the City, whether or not
the bonds are issued and sold, and whether or not the project
is carried to completion.
2. Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
employees and agents harmless against any and all losses,
claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys
fees incurred in their defense, to which the City, its
officers, employees and agents may become subject in connection
with the City's consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds
for Applicant's project and the carrying out of the
transactions contemplated by this agreement and any resolutions
adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with
the issuance of its bonds for this project.
3. Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and
employees from any claims, causes of action, losses, damages,
or liabilities which it may have against the City, its
officers, agents, and employees or which it may incur in
connection with: the City's consideration of the application
for industrial development revenue bond financing for
Applicant's project; the failure of the City, in its
discretion, to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Applicant's
DJK40101 1 7
BU155-37
project; the issuance and sale
• of the project; or any,other
nature whatsoever which may
foregoing.
of the bonds; the construction
matter or thing of any type or
arise in connection with the
4. Applicant is aware of the City's application and administrative
fee structure for tax exempt financing and agrees and covenants
that all such fees will be paid in the amount and at the times
required.
Dated:
•
C?
(Applicant)
By
Its
DJK40101 18
BU155-37
/ LP-
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 281
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City Project No. 902, 1995 alley
maintenance for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held August 26, 1996 on the
assessment for the cost of current maintenance services on alleys for the period
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. City staff has calculated the proper
amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially
benefited.
The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was duly
published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in the
assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services January 1 through December 31, 1995 will be
assessed at $20,000. Actual costs were $32,858.95 for labor, material and equipment
related to alley patching, sweeping, snowplowing and joint sealing. Council approved a
proposal to assess a constant $20,000 each year for alley maintenance services in
order to bank monies for biannual joint cleaning bidding. This was done to provide
better contract prices for crack sealing and joint cleaning, and to reduce resident
complaints of fluctuating maintenance assessments for alleys.
Due to the length of the list, the assessment roll is not included in the Council packet,
but a copy of the assessment roll for alley maintenance January 1, 1995 through
December 31, 1995 will be available for Council reference and review at the August 26,
1996 City Council public hearing. The estimated assessment for maintenance services
for 1996 is $20,000.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions about the special
assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing
provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be
certified to the county auditor for collection along with current taxes. It is recommended
that the certification adopted by the City Council provide that payments be due and
payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The City has the right to
charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially for
the current services. It is the recommendation of staff that the interest rate be
established at eight percent, the maximum permitted by law. A property owner may
/0--I
make payment before November 15, 19.96 in order to avoid interest payments.
Payments made after that date, up to December 31, 1996, would include the interest
charges.
Recommended Motion:
Following the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution, adopting the assessment roll of City Project No. 902, alley
maintenance for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official City newspaper as
required by state statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by law.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the assessment roll as a
result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed
assessment as it deems just."
• Resp ly submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
E
RESOLUTION NO.
/0_C .
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 902, ALLEY
MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council
has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current
services related to maintenance of the following alleys in the City of Richfield:
Number Surroundina Avenues Surroundina Streets
1001 Xerxes-Washburn 66th-67th
1002 Xerxes-Washburn 67th-68th
1003 Xerxes-Washburn 68th-69th
1004 Xerxes-Washburn 69th-70th
1005 ' Washburn-Vincent 66th-67th
1006 Washburn-Vincent 67th-68th
1007 Washburn-Vincent 68th-69th
1008 Washburn-Vincent 69th-70th
1009 Vincent-Upton 66th-67th
1010 Vincent-Upton 67th-68th
1011 Vincent-Upton 68th-69th
1012 Vincent-Upton 69th-70th
1013 Upton-Thomas 66th-67th
1014 Upton-Thomas 68th-69th
1015 Upton-Thomas 69th-70th
1016 Thomas-Sheridan 66th-67th
1017 Thomas-Sheridan 67th-68th
1018 Thomas-Sheridan 68th-69th
1019 Thomas-Sheridan 69th-70th
1020 Sheridan-Russell 66th-67th
1021 Sheridan-Russell 67th-68th
1022 Sheridan-Russell 68th-69th
1023 Sheridan-Russell 69th-70th
1024 Russell-Queen 66th-67th
1025 Russell-Queen 67th-68th
1026 Russell-Queen 68th-69th
1027 Russell-Queen 69th-70th
1028 Queen-Penn 66th-67th
1029 Queen-Penn 67th-68th
1030 Queen-Penn 68th-69th
1031 Queen-Penn 69th-70th
2001 Penn-Oliver 63rd-64th
2002 Oliver-Newton 63rd-64th
2004 Morgan-Logan 63rd-64th
2005 Logan-Knox 63rd-64th
2007 James-Irving 63rd-64th
2008 Irving-Humboldt 63rd-64th
2009 Humboldt-Girard 63rd-64th
2010 Girard-Fremont (35W) 63rd-64th
2011 Girard-Fremont (35W) 64th-65th
1a-3
2012 Girard-Fremont (35W) 65th-66th
2013 Fremont (35W)-Emerson 64th-65th
2014 Fremont (35W)-Emerson 65th-66th
2015 Dupont-Colfax 63rd-Mildred
2016 Colfax-Bryant 63rd-Mildred
2017 Bryant-Aldrich 63rd-Mildred
2019 Graham-Lyndale 66th-Lake Shore Drive
2020 Aldrich-Lyndale 75th-76th
2021 Aldrich-Lyndale 76th-77th
3002 Lyndale-Garfield 68th-69th
3003 Augsburg-Garfield 70th-71 st
3004 Augsburg-Garfield 71st-72nd
3005 Lyndale-Garfield 72nd-73rd
3006 Lyndale-Garfield 73rd-74th
3007 Garfield-Harriet 71st-72nd
3008 Garfield-Harriet 72nd-73rd
3009 Garfield-Harriet 73rd-74th
3011 Harriet-Grand 67th-68th
3012 Harriet-Grand 68th-69th
3013 Harriet-Grand 72nd-73rd
3014 Harriet-Grand 73rd-74th
3015 Grand-Pleasant 68th-69th
3016 Grand-Pleasant 72nd-73rd
3018 Wentworth-Blaisdell 67th-68th
. 3020 Blaisdell-Nicollet 72nd-73rd
3021 Blaisdell-Nicollet 73rd-74th
3022 Blaisdell-Nicollet 74th-75th
3023 Blaisdell-Nicollet 75th-76th
3024 Nicollet-1st Avenue 68th-69th
3025 Nicollet-1 st Avenue 70th-71 st
3026 Nicollet-1 st Avenue 71 st-72nd
3027 Nicollet-1st Avenue 72nd-73rd
3028 1 st Avenue-Stevens 71st-72nd
3029 1st Avenue-Stevens 72nd-73rd
3030 Stevens-2nd Avenue 71 st-72nd
3031 Stevens-2nd Avenue 72nd-73rd
3032 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 66th-67th
3033 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 71st-72nd
3034 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 72nd-73rd
3035 3rd Avenue-Clinton 66th-67th
3036 3rd Avenue-Clinton 73rd-74th
3037 Clinton-4th Avenue 66th-67th
3038 Clinton-4th Avenue 73rd-74th
3039 4th Avenue-5th Avenue 66th-67th
3040 4th Avenue-5th Avenue 73rd-74th
4001 13th Avenue-14th Avenue 65th-66th
4002 14th Avenue-15th Avenue 62nd-63rd
4004 15th Avenue-Bloomington 62nd-63rd
4005 15th Avenue-Bloomington 65th-66th
4006 Bloomington-16th Avenue 65th-66th
4007 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 63rd-64th
4008 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 64th-65th
4009 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 65th-66th
4012 22nd-Standish Avenue 65th-66th
4013 13th-14th Avenue 66th-67th
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of $20,000 is hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein,
and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1996 and shall bear
interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment
resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole or part of the
assessment on such property to the city's Assessing Division, except that no interest
shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days of the adoption of this
resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city's Assessing Division the
entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December
31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the
county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
L?l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 280
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City Project No. 901, 77th Street
maintenance for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held August 26, 1996 on the
assessment for the cost of current maintenance services performed in the 77th Street
project area for the period January 1 through December 31, 1995. City staff has
calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or
parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with
the City Clerk, notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll. This assessment roll includes both commercial
and multi-family residential properties.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled $10,569.06. Estimated
1997 costs for the current maintenance services are $58,973.
The current maintenance services for this period included, but were not necessarily
limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things,
mowing, fertilizing and edging.
2. Irrigation maintenance.
3. General maintenance including litter and trash removal.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 901, 77th
Street Maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official City newspaper as
required by state statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by law.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
0
0 Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the assessment roll as a
result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed
assessment as it deems just."
Respectf y submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
RESOLUTION NO. //_C?
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 901
• 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1 -DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council
has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current
services related to maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Area, which is
approximately bounded by 1-35W, 76th Street, 1-494 and Portland Avenue in the City of
Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of $10,569.06, is
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named
herein, and each tract of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
current services in the amount of assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1996 and shall bear
interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment
resolution.
• 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment
on such property to the city's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter,
pay to the city's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made.
Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through
December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the
county and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
/?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 279
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City Project No. 900, L/H/N
maintenance for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held August 26, 1996 on the
assessment for the cost of current maintenance services performed in the L/H/N
Redevelopment Area for the period January 1 through December 31, 1995. City staff
has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece
or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with
the City Clerk, notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled $36,105.50. Estimated
1996 costs for the current maintenance services are $46,080.
The current maintenance services for this period included, but were not necessarily
• limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscaping, including tree trimming;
2. Extra street sweeping in the summer;
3. Snow removal in the winter;
4. Sidewalk deicing;
5. Painting and repair of wood furniture;
6. Trash removal;
7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement;
8. Irrigation maintenance.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be
certified to the county auditor for collection along with taxes. It is the staff
recommendation that such payments be due and payable within the first year, rather
than in installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1 through
December 31, 1995 would be county auditor by the end of October. The City has the
right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds
initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of City staff that the interest
rate be established at eight percent. Payment may be made by the assessed owner
before November 15, 1996, in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after
that date would include the interest payment.
0
ID'I
• Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 900,
UH/N maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official City newspaper as
required by state statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by law.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the assessment roll as a
result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed
assessment as it deems just."
Resp tf y submitted,
James Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:cak
0
/o-c-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 900
L/H/N MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council
has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current
services related to maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment
Area, which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and
Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of $36,105.50, is
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named
herein, and each tract of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
current services in the amount of assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1996 and shall bear
interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment
resolution.
0 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment
on such property to the city's Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter,
pay to the city's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made.
Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through
December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the
county and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 278
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Continuation of the public hearing regarding adoption of the assessment roll for removal
of diseased trees from private property for the period January 1, 1995 through
December 31, 1995.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday, August 26, 1996 for
the assessment of the cost for removal of diseased trees from private property during
the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. City staff has calculated the
proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
specially benefited. The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk
and notice was duly published. However, notices were not mailed to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll in time for the two week advance notice
required by law.
The cost of diseased tree removal from private property for this period, which residents
chose to assess to their property taxes, totaled $14,697.85. In 1994, $27,229.40 was
assessed for this work; in 1993, $29,367.56 was assessed for this work; in 1992, the
total was $37,994.70, and in 1991, the total assessed was $34,116.57. City ordinance
provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county
auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the
assessments be completely paid in the first year or in annual installments. It is the staff
recommendation that such payments be due and payable over a three year period.
The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31,
1995 would be certified with the county auditor by the end of October 1996. The City
has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the
funds for the initial expense. It is the staff recommendation that the interest rate be
established at eight percent, the maximum allowed by state law. Payment may be
made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1996 in order to avoid interest
payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions about the special
assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing
provides an opportunity for all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
Recommended Motion:
Continue the public hearing regarding the assessment for removal of diseased trees
from private property for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995 to the
September 23, 1996 City Council meeting which will allow time to publish the legal
P, i
. notice in the official newspaper and meet the required two week advance notice to the
affected property owners.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official City newspaper as
required by State Statute.
2. Each affected property owner has not been notified of the proposed assessment as
required by law.
3. Continuing the public hearing to September 23, 1996 will allow time to publish the
legal notice in the official newspaper and meet the required two week advance notice
to the affected property owners.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Continue the public hearing regarding the assessment for removal of diseased trees
from private property for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995 to the
September 23, 1996 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
e D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
9,2
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES
FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1995 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City
Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
current services related to removal of diseased trees from the following private property
in the City of Richfield:
Property Address
7138 Fourth Avenue
7312 Blaisdell Avenue
7601 Oliver Avenue
6808 Cedar Avenue
6605 Irving Avenue
7400 Pillsbury Avenue
6313-14th Avenue
6239 Aldrich Avenue
7044 James Avenue
6330 Blaisdell Avenue
6525 Oliver Avenue
7031 Fifth Avenue
7621-12th Avenue
6408-14th Avenue
6325-20th Avenue
6344-21st Avenue
6637 Thomas Avenue
6516-21 st Avenue
6210 Russell Avenue
6425-15th Avenue
7314 Penn Avenue
6804-13th Avenue
6937 Logan Avenue
Property Identification Number
34-02824-11-0043
34-02824-24-0091
33-02824-33-0064
26-02824-44-0002
28-02824-31-0092
34-02824-31-0049
26-02824-12-0094
28-02824-11-0020
33-02824-21-0039
27-02824-21-0077
28-02824-23-0093
34-02824-11-0081
35-02824-43-0037
26-02824-13-0117
25-02824-22-0045
25-02824-22-0051
29-02824-41-0064
25-02824-23-0059
29-02824-11-0107
26-02824-13-0046
32-02824-14-0072
26-02824-43-0024
28-02824-34-0060
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $14,697.85, is hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein,
and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
R-3
2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than three annual
installments and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the date of adoption
of this assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment
on such property to the city's Assessing Division, and he may at any time thereafter,
pay to the city's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is
made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the
county and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of
September, 1996
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 277
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing current maintenance services for City alleys for
the period of January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997, proposed City Project No. 924.
Background:
On July 8, 1996, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for August 26, 1996 concerning
the 1997 alley maintenance project.
In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously passed by the City Council, it is
necessary for the Council to initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The maintenance
functions to be financed through special assessments include such work as rough grading,
cleaning and sweeping, cold patching and snow plowing. Because the vast majority of alleys
have now been paved, the primary routine maintenance function is anticipated to be snow
plowing, and annual costs are about $10,000. A concrete joint sealing maintenance program
for paved alleys was initiated in the 1989 alley maintenance program. The joint sealing
program was not performed in 1994, due to the small quantity of work. However, in 1995
approximately $22,000 of crack sealing repairs was contracted. In order to bank sufficient
monies to perform this work on a biannual basis, a constant $20,000 needs to be assessed
each year for alley maintenance.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to alley maintenance special
assessment for current services:
Year Estimated Actual Amount Assessed
1985 $15,141.97
1986 $23,600 11,834.29
1987 7,000 9,977.18
1988 17,000 8,453.93
1989 20,000 17,725.98
1990 20,000 17,213.95
1991 20,000 21,426.94
1992 20,000 19,752.06
1993 20,000 17,833.49
1994 20,000 20,000.00 (Actual cost - $8,614.92)
1995 20,000 20,000.00 (Actual cost - $32,858.95)
1996 20,000
1997 20,000
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution ordering proposed City
Project No. 924, 1997 alley maintenance project and special assessment of current services.
S'l
Basis of Recommendation:
. 1. Notice of the proposed assessment was published in the official City newspaper.
2. Each property owner within the area proposed to be assessed was mailed a notice as
required by State law.
3. It has been the Council policy for 15 years to assess for alley maintenance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The current alley maintenance project will lapse at the end of the year. A new project should be
established by January 1, 1997; so the Council may defer the decision to a future meeting
before the end of the year, if desired.
submitted,
James. Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
0
9 r a
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997
PROPOSED TO BE
CITY PROJECT NO. 924
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 8th day of July, 1996, fixed a
date for a public hearing on the proposed maintenance of the following alleys:
Number Surroundina Avenues Surroundina Streets
1001 Xerxes-Washburn 66th-67th
1002 Xerxes-Washburn 67th-68th
1003 Xerxes-Washburn 68th-69th
1004 Xerxes-Washburn 69th-70th
1005 Washburn-Vincent 66th-67th
1006 Washburn-Vincent 67th-68th
1007 Washburn-Vincent 68th-69th
1008 Washburn-Vincent 69th-70th
1009 Vincent-Upton 66th-67th
1010 Vincent-Upton 67th-68th
• 1011 Vincent-Upton 68th-69th
1012 Vincent-Upton 69th-70th
1013 Upton-Thomas 66th-67th
1014 Upton-Thomas 68th-69th
1015 Upton-Thomas 69th-70th
1016 Thomas-Sheridan 66th-67th
1017 Thomas-Sheridan 67th-68th
1018 Thomas-Sheridan 68th-69th
1019 Thomas-Sheridan 69th-70th
1020 Sheridan-Russell 66th-67th
1021 Sheridan-Russell 67th-68th
1022 Sheridan-Russell 68th-69th
1023 Sheridan-Russell 69th-70th
1024 Russell-Queen 66th-67th
1025 Russell-Queen 67th-68th
1026 Russell-Queen 68th-69th
1027 Russell-Queen 69th-70th
1028 Queen-Penn 66th-67th
1029 Queen-Penn 67th-68th
1030 Queen-Penn 68th-69th
1031 Queen-Penn 69th-70th
2001 Penn-Oliver 63rd-64th
2002 Oliver-Newton 63rd-64th
2004 Morgan-Logan 63rd-64th
g-3
2005 Logan-Knox 63rd-64th
2007 James-Irving 63rd-64th
2008 Irving-Humboldt 63rd-64th
2009 Humboldt-Girard 63rd-64th
2010 Girard-Fremont (35W) 63rd-64th
2011 Girard-Fremont (35W) 64th-65th
2012 Girard-Fremont (35W) 65th-66th
2013 Fremont (35W)-Emerson 64th-65th
2014 Fremont (35W)-Emerson 65th-66th
2015 Dupont-Colfax 63rd-Mildred
2016 Colfax-Bryant 63rd-Mildred
2017 Bryant-Aldrich 63rd-Mildred
2019 Graham-Lyndale 66th-Lake Shore Drive
2020 Aldrich-Lyndale 75th-76th
2021 Aldrich-Lyndale 76th-77th
3002 Lyndale-Garfield 68th-69th
3003 Augsburg-Garfield 70th-71st
3004 Augsburg-Garfield 71st-72nd
3005 Lyndale-Garfield 72nd-73rd
3006 Lyndale-Garfield 73rd-74th
3007 Garfield-Harriet 71st-72nd
3008 Garfield-Harriet 72nd-73rd
S 3009 Garfield-Harriet 73rd-74th
3011 Harriet-Grand 67th-68th
3012 Harriet-Grand 68th-69th
3013 Harriet-Grand 72nd-73rd
3014 Harriet-Grand 73rd-74th
3015 Grand-Pleasant 68th-69th
3016 Grand-Pleasant 72nd-73rd
3018 Wentworth-Blaisdell 67th-68th
3020 Blaisdell-Nicollet 72nd-73rd
3021 Blaisdell-Nicollet 73rd-74th
3022 Blaisdell-Nicollet 74th-75th
3023 Blaisdell-Nicollet 75th-76th
3024 Nicollet-1 st Avenue 68th-69th
3025 Nicollet-1st Avenue 70th-71 st
3026 Nicollet-1 st Avenue 71st-72nd
3027 Nicollet-1st Avenue 72nd-73rd
3028 1 st Avenue-Stevens 71st-72nd
3029 1st Avenue-Stevens 72nd-73rd
3030 Stevens-2nd Avenue 71st-72nd
3031 Stevens-2nd Avenue 72nd-73rd
3032 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 66th-67th
3033 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 71st-72nd
3034 2nd Avenue-3rd Avenue 72nd-73rd
3035 3rd Avenue-Clinton 66th-67th
3036 3rd Avenue-Clinton 73rd-74th
3037 Clinton-4th Avenue 66th-67th
3038 Clinton-4th Avenue 73rd-74th
3039 4th Avenue-5th Avenue 66th-67th
3040 4th Avenue-5th Avenue 73rd-74th
4001 13th Avenue-14th Avenue 65th-66th
4002 14th Avenue-15th Avenue 62nd-63rd
4004 15th Avenue-Bloomington 62nd-63rd
4005 15th Avenue-Bloomington 65th-66th
4006 Bloomington-16th Avenue 65th-66th
4007 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 63rd-64th
4008 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 64th-65th
4009 Cedar-Longfellow Avenue 65th-66th
4012 22nd-Standish Avenue 65th-66th
4013 13th-14th Avenue 66th-67th
WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed for the
current maintenance services described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the required
notice; and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and at least two weeks advance publication of the
required notice was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on this 26th day of August, 1996, at which time
all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed by resolution adopted July 8, 1996
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, City force, by contract or by any
combination thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 276
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) area for
current services for the period January 1 through December 31, 1997, proposed City
Project No. 923.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for August 26, 1996 to consider the
establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in
the LHN redevelopment area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of
commercial property in the area and was published in the official newspaper as
required by law.
The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the
trimming and watering of trees and plants, operation of a special street lighting system,
removal of snow and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized
maintenance functions.
The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1997
is $47,730. All commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with
each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred
in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and
sidewalks. There is an agreement between the City and the businesses that the
business shall maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City must
perform this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the
special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given property.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to the LHN maintenance
special assessments for current services:
1985 Actual $35,726
1986 Estimated $52,900
1986 Actual $40,110
1987 Estimated $49,936
1987 Actual $45,694.16
1988 Estimated $50,142
1988 Actual $44,405.24
1989 Estimated $40,614
1989 Actual $43,151.19
1990 Estimated $44,560
i 1990 Actual $43,539.10
1991 Estimated $44,153
I'l
n
n
1991 Actual $43,825.22
1992 Estimated $46,484
1992 Actual $47,005.26
1993 Estimated $45,050
1993 Actual $34,866.01
1994 Estimated $45,115
1994 Actual $44,635.70
1995 Estimated $45,516
1995 Actual $36,105.50
1996 Estimated $46,080
1997 Estimated $47,730
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the LHN
maintenance work for the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 (City
Project No. 923) to be performed and the costs specially assessed.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the proposed assessment has been published in the official newspaper.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the proposed assessment.
3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended in order to
sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been
successful over the past years.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing has been scheduled for the August 26,
R p ly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
1996 City Council meeting.
40
/ r D'
9
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997 - CITY PROJECT NO. 923
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did
establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain services be
undertaken by the City in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately
bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the
cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution
set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the
levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and
WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 26,
1996 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity
to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be
undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment Project Area, which area
constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family
and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially
assessed against the benefited property within the district:
a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
b. Weed elimination;
C. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private
property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26;
d. Installation and repair of water service lines;
e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees;
g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways;
h. Operation of the street lighting system;
i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or
adjacent to street right-of-way;
j. Maintenance of civic plaza;
k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
1. Painting and repair of wood furniture; and
M. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
7-3
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or
by any combination thereof.
3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through
December 31, 1997. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in
the Richfield Ordinance Code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 275
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Continuation of the public hearing to consider specially assessing the 77th Street
Project Area for current maintenance services for the period of January 1 through
December 31, 1997 - City Project No. 922.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for August 26, 1996 to consider the
establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in
the 77th Street Project Area between 1-35W and Cedar Avenue. The notice of the
public hearing was placed in the official newspaper. However, the notices to all
commercial property owners in the area were not mailed prior to the two week advance
notice required by law.
The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the
trimming and watering of trees and plants, repair of sidewalks, trash and litter removal,
irrigation maintenance and repair, and removal of snow and ice from sidewalks,
maintenance of the sound wall barrier and performance of other specialized
maintenance functions.
The estimated cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1997 is $58,973.
All commercial properties would be assessed on a square foot basis.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to the former ILN/now 77th
Street project maintenance special assessments for current services:
1988 Actual $7,001.47 77th St./Lyndale - Harriet Aves.
1989 Estimated $7,254 it 11 1989 Actual $6,135.54 "
1990 Estimated $7,514 "
1990 Actual $7,662.52 it
1991 Estimated $7,780 " "
1991 Actual $8,855.46 it 91 1992 Estimated $8,894 it "
1992 Actual $7,031.70 "
1993 Estimated $9,200 "
1993 Actual $3,614.94 "
1994 -0-*
1995 Estimated $18,000 77th St/35W - Portland Ave.
1995 Actual $10,569.06
1996 Estimated $33,795 77th St/35W - Cedar Ave.
1997 Estimated $58,973
After Construction &
Warranties Completed $72,000
*Because the landscape work was not to be completed until 1994 and much of the work
would have a guarantee period, the cost of performing the maintenance service in the
I LN for 1994 was estimated to be $0.
Recommended Motion:
Continue the public hearing regarding specially assessing the 77th Street Project Area
for current maintenance services for the period of January 1 through December 31,
1997-City Project No. 922 to the September 23, 1996 City Council meeting which will
allow time to publish the legal notice in the official newspaper and meet the required
two week advance notice to the affected property owners.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the proposed assessment has been published in the official newspaper.
2. Each affected property owner has not been notified of the proposed assessment.
3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended in order to
sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been
successful over the past years.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing has been scheduled for the August 26, 1996 City Council meeting.
However, the public hearing should be continued to September 23, 1996.
Respe Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
? , C-)--
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
77TH STREET PROJECT AREA - CITY PROJECT NO. 922
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did
establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be
undertaken by the City in the 77th Street Project Area, approximately bounded by 1-
35W, 77th Street, 1-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be
specially assessed against benefited property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution
set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and
the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and
WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on August 26,
1996 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity
to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be
undertaken by the City within the 77th Street Project Area, which area constitutes the
special assessment district with the exception of single family and two family residential
properties, plus the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be
specially assessed against the benefited property within the district:
a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
b. Weed elimination;
C. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private
property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26;
d. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
e. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees;
f. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways;
g. Operation of the street lighting system;
h. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or
adjacent to street right-of-way;
i. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
i. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
• 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or
by any combination thereof.
I?--3
3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through
December 31, 1997. Costs of the project shall be in the manner provided in the
Richfield Ordinance Code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of
September, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
is
s
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 274
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating a portion of West
77-1/2 Street.
Background:
On August 14, 1995 the City Council approved the vacation of 77-1/2 Street, except for
the north half of that portion of the street adjacent to the former Conoco Station, 7700
Lyndale Avenue. That portion was not vacated to provide access to Lyndale Avenue
for the station.
The City, on behalf of its municipal liquor operations, and CSM Corporation, owners of
the Shops at Lyndale, have agreed to share a joint access to Lyndale Avenue. A public
street is no longer needed to provide access to Lyndale Avenue.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of a transitory ordinance to vacate a
portion of West 77-1/2 Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This portion of West 77-1/2 Street is no longer needed for right-of-way.
2. The City and CSM have agreed to share joint access to Lyndale Avenue
eliminating the need for a public street.
3. City Engineering recommends vacating the street and relocating the access onto
Lyndale Avenue further to the south of the intersection of 77th Street and Lyndale
Avenue.
4. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
5. The City Council held first reading on July 22, 1996 and set the public hearing and
second reading for August 26, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Refer this vacation to the Planning Commission for review.
2. Deny the vacation.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 26, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Resp c ; submitted,
James Prosser
City Ma ger
JDP:cak
• BILL NO. 1996-
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF WEST 77-1/2 STREET
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land has been dedicated to the public for
street right-of-way purposes:
The northerly one-half of West 77-1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of
STRAND'S SECOND ADDITION TO RICHFIELD, which lies easterly of the
southerly extension of the east line of Lot 6, Block 1, in said Addition.
Sec. 2. The fee owner of abutting land, the City of Richfield, has petitioned for
the vacation of that part of West 77-1/2 Street as described in Section 1 of this
ordinance.
Sec. 3. The Council finds that there is no longer a public need for a street
easement over that portion of West 77-1/2 Street as described in Section 1.
Sec. 4. The street easement over that portion of 77-1/2 Street, as described in
Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
August, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
PROPOSED 77 1/2 STREET VACATION
77TH STREET
7700 LYNDALE AVENUE
? i
I LIQUOR STORE SITE
Q ? I
Q ? 1
Z
Q
cr)
M
O
N
w
z
J?
!Y
w
z
w
U
w
D
Zi
w
Q
w
J
D
Z
J
50'
0
ca
ALREADY VACATED I
r
4\?
?lv
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 30'
DATE: 7-12-96
SITE PLAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 273
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of a decision made by
the Community Development Director that the use of the building at 6722 Penn Avenue
for motorcycle repair is a change in use from the previous use for small engine repair.
Background:
In March 1996, the owner of Select Custom Cycle contacted the Community
Development Department to inquire about locating a motorcycle parts and repair
business at 6722 Penn Avenue. Staff informed the owner that the sale of motorcycle
parts is a permitted use at 6722 Penn Avenue (zoned C-2, general commercial) but that
the repair portion of the business makes the use a public mechanical garage, which
requires a conditional use permit.
Several months later, staff observed that Select Custom Cycle was operating a
business at 6722 Penn Avenue and was selling motorcycle parts and conducting repair
without a conditional use permit or a business license. Staff informed the owner that
the operation was in violation of City ordinances and the owner was given one week to
submit a conditional use permit application. Upon receipt of the application, staff met
with the owner to explain the conditions that need to be met to obtain a conditional use
permit.
According to the Uniform Building Code and State Building Code, which have been
adopted for use by the City, motor vehicle repair is classified in a different occupancy
classification than uses such as retail, storage or small engine repair. When a use or
occupancy classification of a building changes, the use and the building must comply
with the ordinance requirements for that particular use. The occupancy classification
for motor vehicle repair requires installation of a sprinkler system for buildings of this
size. In addition, the City's zoning ordinance requires that mechanical garages be
separated from residential districts by a 15 foot buffer yard with fencing and
landscaping.
The owner of Select Custom Cycle does not own the building and is not in favor of
making the required improvements. He is seeking relief from the interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance by City staff that the business is a change in use from the previous
use of the building.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the request for an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision that
the motorcycle repair business at 6722 Penn Avenue is a change in use from the
previous small engine repair business and direct the business owner to proceed
immediately with the conditional use permit process.
q I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Community Development Director, in consultation with the Assistant City
Attorney, determined that repair of a motorcycle is a change in use from the
previous small engine repair business because motorcycle repair is more similar to
repair of an automobile than to a small engine in terms of the size of the engine,
amount of fluid and types of repair to be conducted.
2. The City Building Official, Zoning Administrator and Fire Marshall concur with the
Community Development Director's determination that motorcycle repair is a change
in use from small engine repair and have applied the Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance accordingly.
3. The 1994 Uniform Building Code and Minnesota State Building Code classify motor
vehicle repair as a Group S occupancy, which requires installation of a sprinkler
system for a building of this size.
4. The City Zoning Ordinance considers public mechanical garages to be conditional
uses. Several conditions, including installation of a buffer yard next to residential
districts, must be met to obtain a conditional use permit.
5. The owner of the business was informed several months ago that he would need a
conditional use permit to conduct repairs at 6722 Penn Avenue. He neither applied
for a conditional use permit nor appealed staff's determination at that time.
6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet.
Alternative Recommendation:
Approve the request for an appeal and reverse the decision of the Community
Development Director.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 26, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Re t ully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 25' DATE: 8-19-96
SITE PLAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 272
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a residential kennel license for Lori
Soderman, 6830 Columbus Avenue.
Background:
On August 2, 1996, Lori Soderman submitted an application for a residential kennel
license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Soderman's application contains the signatures of
contiguous property owners.
On August 16, 1996, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community
Service Officer. There were no apparent'problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the
neighbors.
Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of
six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license for Lori
Soderman, 6830 Columbus Avenue, be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does
not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Soderman has been able to
do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Soderman's residential kennel license. This
would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from
three to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Lori
Soderman, 6830 Columbus Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respec Ily submitted,
Ja es Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
3h
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 269
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license for Woodlake
Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
On July 24, 1996, Woodlake Veterinary Hospital submitted an application for the
renewal of their commercial kennel license.
On August 7, 1996, a Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the
property. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license for Woodlake
Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue, be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel
license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Woodlake Veterinary Hospital.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license;
however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel license for
Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue, is presented for Council
consideration at this time.
Respe ul submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
8L-1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 270
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license for Animal Care Clinic,
6521 Cedar Avenue.
Background:
On July 26, 1996, Animal Care Clinic submitted an application for the renewal of their
commercial kennel license.
On August 7, 1996, a Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the
property. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license for Animal Care
Clinic, 6521 Cedar Avenue, be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel
license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Animal Care Clinic.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license;
however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel license for Animal
Care Clinic, 6521 Cedar Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
ubmitted,
RespeVD.rosser
James City Manager
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 271
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a commercial kennel license for
Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue.
Background:
On July 25, 1996, Elaine Bergquist submitted an application for the renewal of her
commercial kennel license. Ms. Bergquist's application had all contiguous property
owners' signatures on it.
On August 16, 1996, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community
Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
commercial kennel license when it is located in a residential neighborhood. Staff
received no complaints from any of the other neighbors.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license for Elaine's
Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue, be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel
license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Elaine's Grooming.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license;
however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel license for
Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at
this time.
Respe u y submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Ma ger
JDP:cak
3C.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 268
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Application for a community celebration event license with a request for a fee waiver for
Richfield Cattail Days events scheduled to take place on September 21 and 22, 1996.
Background:
This year, Visions 2004 has applied for a celebration event license and requests that
the fee be waived for the activities that take place in Veterans Memorial Park on
September 21 and 22, 1996.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure
that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington
sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event license and fee
waiver for the Richfield Cattail Days to be held on September 21 and 22, 1996.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application
process and meets requirements for the fee to be waived.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the
applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food
preparation, on September 21 and 22, 1996.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a community
celebration event license for September 21 and 22, 1996, for the Richfield Cattail Days
is presented at this time.
Resp submitted,
James D. rosser
City Manager
0 JDP:cak
36
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 267
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Request by the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for an itinerant place of
amusement license for the 1996 Fall Festival to be held October 5 and 6, 1996.
Background:
In August, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant place of
amusement license for October 5 and 6, 1996. They are requesting that the fee be
waived.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the itinerant place of amusement license and fee waiver for Church of St.
Peter 1996 Fall Festival to be held on August 5 and 6, 1996.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license.
2. The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall
Is Festival.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has
not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted
this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for this license has been placed on the consent calendar for August 26,
1996.
Resp ctf y submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
9)9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 266
Agenda August 26, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for replacement of play equipment at Roosevelt Park, vicinity of 77th
Street and Fifth Avenue.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Budget adopted for 1996 includes $220,000 for replacement
of play features at Christian Park, Lincoln Field, Augsburg Park, Roosevelt Park and
Garfield Park. Roosevelt Park is located in the vicinity of 77th Street and Fifth Avenue.
A portion of the equipment at Roosevelt Park is designed for teens; the remainder is
designed for younger children. The wood product equipment currently on site was
purchased and installed in 1975. Consumer Project Safety Commission guidelines and
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements have changed since the original
installation. In addition, several pieces of the equipment had to be removed this
summer for safety reasons. The wood was rotting away, and the equipment was
beginning to fall apart.
Bid packages were mailed to ten qualified bidders. Bids for play equipment at
Roosevelt Park were opened according to legal requirements on August 13, 1996.
Only one bid was received. The bid for the Roosevelt Park play equipment is as
follows:
Vendor Total Bid
St. Croix Recreation Co., Inc. $57,916
Other vendors indicated they were too busy at this time to bid. One vendor submitted
an alternate proposal which was rejected because it did not fit the site available, nor did
it offer the same variety and quantity of components.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to St. Croix Recreation Co., Inc.
in the amount of $57,916 for play equipment at Roosevelt Park.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The play equipment at Roosevelt Park was originally installed in 1975. Generally
speaking, the life expectancy for wood product equipment is about 15 years. The
play equipment at Roosevelt Park was due for replacement.
2. The Community Services Commission recommended, and the City Council
concurred by adopting the 1996 Capital Budget, that there be a conscientious
effort to replace aging play equipment in the City.
3A-I
0 3. The bid submitted by St. Croix. Recreation Co., Inc. was the lowest bid submitted
by a responsible bidder meeting specifications.
4. There is sufficient funding in the project allocation for the purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject the bid and direct staff to readvertise. However, staff does not
believe a better price can be obtained from a reputable vendor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the August 26, 1996 Council meeting in order to facilitate
the work on a timely basis.
Respec Ily submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Bid Opening
August 13, 1996
10:00 a.m.
Roosevelt Park Playground Equipment
City Project No. 318-9180
City Bid No. 96-18
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Roosevelt Park playground
equipment, bid no. 96-18, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 31, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Gretchen Blank, Leisure Services Coordinator
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
St. Croix Recreation Co., Inc.
Stillwater, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 57,916.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
August 26, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0