01-09-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
I. REVIEW OF CITY OF RICHFIELD 1995 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES AND
POLICIES PACKAGE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 5
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE
12, 1994; (2) SPECIAL CITY
13, 1994; (3) SPECIAL CITY
• SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETI]
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
(1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER
COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION OF DECEMBER
COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 29, 1994; (4)
VG HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH HOUSING AND
DECEMBER 29, 1994 AND (5) SPECIAL CITY
3, 1995
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED
ON THE AGENDA
2. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY AND
STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION FUNDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE WITH THOSE
AGENCIES FUNDED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 6
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: 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.
4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION TO SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS
OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET/ILN PROJECT
AREA FOR PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1995 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR FEBRUARY 13, 1995 C.L. 7
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE
TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
C.L. 8
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR MITA 6090 COPIER
SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT FROM CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS OF
RICHFIELD IN AMOUNT OF $587.15 PER MONTH C.L. 9
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR DESIGN
WORK OF RICH ACRES PICNIC AREA FROM KIRSCHT & ASSOCIATES IN AMOUNT OF
$5,800 C.L. 10
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW SOUND SYSTEM AT ICE ARENA FROM
MORLEY BURNETT IN AMOUNT OF $6,943.80 C.L. 11
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR TWO 3/4
TON 4x4 PICKUP TRUCKS FOR USE BY STREET AND PARK MAINTENANCE
DIVISIONS AND SHOP MANUAL FROM ITEN CHEVROLET IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF
38,283 C.L. 12
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR FIVE
FULL-SIZED VEHICLES FOR USE BY PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM FROM SUPERIOR FORD,
INC., IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $82,407 C.L. 13
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR THREE
PICKUP TRUCKS FOR USE BY NATURE CENTER DIVISION AND PARKS AND WATER
DIVISIONS AND SHOP MANUAL FROM SUPERIOR FORD, INC. IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$40,211 C.L. 14
I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR MINI
VAN FOR USE BY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS STAFF AND SHOP MANUAL FROM THANE
HOPKINS POLAR CHEVROLET IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $13,503 C.L. 15
J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF TWO
• YEAR CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF 400 TONS OF SODA ASH FOR WATER
TREATMENT FROM FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $72,000 C.L. 16
K. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR RUTH
PETERSON, 2800 WEST 71ST STREET, THREE DOGS C.L. 17
L. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR
RONALD AND HELEN MATHESON, 7649 PENN AVENUE, THREE DOGS C.L. 18
M. FINAL PAYMENT FOR REROOFING ICE ARENA; G&B CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
$3,000.00
N. ESTIMATE #2 PAYMENT FOR SHELTER BUILDING AT MADISON PARK CP899;
C.K.C. CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $77,453.00
0. FINAL PAYMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF PLAYFEATURE AT DONALDSON PARK
CP898; EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC.; $15,397.20
P. ESTIMATE #5 PAYMENT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON PARK CP897;
SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $55,905.12
Q. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 1994 LICENSE RENEWALS:
AAGARD SANITATION: GARBAGE HAULER, 4 VEHICLES
AIRPORT & AIRLINE TAXI: 45 VEHICLES
AIRPORT BOWL: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, CIGARETTE RETAIL, BOWLING ALLEY,
ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR, FOOD-VENDING MACHINES
BOONE TRUCKING INC.: GARBAGE HAULER, 2 VEHICLES
DICK'S SANITATION SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 3 VEHICLES
EDDIE'Z SOUTHDALE CAR WASH: CAR WASH, CIGARETTE RETAIL, FOOD-RETAIL,
SOFT DRINK
GALLAGHER'S SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE
GODFATHER'S PIZZA: SOFT DRINK, FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, FOOD-VEHICLES,
RETAIL ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
KINHDO RESTAURANT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, ON-SALE NON-
INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
JIM LUPIENT'S BARGAIN LOT: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
LARIAT LANES: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, BOWLING ALLEY, ON-SALE
NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
PAUL'S RENTALS & SALES: TRAILER AND TRUCKS RENTAL
RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON HONDA: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
RICHFIELD MITSUBISHI: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
SANDYS TAVERN: ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR, SOFT DRINK,
POOL/BILLIARD, CIGARETTE RETAIL, OFF-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT
LIQUOR, FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
SUBURBAN GREEN & WHITE TAXI: 82 VEHICLES
VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL INC.: GARBAGE HAULER, 1 VEHICLE
VINA RESTAURANT: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, SOFT DRINK, ON-SALE NON-
INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR
ULTIMATE DETAILERS: AUTO DETAILING
WALLY MCCARTHY'S OLDS, INC.: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
WALSER BUICK: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
WALSER IMPORTS: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER
WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER, 5 VEHICLES
YELLOW TAXI SERVICE CORP.: 8 VEHICLES
RESOLUTIONS
5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET LIGHT USER FEE TO BE
CHARGED TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO COVER PORTION OF
COST OF OPERATING CITY'S STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 19
6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE CITY MANAGER, ADJUSTING
COMPENSATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 20
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
7. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATION OF COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS FOR 1995
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 21
8. CONSIDERATION OF GUIDELINES FOR CITY WIDE FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM AND
PROVISION FOR FUNDING
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 22
AIRPORT BUSINESS
9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
10. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
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. 5
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Review of the City of Richfield 1995 legislative initiatives and
policies package.
Background:
The attached City of Richfield legislative initiatives and
policies are based upon Council policy and direction as
previously established. Policies will be presented to the
Council and to our legislative representatives at the City
Council meeting of January 9. The legislative initiatives which
have been prepared are a condensed version of some problems
facing the City with some proposed solutions. The legislative
initiatives have been previously provided to the Legislature so
that they may review these issues prior to January 9.
Recommended Motion:
The legislative initiatives and policies will be presented for
discussion purposes with Council Members and Legislators. No
formal action is required at this meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Prior discussions with Council on legislative issues.
• 2. Recommendations by League of Minnesota Cities and Association
of Metropolitan Municipalities.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may choose to revise, delete or add policies at
their pleasure.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented to the Council on January 9, 1995.
Respectf y submitted,
James . Prosser
City a ager
JDP:ds
Attachment
Copy: State Representative Edwina Garcia
State Representative Mark Mahon
State Senator Phil Riveness
State Senator Jane Ranum
County Commissioner Randy Johnson
Metropolitan Council Representative Neil Peterson
C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 6
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of resolutions approving the Social Service Agency
and Storefront/Youth Action funding report and recommendations,
and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreement for service
with those agencies funded by the City.
Background:
In 1986, the City established a Social Service Agency Committee
to review requests of various agencies seeking funding
assistance. The Committee is comprised of members of the
Richfield Community Human Services Planning'Council.
Grant applications for Social Service Agency Funding totalling
$18,480 were received. The amount of funding available in the
1995 budget for these agencies is $15,190.
The Planning Council decided to separate the budgeted funding for
Storefront/Youth Action from the Social Service Funding. The
rationale was that since this is the first contact the Planning
Council is having with SYA in the funding process, it was
reasonable to use this first contact as a start in a relationship
with SYA rather than pooling all available funds in reviewing the
six applicant agencies. Storefront/Youth Action requested
$60,105 and the amount budgeted was $58,810.
The Planning Council interviewed the applicants on December 7,
1994 and formulated their recommendations. See addendum for
funding process used.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of a resolution providing funding of certain social
service agencies in the following amounts:
Senior Community Services, Senior Outreach $7,000
VEAP Shared Transportation $4,000
Cornerstone $2,500
Lutheran Social Services Share-A-Home $ 890
Senior Resources, Inc. Senior Linkage Line 800
$15,190
In addition, the contingency that if Cornerstone is not provided
the amount of $10,000 from the City for 1995 for its Intervention
Program, the Share-A-Home Program will not receive the
recommended $890 and the $890 be added to the Cornerstone
allocation making it $3,390.
Approval of a resolution providing funding for Storefront/Youth
Action in the amount of $58,810.
a-?
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Planning Council carefully considered the individual
requests of each agency and has addressed the community
needs and merit of each request.
2. The Planning Council is sensitive to community concerns and
their recommendations should be followed.
3. It should be noted that for 1995 the Human Services Planning
Council embarked on an improved application format and will
continue to improve the process and format in future years.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject the recommendation of the Planning Council.
2. The City Council could make their own recommendations.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed in the Presentation Section of the
January 9, 1995 City Council agenda. Members of the Planning
Council will be present to respond to any questions from the City
Council.
ly submitted,
RespIMager
Jamerosser
City JDP:ds
Copy: Camillo DeSantis, RCHSPC Chair
E
FUNDING PROCESS
1. On October 10, 1994, six agencies including Storefront/Youth
Action were sent a letter of invitation to submit a request
for consideration for 1995 City of Richfield Social Service
Funding.
2. Along with the letter, agencies were sent a revised grant
application format.
3. Agencies were requested to return the applications by
November 15, 1994.
4. On December 7, 1994, the RCHSPC met with all six agencies.
5. At the December 7 review meeting, agencies were asked to
present their request for funding orally and to leave time
for questions from the Planning Council members. In addition,
the agencies were alerted to two basic goals the Planning
Council will be exploring in the next couple of years. These
two goals are:
? The Planning Council is interested in working with the
agencies in formulating a practical and useful evaluation
process which will enable agencies to explain their
services more clearly and for the City to make funding
decisions; that our preference is that an evaluation
process be established on a regional basis since most of
the agencies serve people in the four South Hennepin
communities.
? The Planning Council will be encouraging a higher level
of collaboration among the human service agencies it funds,
as well as with other providers who also serve people
in Richfield.
6. Following the presentations, the Planning Council members
reviewed the presentations and formed their funding
recommendations.
7. Six Planning Council members attended: Camillo DeSantis
Jean Fox, Joan Helmberger, Connie McDonald, Lorraine
Schreyer and Paul Wasko. Dennis Johnson, Human Services
Planner/Coordinator provided the staffing.
0
a-,3
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REVISION OF THE 1995
BUDGET FOR OTHER AGENCIES DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1995 budget document
on December 12, 1994, appropriating funds for personal services
and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the
City for the year 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested revision of the
1995 budget appropriation in accordance with Charter provisions
for determining the specific allocation of $15,190 of unallocated
funds for the Legislative Department - Other Agencies Division of
the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
Senior Community Services, Senior Outreach $7,000
VEAP Shared Transportation $4,000
Cornerstone $2,500
Lutheran Social Services Share-A-Home $ 890
Senior Resources, Inc. Senior Linkage Line 800
$15,190
. WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested revision of the
1995 budget appropriation in accordance with Charter provisions
for determining the specific allocation of $58,810 of unallocated
funds for the Legislative Department - Other Agencies Division of
the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
Storefront/Youth Action
$58,810
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized
to execute contractual agreement with the above-named agencies
summarizing services to be provided to Richfield residents.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
9th day of January, 1995.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
f
C")- q
1994 1995 1995
GRANT REQUEST REC. GRANT
Senior Community Services $6,000 $7,686 $7,000
VEAP Shared Transportation $3,510 $5,000 $4,000
Cornerstone $3,000 $3,500 $2,500
Share-A-Home $1,500 $1,500 $ 890
Senior Resources, Inc. $1,800 794 800
TOTAL $15,810 $18,480 $15,190
Storefront/Youth Action $58,350 $60,105 $58,810
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.7
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of 1995 maintenance assessments for the redefined ILN
(Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Redevelopment)/expanded 77th Street
Project Area, proposed to be City Project No. 901.
Background:
In 1988, the Richfield City Council passed a resolution setting up a
special assessment district for the Interstate/Lyndale/
Nicollet (ILN) project area. The district included properties east
of Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed
for current services required to maintain special landscape features
and other public amenities on or adjacent to the right-of-way. The
special assessment to multi-residential and commercial property are
made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable
property within the district being assessed an equal amount.
The original ILN served its purpose as a demonstration of how to
attract commercial enterprises to Richfield while at the same time
protecting residential areas from intrusion. The costs to maintain
the landscaped buffer area were assessed to adjacent benefited
properties. In 1993, construction began on 77th Street to expand
this concept from I-35W to Cedar Avenue. In 1995, a significant
portion of this project will be completed with extensive landscaping,
an irrigation system, sidewalks, and sound wall. Once the
contractors' responsibility ends, the City becomes responsible for
the maintenance of these improvements. The additional maintenance
costs will need to be spread over an enlarged assessment district to
include properties benefiting from the new improvements.
Staff recommends that the area on the attached map be assessed for
maintenance of the new project. The attached proposed special
assessment roll identifies the properties to be assessed and the
estimated assessment amounts. As public improvements are completed,
the boundaries will widen as needed. Commercial property owners and
multiple dwelling unit owners will be assessed on a per-square-foot
basis under the proposed plan. One residence within the boundaries
operates a day care center and is listed on the assessment roll as a
commercial business. However, all single family and two family
residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, will be
exempt from the special assessment levy based on the rationale that
generally there are negative impacts from businesses located close to
residential properties and the landscaping buffer insulates the
residential property from these negative impacts generated by the
businesses. The area to be assessed in 1995 would be bounded by I-
35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Portland Avenue. The special assessments
will pay for maintenance to the landscaped areas along the screenwall
and other common areas.
The level of service provided in maintaining the original ILN was
i very similar to that provided in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) area.
Costs ran about $7,000 per year to maintain two blocks of heavily
landscaped boulevard. The newly finished section involves about 21
blocks. While designing these improvements, great effort was made to
tIA- i
eliminate the maintenance problems experienced at the LHN and the
first phase ILN. Estimates are that maintenance costs per block
should be about half of the cost to maintain the prototype ILN. This
would be about $35,000 per year for the area from I-35W to Portland
Avenue. Two-year guarantees on irrigation and landscape materials
will reduce this cost substantially. Most of the routine maintenance
(mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) would be contracted, leaving City
crews to perform repairs on irrigation, lights and signs. Estimated
costs in 1995 and 1996 are about $18;000 per year.
•
The City Council took action on June 13, 1994 in support of
continuing to assess an ILN project area for the period of January 1,
1995 through December 31, 1995. As directed by Council, staff
presented a redefined project area and estimated cost of current
maintenance services to be provided to the redefined project area in
1995 for Council consideration. Discussion was held on December 5,
1994.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess the costs
of current services provided within the 77th Street/ILN project area
for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, and to set
the public hearing date for February 13, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for
assessing the costs.
2. On June 13, 1994 the City Council took action to support the
continuance of specially assessing a redefined ILN/expanded 77th
Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1995 through
December 31, 1995.
3. On December 5, 1995 the Council discussed a redefined Project
Area and an estimated cost of current maintenance services to be
provided to the redefined Project Area in 1995.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to establish
performed to that dollar amount;
redevelopment area would suffer
a set rate and limit the maintenance
however, staff believes the
if limited maintenance was performed.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended in order
to sustain current standards for landscaping and maintenance. Action
on this item should be taken at this time to continue the special
assessment process toward a 1995 project, proposed to be City Project
No. 901, which would specially assess costs of current services
provided within the ILN (Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet) project area
for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995.
Respect%Ily submitted,
Jame V1. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
W-a
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE FORMER INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET (ILN) PROJECT AREA
AND TO SPECIALLY ASSESS
FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED
WITHIN THE EXPANDED 77th STREET PROJECT AREA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as follows:
1. That portion of the 77th Street project area (the
"District") east of I-35W and west of Portland Avenue is hereby
established as a special assessment district for the purposes of
assessing for current services provided by the City.
2. The following current services of the City are hereby
proposed to be undertaken by the City in the District with the cost
of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property
within the District;
? The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of
unsound trees from any street;
? The repair of sidewalks;
? The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities
on or adjacent to street rights-of-way;
? Trash and litter removal.
. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current
services consists of each and every commercial and multiple
residential lot and parcel of land within the District. It is
proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be
made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable
commercial property within the District assessed an equal amount.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to public
notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will
consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of
special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be
published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks
prior to the date of hearing. Such hearing shall be held on Monday,
February 13, 1995, commencing at 7:00 o'clock p.m. or as soon
thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the
aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1995 through
December 31, 1995. The estimated cost of providing all of the
aforementioned current services during that period is $18,000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
9th day of January, 1995.
• Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
qA-3
E
U
?
a
a
z
O?
aW
a
A
W
A Ron,
H d V
z .4
?a?H
•
? aowW
P6
O ,
a
en
?
19 0
U H
=OaO
U
?zV)
? ...
A W
WM
wo
F
CA
W
•
c ?i
ai cQi
pp n
vi r
a; 8
p 8
vi m
ui R
v V
v °
td 8 8 8
n C'o
pcpp
V
N
0
r.:
N
r
?
d M M
n M N N `d' ?t V M N N M M . V
E m (((VVV N co
N
N
N
Q
fA H w ?n vi w tn tq tp M M Ui v? w fn fn w tA M tA fA fA fA to ? tA fA fA fn w w tn vi w w tn w tn w w w v? rn fA Vi » e» tn
?? In
W
V
t0
1n
Q
c0
In
O
f0
4
O
?O
I< n
In
In
IA
N
(pp
N
(vp
!n
v
1fI
o
f0
V?
f0
N
<
f0
N
V
m
N
V
f0
N
<
(O
?(1
N
N
N
N
N
O
?D
In
V
?O
In
IA
1n
(vp
N
v
N
N
e
N
Ifs
v
N
N
p
N
N
V
N
N
?(1
(pp
1p
N
{ep?
VI
N
(pp
N
1n
O
N
in
V
N
In
O
N
N
V
1?
0
C
1?
In
N
r 1Np
O NpNN
0 E
8
8 M
8 S
8
8
?fI
8
0
11A N
p
0 N
Np
0 w
w
1n
1n
0
1n
N
0
N
0
8
p
0
Np
O N N
O
O N
O
O
O
O
p
O
8
Np
O
Np
O
O
Np
O
O
O
O
8
8
O O O O O O O C C G O C 6 6 6 6 O O O O O O O O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
G
O
O
2 U Z 0 in N IU- F `? U N c o c
w C
7 w W
U r r E m
z u W y w v w a LL
e
>
co L6
O w
(j LL
N F
Q O Q
N W
c
x
R U
N =
x m
I.D
S
m O
U to
d
z
w
w
w
8 8 8 8 8 8 to 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 C, 8 8 8 8 8
h p
n
O O
O
q
?
C IL
W
cq
f0
m
4q
?
M
R
R
.
. ?Q
y
°' ?
°'
8
IA
n
N
?(I p
?
V
n
n S
N
U. t
(
t0
N
In
N
<
O
N
N
co
cD
0
co
f0
O
N
N
m
m
t0
0 0
N o O to O x x ? N N H
W
w F-
J
Q W
>
W >
Q W
> >
Q W
> ?
Z ?
z m
?
? >
a >
a
Q z W > x x z
N O
F. ?
gZ
?
g ?
z
g
Q W
J
W
W
O J J x
f
in O
x F F r z
> ? r ? m m v?
$ N
$
?
u m 1 ? r Q ir
W W W
Q pp
N d 8 ?N0
n ?`! W y N a0 a0 O
n
n
e ro ro $ n n N
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
a
x ¢
x x
U ¢
x ?
x U
Z x
w z
8
a
a
E z
g c?
o z
a z
¢ a
2 z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z m
5 >
d
°
?
? tn o a
x
x
x w
x
x
x z
O w
to w w z a
2 a
2 a
2 a
2 a a
2 o
J
J
w S
U J
w J
w U
z Z
a
o O
0 0
x O
(7 U'
x S
w S
w O
x H
x 2
S 2
S U
to J
w J
w J
w J
w J
w J
w
¢ Z
LL
LL
O
(0
x
W
J
Z
z
J
m
m
Q
a
Q
¢
¢
¢
x w
x
U x a x x J x x z
z LL LL
W
O F LL
O LL LL
O W
a x
?z m
o p W
i>u m O
x O
x ?
< ?
w O O m
J m
m w
m w
m ~
w ~
w w
m w
°
-5 ~
o
E
E
W
O
J
8
U
x
m
-5
O
x
?
a
?
a
?
¢
p
x
x
O
x
O
x
x
z 2
< o Q W
U O O Y
U
Z 2 t
W S
U
O
m x
W
w
y ( ( N (n ?
w w
ui w w w w w w w w L
t
> >
< >
a >
a
n > > > >
a >
a >
a
rz
rz
rz
rz
rz
rz i
rz
rz
rz
r:
1?
? z
OZ z
Z
8 ? ? ? ? w
W
a w
W
a w
W
a W
a W
a W
a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
w m
w i
w x
Ir < o
2
w o
2
w g z ?z °z zz z ZZ° R 4 (pW ?Wp 8 $ $
W W O m I
xL J J J J J N_ O O p
O O W
O O O
Q Q ?pp
y
1?
O
n
In
?
? O
.-
.-
0 O
v N
v M
v <
c
?
? M
? V
n N
? m
n n
n cO
n O
m
ao N
m M
ro <
m
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Z
d v
N
c0 v
N
OD v
N
c0 v
N
aD a
N
[D a
N
c0 e
N
aD a
N
aD v
N
t0 v
N
10 °
N
0 °
N
aD °
N
aD v
N
c0 v
N
(O v
N
c0 v
N
c0 v
N
c0 o
N
GO v
N
GD v
N
O v
N
co v
N
N
O
M N
O
M N
O N
q N
O
co
9 O
co N
MOc?
M N
MOM
M N
O
M N
O
M N
O
M N
O
m N
O
2 N
?Ocye?
M N
O
M N
O
M N
O
co N
O
M N
O
M N
O N
O N
O
PM7 N
O
m
n O O O O n m O O
N
N V'
N u7
N O
N n
N co
N O
l
N
I
I O
co
c'7
N
M
M
M
R
M
L4A-4
W
N
)
?
S (
N
N
S
N
N
m
N
1
r
r
<
(0
?y
N
II1
(O
?
(1
O
D)
M
M
to
fppV
O!
M
1?
O
M
O
M
t0
?
$
p
In
.
M
0)
M
'Q
pNo
N
r
n
N
q
N
N
W
N
N
Q
1(f
?I
MM
p
S
<
n
un
N
M
N
m
M
N
?D
ig
?
?N
'd
f9 W w iR /A di W (A /A fA W A
( 1A f9 f9 M w M M M M o; (A
dl
M
f
9
i9
/A
/A
W
f9
vi
/A
(
A
W
w
to
fA
f
9
f9
O
t
fA
dl
W
W
ds
f
A
f9
f9
fA
(A
W
(H
to
W
/
A
W
t9
(A
/R
f9
W
W
f9
B I M I N I, ?Np ?$
j $
j ?Np $$ $?
j N
1
1 1
? 1
?
N
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 1 S S ? $ 8 8 8 5 8 1 8 8 8 8 $ 8 $ 8 8 8
O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
d
U o m
°
a
L
= o
c a)
o
a
a d
~
E
? Y v
U w
W a
W z
Z z
z a
it
U w
(7 z
O O
U m
Pz
o -
¢ o
U
f N
a
$
'
g
< m
' (
` ?
LL
o x
U w
U o o
F-
a
> p w
z O
2 a
z
s
m c O m •o a
m
" m LL ¢ y j F
0 C7
Z z0 Q
x Q o
U) Z 06
Y Y
>
.s 8 E z Z z I a W
co o
z Y Q
O <
J
J ¢
I- m
Z
m 2
K it
J
J y
J U
>
0
co Z
_
Z O
W
z W
J
_
<
z r U W _
Z_
? 2
O
8 8 8 Si 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 . 8 8 8 8
10
O O
N 1n
N N
O
O cpj
N oNp
1? N
N O
NW (p?
f? O
N 4
N L6
N a} N
O
N Q?pp
W {p?
(n
? ?
OnD the
N Ifp?
l'7 eD
O
w v
co
? cV
M
N
<
(D
N
N
(O
R
V
r
(O
?D
W
c0
<
W
$
M
W
O)
O
M
O
O
n
N
R
ar0 O
N o
N o
o
N
?
w ? w
x N w z
>
n K
c O
> ?
L
x K
lD y
ui
ui N O m
> w
>
x x $ S X
m a
z a
z a
z z 3 o o
°° o W x w w m ° N a °
¢ U)
x
QQ
$
$ a
>
o
uMi v
uMi o
M
v> w
a 3 z 3 ¢
? ¢
? a z
¢ $
z
-
?1
J
W
?
N
N
N
e?
O
r z
J z
J
a
04
O n
l
N
3
co $ o
n
r W $
w r
T T Y Y Y T T T T Y Y Y Y T Y T Y Y T Y T Y Y Y } } } } }
Y
a It
? x
W u
Z a
IX O
U O
W it
W it
W a:
W z
W z
Z O
W z
Z z
Z z
O >w
K a
(r z
} w a
J a
J a ?
W
Z z z z (A
Z
z w J Q
' O O O a' W W O It K
p F
LU W
Q
' U
O U
O O
j _
LL W y y y
7 O
z
¢
p
x
x
x
w
Y
w
?
Q.
O
w
?
w
?
a
z
<
w
?
?
Lu
a
O
U
y
t?
O
w
U
F Z
w Z >
p
x
0
z
d z °
O
S FL
Z
Y z z z < LL
a' (L
a
? Q
LL
H 6
H ¢
x Z
W
J =
U
ir LL
K CL Y N
g
< p
LL W
o W f >
a' It O 91 z oT eb e6 dl W m W M LL _ = J a m a w
O O
c9 LL Q OU ¢ ¢ ¢ LL O K ?
_j O
_j 3 U M
2
J J Z
<
w ?
LL J_ J_ J_
W
U
W
V
Z
zO
z
J
W
Q w
N
O p v°i O O
O O
O O 0, 8
to = W n w
w W w w
> w
> w
>
W
W x
F- w
> W
> W
>
r
3 3
° {z
3
3 'p '
3 a
Q n
3
3 n
3
3
3
3 n
3
3
3 3
?' a
a a
w ¢
Q a
Q a
Q Q z n
3 ¢
3 a a P
3
O p
O S
v _ p
N
$ ?
z
J S
n
O N
n
O O
n
O c0
(O
r
O N
r
O N
n
O _ N
(V
'1
' M
o n
3 fp
5 ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> Q
z O
z e
?
?O
8 m 8
CN O 0 8
°
? N J J J J J J J J
IL
n m
n ID
n c'
ID
n ID
n
c, o
g
n ? ? ? ? r
r r
n
(D
o r aD
c0
8 S
8 O
W
g NO
8 w
8 V
O/
8 ff
O/
8 D
aD
8 W
8 p
Ol
8
S
o
O
s M
O
8 N
8 M
r
8 V
r
8 I1
r
8 t0
r
8 n
1?
8 ?O
r
8 N
GD
8
GO
8 N
N
8 M
N
8 p
In
8 N
N
8
8
?
I C
4 8
0
0 8
0 D
0
0
0 8 8
0 8
0
0
0 8 8 cli
0 8
0 8
0 8
0 8
o
0 8 CO
0 8 8
M M M 8 -
O
m n
M a0
M O
M O
R
V N
R
c - 1 1
R
C
d
V 0I
R O
in O
(o (O
c0
t0
T
(O
-
w
w
1
w
(o
1
(O
(O
(O
r
I?
n 1
M
n
1 1
r
r
4
14 A-5
N
IA
n c0
p
fV
O
N
S
S
O
n,?
D a0
(?
O N (4
1?
< r
V 17
tM N
V'
aD m
cG
N
r?
N
V)
n
N
N
I?
?J
lD
0
N
10
f0
R
n
m
S
/9 (9 W /A f
A f9 f9 (A /A fA f9 fA M fA f9 /A f9 V! lA /A fA f9 V! fA fA f9 f9 f9 W /A f9 f9 d! f9 f9 /A lA IA V! IH ip iR M /9 M fA lA dl 1A f9 fA d! fA iA f9 fA f9 fA M W f
A f9 IA
$;y(
tt;?f$yOO}}(jj
? lVp
It1 V
!°
!°??QQ??jj (p?(p
INA
Npp NN
(<p
N
0
1p? Rp
1Ip?A (Rp
N
p (<p
1IpNp?A
1pNp? (Rp
1pN? C
1
p O O
1p?? N
1p?
?y?$?j(( fVp
1pN1p?? tp?
IA R
1p1p?? 7 (p?
1A (p?
11(p1Q?[I? tVp
1Ip14??A tVp
1A Vp
IA V (Vp
1IQNQ?A (Op
N Vp
1pN1Q?? Cp
IA Op
I1p1n?? O(?
N1? <
1?NQ R(?
llQ?f} R
Ip?1Q?? fRp
IA (Vp
N1? (<p
IA (p?
1N1??
p fp?
11fp?1 R
p? O (Rp
1pNlQ?? lCp
N
N (Op
IppA N
1Q? D
IA
8 ( Vp
IA
8 'lpQ
1I(p1Q??? (p?
I{A? O
N1O? O
1p1Q?? (Op
IA
8 (per
In N
V
1NpQ?
(<p
IA
S
0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O S O V V S S O v S O O O v 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O
C
O
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
G
O
0
0
0
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
G G
O
O
O
O
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6
6
O
O
G
C
O
0
0
0
0
0
Z
J - Z
F U
z FUF
a FFm
a U
z
W U Z
R Zfi) ] N
U x O
Q O
¢ y mF
a c=i O y
m
w
m (FA
a (Fn
a 1(/-J
a tU-
z
W W
K
v z
m w
I. ¢
r a
r w m
w
w ¢
z
= <
Q <
¢ a
w ¢
o
z
o
°Z-
O
z ¢
w ¢
w ¢
w
w
0 o
w
0 of
$
U
o
U
o
'
U m
Ir w Q
cc
w U w U 0
0
W O
0
w ?
w
>
8 o
N z
g U
D
!r p
Q ?
a
w
U
5
a
U
g
s
U
5
a
w
Q
a
o
o
p
W Q z CO a m w w ? d z O x S
p ? v w v in
o i
z
a
o O ? w x x x o
?y
uz 3
Z
? w
U U
O K
8 S S S S S c0 8 S S S S N N N 8 S S S 8 O 8 S S 8 O 8
(app
Q tV
M p
8 oNp
O ?Np
O
? 8
O O ?Opi
D h
? 0O
in 1A
N
?
O n
? M
?
m
M
9
?
9
O
pp?
N
iN
.N-
O
O
p
M
O
O
O
O
C
M N R O O ro ? c0 r aD p
< ? S W M
N (
N?
N p
p
aD N ?.nj O O C?) O
0
K
>
U,
a
$
>
¢
W
w
U
>
¢¢
U
$
fA
Q
O
U
ff)
w
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-i
z
(A z W
¢ cn x
$ O C X Q p W W
Q W
Q a
X IL
a w
Q W
¢ (
?
(/1 2 m
x
3 a z
8 Z W
> m
O J
= Z
w Z Zq O K
U z
4 zC 2
C) z d
U m
U d'
U F2F
W
a
C-4
N
J LL o
`° 3
o z
p a a K
o a z mF to 'o Of z z z
.n 0 8
v ?'
m S a a M w o a m a n
M M ch = c?
N z x x 2
m
m n n N
n
w
v
n N N
n N
n N
n
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
J
W m
Q w
(D z z m
w m (? U
? U
? z Oz o
S >
¢ z
( z
( m a p
U x U a7
Q ?
J z
w
I J a
O a
O a
O m >
m ?
D
J
W O tp
J
R' W W
Z W
S (/I
d' m
z K
W Ol
J
w x
D' a
2 A
J
W A
J
W r
W O
U W
x Z
p j 7
Q y
V
m
z
W U U U W O
Z
3 O
Q ¢
U ¢
U
a
Q
a
d
m m r
Q U a w
F U OJ m O
p
¢ z ' D
o
w
p
a
p
a
m
¢
m
Q
C7
0
J a J
> J r x O
¢ c2
w a a
¢ I Q
z Q
z m 0
a
' c? O ?
2 > 0 J
a Q ? x m ?n fv?? Q < Q
Q x w
U Q Q 2
U
J U W
J w
J m
O O R
W a O
W p W
x ?
Q W z
Q M
J
0: U O _ w Z r w U) J 0 o U U
a U
a g
m v
z a
w W o w
d w a d
w w z a
z o z z
O ^Q
a
J
W LL
x LL
2
2
?
?
U '.
x U U ¢
x ¢
x ¢
x
O
m o
m O
m ON 00 O
m O
m O
m O
CO) O
m O
m O
p O
w ?j
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
> w
m w
w
>
w
>
w
>
a
W>
w
>
a
w
>
a w w
? w
w
>
a
w
>
Q
w
>
¢ w
?
rx
°
o
w
>
a
¢
>
¢
>
j
a
>
a
>
a
>
>
3
a
Q
?
F
Q
Q
?
z <
z
n
r
r
n
W
n
n
W
W
z
>
ca
ca >
m >
m
ca M
c?
U
-j
U
t-
U
U ¢
m
t-
t-
F r
i
n
r n n
P- o
O
O
N (p
8
02
a a a a a 8 8
8 z z z w w z
o z a a. w w (?
w w 8 a
m n
n
n
N
g 8
0 g
0
n
n 8
n 8
n g
X
o
pNQp
O ?pQp
O tpp
O tpNp
O tpM
O aap
O (pNp
O (?Qpp
O 8<
O (pQp
O pp
O
O nn
O ?8D
O Op
O pM
O MpN
O ?
p O i(1
S n
S c0
S 8N
O 8M
O
t?
e c?
e o
v o
v t?
a ?
v ?
o ?
v cpi
v a?
o o
v ?
v ?
v e
v ?
v ?
v v
v o
v o
v ? ? ?
v a
< ?
O v
v cMn
v ?c+?
v m
a c?
v c?
v
OD
O ro
O 04 W
o m
o m
O co
O aNO
o aNO
O Nm
O W
o o
O 0
O o
O m
O m
co, oNO
O aND
O o
O W
O All
aO
o o
o ro
O o
O ro
O m
O ro
O o
O o
O W
O
o
O
A a g a g o c9 9 9 c`3 m c? r`S A A A m M A c°o 8 m au'i M 8
f0
n n
n
1
1 cO
n
I
l m
rn
1
1 O
co
o N
ao M
co V
co M
co t0
ao n
ro
ao
co
l m
Ico
I
n N
n M
n
n m
n n
n aD
n m
n O O O O .M-
I
1
c4 A-6
C*l
ypyp??
pN v
p
8
y??yy??(jjjj
N (ep
N
8 my
pNp ?
S m
N
0
N
p
0
to
(p?
N
p
O
N
O
z
my
1pA
Lf)
O
N
p
O
f?5Q5;
O
(pNp
1pn
O
pNN
N
z
N
8
Nq,?,
,??qa?ff,((
O
m?
NpNNp
O
?????QQ?jj((
O
?Qj
O
U)
NpNp
O
N
NpNp
O
m
w
m
!??j
O
8
L"
p
8
pNp
O
N
;?aq?j(
O
(pNp
N
8
my
N
8
(p?
1n
8
V
p
8
pN
O
(p?
1NpNA
O
S
8
N
8
n Nyp?
25
O O O
G G O
O O O C O
C O O O C G 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O
O O O O C C O O O C O O O G G O O O O O O O O O O G O O C O O O G O O
w p
F a
U 8
y .
a vi vi
a ~
a
a 3
p vi
a
aU m
(WI) w °
° Z m
w J Y
a < m
w
a m
w
¢
z p
U c7
Z
m c7
Z
m m
m z
F o
O
m o
O m >
F
O
o
z
O
0
z
O
W
U a a a a
a a
W Q
W a
m Q
z m
F- a Q it & 0 w
O
z N
O
O U
= z
Q
J
J
J ¢ > O O x
z x
z
J Q W a K O f7 O Q U 0 d p 2 w Y
S Y
S Q Q
} a
} Q G C7
W
U)
>
W
y
LL
m
a
z
U
0:
0:
-j
a
2
W
LL
W
E
w
S
S
W
U
Z
.
C
ir
0:
W
m
U w
U w
Q
Q
=
m
m
=
W
w
Y
m
w
U W S 2
K
UU co
W
D
w
w
o ?
LL U U_
d' U_
K
8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 S 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 g g g $ 8 8 8 8
O O O O O G O O O C O O G O O C C O C O G (rp
W m
( ^
W O N
W O
Q? N
O
N O O 2 0
N 0 0
i
w
N
Q
4
Q w
> p
N
a r
Q c >
Q
z O
fA U. co
W w > ?°
t3
S
p
O
ru
to
W
W
S
t0
W
W
2
x z
x of
> 2
O vw
O
o Y
a
p
°
z g
J
>
°
K? ¢
°
z
w
a w
U
z
w
O
?
a
ui
¢ (n
ui
¢
ui
Q
x
w
Q
W
2 a- O y U U Q ro M:
g
m
p J
o
3
O Y
O
$ O
d
w
W
VS
p
8 N
n
°
ro
O
$
3
v
N
{z
v
{z M
<
N
=
n
K
¢
H
n
no
Z
m 2
N_ x
N
N 6
> a
N
n n n
r r > r r r > > > > > r > > } r > > r > } r > r r r > r r
r > > r
z O Q vpi Q w U U rx
K p U
z W?7 G z $
? z w 0 ¢ Z z z } Z
z z z z
w
?°
z a
f
3
f
Q
a a
z
? w
?
W O
o
O
a
K O
m
O a
2
O °
m Ft
J
a:
a
Q w
J
a
a
JQ
W
g
_
J
Q
J
7
w
f o
U
x
Z
o
x
Z
p K m U
0? K
a
°
a z
g W
Q p o
w
0 N
a f
w
> K Q K a (A
Q
`? J
a O O
0
w
a g U o o
a `
Q w ? o
Q z
m w °
Z o W a a
w O a < w
m a
w a
a
z
w
a
J
z
a
o a.
O
i
1
U
:
R
w
0
0
p
¢
U
a m
Q ed
J $
2 $
2
°
- _
x
a
a
M
M
N
3
O
a
O
:R
z
S
J
Q
x
w
m
a
LL
O
U
d'
z
O
J
o
J
d
O a Q
ro Z
ZZZ
K
p
¢
U U
O
x LL
LL
x
m 3: U
K U
w
O)
> S S
> (? y
> Q W
> y
>
$ 7
$
o w
3 W
3 7 w
3
a
Z >
a
a
n
Ww
P.
w
N
Q
n
w
W
a
S z
O
0
<
n
w
n
Qw
n
Sw
n
pw
n
w
a
m
n
W
n
gW
n
?w
n
8w
n
QW
>
Q
> (
/)
>
a
W
W
LU
>
a
>
Q
w
1 g
- F O
$ g U S N N
Q ?1 V v Q W
U o ?3 j
m m i(S x j (!j r
r
_
R
n
m
c7S
i7i 29
n
n
p 0:
¢ e
Q
8n
n n ?
8 N pp
N p
Vj N
n ?
? V
o m W N cn gg
8
0 gg
g n m M
S v
o m
S g
8 g
8 n co
8
0 gg
8 o
5 8
8
8
8 Mo
0 N n
C ?
•7
V' M
V M
O CO
R M
?t cr)
R
V
V e
< <
O
V v
< v
V
O v
< °v
< V
O <
er <
R <
V
O °v
V
V <
sT l0
V'
V
V
R (O
O
N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O N
aD
O N
NW
O N
m
O N
m
O N
c0
O N
NO
O N
aD
O N
m
O N
m
O N
m
O
M
M
M
M
M
M y
y
(+1
'CO)
M
M
M
M
M N
N
ch
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M a
a
f?7
V' I n m n co O O
N 1-
N 1 1 M
N V
N N
N O
N n
N aD
N m
N O
M
M N
M M
M V
M N
M t0
M n
M J
ID
M I 1
W
M 1 O
R
V N
'd' M
V
r-
L
qp -?
r N N N
ao z
o
ww w ?n fA tgw ?n w 60 ow 44
1?
V ?
N ? N N
Np
O Np
O
? Np
O Np
O
?
?
?
? Np
O Np
O
O C O O O O C G O O O O O G
W
z O
Q w
_
-r z O
J
8
N Q W
U a
m
m
Q
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 cn
1 0 O g fV CV
° fV
n QQ OD
v
V
)
w ?
M
lh ?
O r
?
O
G tD
fV co
ai
m 2 U W m
w a o z w Z
11,
>
a x
2 z
g O
a °
= >
a
z z w
Q m m U
3 z v
x ?
O
I
N N
w
U w_
? O
y o
I LL
v
ai
z y
J
a. t
3
O Z
z
L
L
co
LL
Y
H W
x
}
C
Z
U m
W >
J
U Q d
Q Q
?
0
H
2
a a a a a
_
z
z
z
j
z
-j
( O
7S p
N
Q J
(O J
O J
Q J
OD
n
n
n
n e
8 °0 8 8
c ? $ v v v
m ago ro
0 0
? Mo
c
h 00
M 0
M 00
M M0
M
?
j
1!J ?
p
N C c
p
V V ?
4
40 -
e
V
_ _ _ - O O b O P P U P
z s > i v ? r v
v
XERXES AVE.
.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
7
UPTON = ='- .' -J 1= i i?
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
DUEEN
E I
E??,'
PENN AVE. ILI
O
IVE:
L
NEWTON
M ORG AN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
7-7
GIRARD L
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE
GARFIELD
HARRIET
r
GRAND
F? ED c
PLEASANT
-- 7
I
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE
"p
STEVENS
z
ee
are
CLINTON
a1n
51n
PORTL
N
A
D AVE
OAKLANC
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICA
GO
ELLIOT
101n
111b:
121h
13 In
14 In
15 1 h
T
BLOOMING
ON
16th
171n
IB In
CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW
S
m
i 7J
Z C7 n
0 '17 <
C ; O
z m T
<r
;v
x
n
0
n ? 2
y
XERXES AVE
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
DUEEN
PENN AVE
OLIVE:
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE
Ip
STEVENS
2Ad
3rd
CLINTON
41h
31n
PORTLAND AVE
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIDT
IO 1n
II Ih
12 th
131h
14tH
131n
BLOOM I N GTON
161n
IT1n
leln
CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW
19 to
20th
21 U
2211d
STANDISH
23rd
T?-3
? ? N H y H
r
qS
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 8
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
City Council resolution appointing a representative to the
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.
Background:
On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved the ordinance to levy
a 3% tax on gross receipts of lodging from Richfield hotels and
motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board and the appointment of three
directors was also a part of that resolution. The terms of
appointment are for three years and are staggered to maintain
Board continuity.
The current members of the Tourism Board and the ending dates of
current terms are as follows:
1. Larry Zielke, Attorney, representing the Richfield Chamber of
Commerce; term ending December 31, 1996.
2. William Brusman, Vice President of Realty Management
Services, Inc., representing the Hampton Inn; term ending
• December 31, 1995.
3. James B. Greenlee, Area Manager for Motel 6, term ending
December 31, 1994.
Mr. Greenlee has recently been transferred by Motel 6 to Phoenix,
Arizona. He has been replaced by Lou Ann Hansen. Ms. Hansen is
the Midwest Area Manager for Motel 6 and is officed in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. She seeks appointment to the Board to replace Mr.
Greenlee.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution regarding appointing Lou Ann Hansen
to replace James Greenlee on the Richfield Tourism Promotion
Board for a three year term ending December 31, 1997.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City Council has the authority to make appointments to
the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.
2. Ms. Hansen, the representative from Motel 6, has asked to be
appointed.
3. The Tourism Board has, since its inception, included a
representative of Motel 6.
is Alternate Recommendation:
1. The City Council could seek another representative from
Motel 6.
q B-
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that the City Council make the appointment of Mr.
Greenlee at the January 9, 1995 Council meeting so that he may
continue participating in Board activities.
ly submitted,
Jame". Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
qt6-d'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO
THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the
gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City
pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the
proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the
purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or
convention center; and
WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board provide the City Council of the City of Richfield
appoint three (3) directors to the Board representing the Hampton
Inn, Motel 6 and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his
or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until
his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or
removal; and
WHEREAS, the term of James Greenlee, the representative for
4 Motel 6, expires on December 31, 1994 and Mr. Greenlee has been
transferred out of the area; and
WHEREAS, Lou Ann Hansen has been assigned to replace Mr.
Greenlee as the Area Manager for Motel 6 and desires to be
appointed to the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board directors be modified as follows:
1. Appoint Lou Ann Hansen, Motel 6, to the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board for a three year term ending December 31,
1997.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of January, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
q G
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 9
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of lease agreement with CDP Imaging Systems of
Richfield, MN, for anew Mita 6090 Copier System at a per
month cost of $587.15 (annual lease cost of $7,045.80).
This would replace the existing Savin 7065 Copier System
currently in use in the Public Safety clerical area.
Background:
The current copier system used in Public Safety's clerical
area was purchased used in February 1991. It has produced
1.4 million copies to date and breaks down frequently, which
creates much down time and requires a lot of maintenance.
Even though the current copier is owned, the monthly average
maintenance cost of the current copier is $237.50.
Financial information for the lease agreement includes:
1. Term is for 60 months.
2. Monthly cost is $587.15, which includes service and
supplies.
. 3. Outright purchase price of the new system would be
$16,687.00 plus tax.
4. Interest on the lease is at a rate of 6.9%.
5. Terms are based on State of Minnesota Contract #M-8030,
Release #C-850.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a lease agreement with CDP Imaging Systems for the
Mita 6090 Copier System.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. No need to absorb a $17,000 capital outlay in one year's
operating budget.
2. Provides equipment flexibility by allowing equipment
upgrade/downgrade during lease.
3. Lease cost includes all service and supplies, except
paper.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the lease of the new copier system.
40 2. Approve the outright purchase of the new copier system at
$17,000.
4GI
Discussion/Decision Mode:
10 The item is on the January 9, 1995 agenda. Action is
requested at this time to ensure necessary clerical
functions for the department.
Res t lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ?N
Council Letter No. 10
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for design work of Rich Acres picnic
area.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The City's Capital Improvement Program includes development of a
pavilion to be located in the present picnic/grill area adjacent
to the Rich Acres Clubhouse. The 1995 Capital Budget includes
construction of the pavilion and surrounding area.
The following quotations have been received:
David Kirscht & Associates - $5,800
OSM - $6,370 - $9,370
The services would also include the construction document.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of design work for the Rich Acres picnic
area in the amount of $5,800 from David Kirscht & Associates.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. David Kirscht & Associates has done other design work at the
Rich Acres Golf Course.
2. David Kirscht & Associates submitted the lowest quotation for
design work.
3. There are sufficient funds in the golf course enterprise fund
to cover this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could choose not to proceed with the project.
2. The Council could select another supplier.
3. The Council could direct staff to renegotiate the fee to be
charged by David Kirscht & Associates.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 9, 1995 regular City
Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval at this time so
that the design work may be completed and construction may begin
as quickly as possible.
Resp lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
LjC
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 11
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for the purchase and installation of
new sound system at the Ice Arena.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The arena's original sound system was a center cluster of
speakers. The sound quality was poor, so additional horns were
added within the first few years. The sound remained poor for
announcing during games.
In 1989 the Richfield Hockey Association requested that sound
sphere speakers be installed. The association, Richfield and
Holy Angels High Schools contributed $1,000 toward the $1,800
cost. The sound spheres were installed. The sound is better for
music, but it is still difficult to understand the announcers
during games.
In order to get the sound to the spectators, speakers need to be
distributed around the rink perimeter and closer the to people.
The new system will have a total of 12 speakers: 4 on each side
and 2 on each end. The existing sound spheres will remain to be
used for music.
The Richfield Promotions and Tourism Board donated $3,500 towards
the installation of the new system. The balance will be funded
through the arena budget.
There were two quotes:
1. Morley Burnett $6,943.80
4178 Pepperwood Trail
Minnetonka, MN 55305
2. Acoustic Communication Systems, Inc. $7,252.39
15004-23rd Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the purchase of speakers, amplifiers, and installation
materials and labor from Morley Burnett for $6,943.80.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Morley Burnett submitted the lowest quotation.
q C-1
0 2. Arenas where Morley Burnett has installed the sound system
have been satisfied with the systems and installations.
3. Spectators are unable to understand the announcers with the
Richfield Ice Arena's existing sound system.
4. The donation by the Richfield Promotions and Tourism Board
will cover half the cost of the purchase and installation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Authorize purchase from Acoustic Communication Systems, Inc.
based on the quotation submitted. However, this was not the
lowest quotation submitted.
2. Direct staff to seek additional quotations.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled on the consent calendar for the Council
meeting of January 9, 1995. Action is requested at this time to
be assured that project can be completed by end of February.
n
Respectf ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
qF
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 12
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase of pickup trucks in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Units #331 & 332, two three-quarter ton 4X4 pickup trucks
currently being used by the Street and Park Maintenance
Divisions, are fully depreciated and scheduled to be replaced in
1995. Purchase of these vehicles has been coordinated with the
Hennepin County bid process. Iten Chevrolet was the low bidder
for this type of light truck at $19,049. The approved 1995
Central Garage budget contains funds for the purchase of these
vehicles.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Iten Chevrolet in the sum of $38,098
plus $185 for the shop manual for a total purchase price of
$38,283.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Units #331 & 332, currently in the motor pool, are fully
depreciated and due to be replaced in 1995.
2. Purchasing vehicles through county contracts assures the
lowest possible price for the type of vehicle required.
3. There is $40,000 in the approved 1995 Central Garage Capital
Outlay budget for this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to deny approval, and direct staff to obtain
new bids for these vehicles; however, staff does not believe a
lower price can be obtained from a reputable dealer than was
obtained through the Hennepin County contract.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
There is no official cut off date for ordering these vehicles;
however, the quoted price is good only until the manufacturer's
price increases. Therefore, staff is requesting approval at the
January 9, 1995 Council meeting.
Resp lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City `M nager
JDP:ds
46-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 13
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase of vehicles for use by Public Safety Department.
Background:
Five full size sedans being used by the Public Safety Department
are scheduled to be replaced in 1995. Purchase of new vehicles
has been coordinated with the Hennepin County Cooperative
Purchasing Program. All five of the cars are currently in use.
The four Ford Crown Victoria squads were purchased in 1993; the
Chevy Caprice administrative car was purchased in 1988, and all
five vehicles will be fully depreciated in 1995. The extent and
nature of the use of the squad cars indicates a two year
replacement schedule.
The lowest responsible bid for the type of vehicle required was
submitted by Superior Ford, Inc. The approved 1995 Central
Garage Capital Outlay budget includes money for these purchases.
Actual cost per 1994 marked squad car was $13,811. Due to an
unexpected manufacturer's increase, the 1995 per car bid price is
$16,520 for the squads and $16,327 for the administrative car,
for a total of $82,407. However, staff does not believe we can
obtain a better price than through the Hennepin County
Cooperative Purchasing Program.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the purchase of four Ford Crown Victoria full-sized
police sedans and one full-sized Ford Crown Victoria
administrative sedan through the Hennepin County Cooperative
Purchasing Program from Superior Ford, Inc. for a total purchase
price of $82,407. The Central Garage Fund includes $70,000 for
police vehicle replacement. The difference will be offset from
savings for other vehicle purchases. Rental rates will be
adjusted to reflect the increase vehicle replacemnt cost.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Several manufacturers of full size cars were requested to
submit bids following predetermined specifications. Of the
bids submitted, Superior Ford, Inc. was the lowest
responsible bidder for the type of car requested.
2. The City of Richfield is in need of replacing four fully
depreciated squad cars and one fully depreciated
administrative car.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject this bid and request staff to obtain
bids from other sources in an attempt to receive a lower purchase
price. However, staff does not believe we can obtain a better
price from a responsible dealer.
q (-,Ir -I
Discussion/Decision Mode!.
Approval of this purchase is requested at the January 9, 1995
Council meeting.
Respe u submitted,
James D. Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
is
11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /11
Council Letter No. 14
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase of three pickup trucks for use in Community Services.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when
the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Three fully depreciated vehicles; Unit #297, a pickup truck being
used at the Nature Center, and Units #300 and #301, pickups used
for Parks and Water respectively, are due to be replaced in 1995.
Purchase of new trucks has been coordinated with Hennepin County's
bid process. Several dealers were requested to submit bids
following predetermined specifications.
Superior Ford, Inc. submitted the low bid for the following trucks:
Unit #297 will be replaced with a half-ton 2X4 pickup for a total
purchase price of $11,761. Unit #300 will be replaced with a half-
ton 4X4 for a total purchase price of #14,336. Unit #301 will be
replaced with a three-quarter ton 2X4 for a total purchase price of
$14,019. The approved 1995 Central Garage motor pool budget
contains $48,000 for these purchases.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the sum of $40,116 plus $95 for a shop
manual for a grand total of $40,211 to Superior Ford, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bids received through the Hennepin County bid process are
typically the lowest price for the equipment specified.
2. Adequate funding has been budgeted for these purchases in the
approved 1995 Central Garage budget.
3. Superior Ford, Inc. submitted the low bid for the type of
vehicle required.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject the bids received through Hennepin
County and instruct staff to obtain new prices for these vehicles.
However, staff does not believe we can obtain better prices.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The order cutoff date for these vehicles is in February, so Council
may delay a decision one Council meeting if so desired. Staff is
requesting approval at the January 9, 1995 meeting to ensure timely
delivery of the vehicles.
Respe ly submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
?Z
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 15
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for a Mini Van.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when
the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Unit #304, a 1987 Ford cargo van being used by Government Buildings
staff, is fully depreciated and scheduled for replacement in 1995.
Purchase of new trucks has been coordinated with Hennepin County's
bid process. Several dealers were requested to submit bids following
predetermined specifications.
Thane Hopkins Polar Chevrolet submitted the low bid for a replacement
mini van; a Chevrolet Lumina for $13,383. The approved 1995 Central
Garage motor pool budget contains $18,000 for this purchase.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the sum of $13,383 plus $120 for a shop
manual for a total purchase price of $13,503 to Thane Hopkins Polar
Chevrolet.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The bids received through the Hennepin County bid process are
typically the lowest price for the equipment specified.
2. Adequate funding has been budgeted for these purchases in the
approved 1995 Central Garage budget.
3. Thane Hopkins Polar Chevrolet submitted the low bid for the type
of vehicle required.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject the bids received through Hennepin
County and instruct staff to obtain new prices for these vehicles.
However, staff does not believe we can obtain better prices.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The order cutoff date for these vehicles is in February, so Council
may delay a decision one Council meeting if so desired. Staff is
requesting approval at the January 9, 1995 meeting to ensure timely
delivery of the vehicles.
Res lly submitted,
. Jams Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD 41
Council Letter No. 16
16 Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for 400 tons of soda ash for water treatment.
Background:
The chemical, soda ash, is used in the water treatment process to
lower water hardness and to produce soft water. The non-carbonate
hardness coming from our deep wells has been increasing over the
last 10-20 years. The lime used in our softening process lowers
the carbonate hardness but does not affect the non-carbonate
hardness. Other water plants use soda ash for this purpose. Our
renovated plant is designed to add soda ash and tests with soda ash
show it to be effective in our process. Soda ash has proven to
have no effect on taste when used in this fashion. This additive
to the softening process will reduce the hardness from about 100
parts per million to 90.
Bids were opened in a formal bidding process on December 15, 1994,
for the purchase of 400 tons of soda ash for a two year period.
The results of the bids are as follows:
Unit 2 Year
Vendor Price Cost
. Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. $180/ton $72,000
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. 205/ton 82,000
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a two year contract for
the purchase of approximately 400 tons of soda ash to Feed-Rite
Controls, Inc. in the amount of $180 per ton.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Soda ash is necessary to complete the softening process.
2. Feed-Rite Controls, Inc., a division of Hawkins Chemical, Inc.,
was the lowest bidder and meets all requirements.
3. There are sufficient funds available for the chemical purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise;
however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item.
Respectfu y submitted,
Jame ta? rosser
City, nr
JDP:ds
4yj--/
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
December 15, 1994
11:30 A.M.
Purchase of 400 Ton Soda Ash
Bid No. 94-15
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 purchase of 400 ton soda ash, bid
no. 94-15, as advertised in the official newspaper on November
30, 1994.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Carol Kaszynski, Sr. Clerk Typist Central Garage
0
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL ;
i
Hawkins Chemical, Inc. Mpls.
5% Bid Bond
unit 180/ton;
base $72,000 ;
VanWaters & Rogers, Inc. St. Paul; 5% Bid Bond ;unit 205/ton;
;base $82,000 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the January 9, 1995 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
µK
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 17
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel
license for Ruth Peterson, 2800 West 71st Street.
Background:
On October 26, 1994, Ruth Peterson submitted an application for a
residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Peterson's
application contains all contiguous property owners' signatures.
On November 12, 1994, 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 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. Peterson has been able to do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Peterson's residential
kennel license. This would mean that she would have to
reduce the number of animals on her property from three to
two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve a residential kennel license for Ruth
Peterson, 2800 West 71st Street, is presented for Council
consideration at this time.
Respe y submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
. JDP:ds
LIL
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 18
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel
license for Ronald and Helen Matheson, 7649 Penn Avenue.
Background:
On November 1, 1994, Ronald Matheson submitted an application for
a residential kennel license. He owns three dogs. Mr.
Matheson's application contains all contiguous property owners'
signatures.
On November 12, 1994, 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 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. Mr. Matheson has been able to do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ronald and Helen Matheson's
residential kennel license. This would mean that they would
have to reduce the number of animals on their property from
three to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve a residential kennel license for Ronald
and Helen Matheson, 7649 Penn Avenue, is presented for Council
consideration at this time.
Resp t ly submitted,
• James Prosser
City inager
JDP:ds
5,-
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 19
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Establishment of a street light
residents to cover a portion of
street lighting system.
user fee to be charged to
the cost of operating the City's
Background:
The mercury vapor street light fixtures presently used in the
City's residential street light system are inefficient and
obsolete. This problem has been identified in the Capital
Improvement Program for a number of years. Staff proposes to
retrofit the residential system with high pressure sodium
fixtures over a four year period, changing about 525 fixtures per
year for the years 1995 through 1998. Estimated cost would be
about $85,000 per year using City staff, including electrician,
and equipment. The proposed 1995 Street Maintenance budget
reflects the $85,000 line item which was adopted by Council in
December 1994.
At the June 6, 1994 Study Session, the Council reviewed proposed
funding for this work. A street light user fee was an option
recommended by staff which, according to the City Attorneys,
could be used to generate up to $250,000 per year, or
approximately the City's annual electric bill for street lights.
Council believed this would be too much of a burden for
residents, and recommended a user fee to cover only the $85,000
retrofit costs per year.
Using a base fee for residential homes of approximately $1.53 per
quarter, and charging commercial on an acreage basis with a
multiplier of five (five homes per acre average), the City could
generate the $85,000 per year at a cost of $6.12 per single
family residential home per year. In order to initiate this user
fee, Council must adopt the attached resolution. Council may
wish to hold a public information meeting before adopting the
resolution, but a formal public hearing is not required. State
statute and City ordinance allow the Council to charge the
proposed user fee.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution to charge a user fee for street
maintenance in the City of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. After discussion at previous meetings, the Community Services
Commission took unanimous action on May 10, 1994 to recommend
a street light utility. The user fee proposed is based on
the utility/assessment concept.
2. The Council has discussed funding for street maintenance
work, including street lighting, during Study Sessions.
5-i
• 3. The Council has adopted a 1995 budget which includes $85,000
retrofit costs per year for street lighting.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not initiate a user fee. However, if this action, or lack
of action, were taken, the 1995 and subsequent annual
operating budgets would need to be amended.
2. Instruct staff to hold a public information meeting. Staff
believes the Council has been provided with all information
requested to date but additional information can be provided
upon request. However, this would delay the process of
initiating a user fee.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 9, 1995 Council meeting.
In the event Council does not take action at this time, staff
would like to receive direction regarding a public information
meeting.
ly submitted,
•
JDP:ds
Jame. Prosser
City Manager
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO CHARGE A USER FEE TO
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
FOR PURPOSES OF STREET MAINTENANCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as follows:
1. The City of Richfield community deserves good streets,
including lighting and maintenance.
2. Every property in the City of Richfield, residential and
commercial, benefits from good streets which are well lighted and
maintained.
3. Each property in the City of Richfield is to be charged
a quarterly user fee, with commercial property to be charged on a
acreage basis by a multiplier of five of the amount charged to
residential property.
4. The City Council has adopted a budget which includes
$85,000 for the first year of retrofitting street lighting during
the period from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. On
this basis, the estimated charge to residential property would be
approximately $1.53 per quarter or $6.12 per single family
• residential home per year. Commercial property would be charged
on an acreage basis with a multiplier of five (five homes per
acre average). This rate will remain in effect until Council
changes it.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 9th day of January, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
60
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 20
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of resolution to amend the Letter of Understanding
between the City of Richfield and the City Manager, adjusting
compensation.
Background:
A Special City Council Executive Session was held at 6 p.m. on
Tuesday, December 13, 1994 to discuss the City Manager's
evaluation and compensation.
Attached is Resolution No. 8073 amending the Letter of
Understanding between the City of Richfield and James D. Prosser,
City Manager, which was approved by the City Council on November
22, 1993.
Mayor Kirsch requested that consideration of a resolution
adjusting the compensation of the City Manager be placed on the
January 9, 1995 Council agenda.
Recommended Motion:
1. The Mayor will provide a summary of the results of the
Special Council Executive Session regarding the City
Manager's evaluation and compensation.
2. The City Council should also decide whether to act on the
proposed resolution adjusting the City Manager's
compensation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Mayor has requested this item be placed on the agenda of
the regular City Council meeting of January 9, 1995.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could choose to defer action on this item to
a meeting at a later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This resolution has been placed on the January 9, 1995 agenda for
Council consideration.
CAK:ttf
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The following sections of the Letter of Understanding between
the City of Richfield, Minnesota and James D. Prosser, City
Manager, dated July 14; 1986 is amended as follows:
Section 5. Salary: Employer agrees to increase the City
Manager's base salary of $82,934 by % effective September 1,
1994, payable in installments by the time as other employees of
the employer are paid.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of January, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO. 8073
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The following sections of the Letter of Understanding
between the City of Richfield, Minnesota and James D. Prosser,
City Manager, dated July 14, 1986, is amended as follows:
Section 5, Salary: Employer agrees to increase the City
Manager's base salary of $80,434 by $2,500 to $82,934 effective
September 1, 1993, payable in installments by the time as other
employees of the employer are paid.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of November, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 21
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Designation of Council liaison appointments for 1995.
Background:
Members of•the City Council serve as the City's representative on
various metropolitan agencies and the City's Boards and Commissions.
Each year, the Council appointments Council Members to service on the
various agencies.
Recommended Motion:
Designate representatives for the various boards and agencies.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City needs representation on these boards and agencies.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer the designation until a future Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the January 9, 1995 Council agenda for
consideration.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
• AGENCY 1994 LIAISON 1995 LIAISON
ASSOC. METRO MUNICIPALITIES RUSS SUSAG, REP.
JIM PROSSER, ALT.
SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION DON PRIEBE, DIR.
JIM PROSSER, DIR.
SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT.
STEVE DEVICH, ALT.
NOISE MICHAEL SANDAHL, REP.
DON PRIEBE, ALT.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MARTIN KIRSCH, REP.
JAMES PROSSER, ALT.
MASAC DON PRIEBE, REP.
GEORGE KARNAS, REP.
MICHAEL SANDAHL, ALT.
JAMES PROSSER, ALT. JAMIE VERBRUGGE,
ALT.
RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP.
MICHAEL SANDAHL, ALT.
STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION JACK ERSKINE, LIA.
SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT.
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA.
SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT.
COMM. SERVICES COMMISSION DON PRIEBE, LIA.
RUSS SUSAG, ALT.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RUSS SUSAG, LIA.
SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT.
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION SUSAN ROSENBERG, LIA.
DON PRIEBE, ALT.
PLANNING COMMISSION MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA.
RUSS SUSAG, ALT.
SISTER CITY COMMISSION MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA.
RUSS SUSAG, ALT.
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP.
SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL NO ALTERNATE ---
•
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 22
Agenda January 9, 1995
Issue Statement:
Adoption of guidelines for a City wide flood relief program and
provision for funding.
Background:
At their July 25, 1994 meeting, the City Council approved a
Stormwater Capital Improvement Program which included the
initiation of a flood relief grant program.
The Community Services Commission reviewed and recommended in
favor of the establishment of such a program. Attached to this
letter are the proposed guidelines for a program in Richfield.
It is based on the City of Bloomington program model and also on
the rehabilitation program operated by the Richfield HRA.
The significant points of the proposed program are as follows:
? $50,000 of Stormwater Utility funds will be dedicated for
the program. It is unknown how much of a demand there is
now for this program.
• ? All residential property (owner-occupied or renter-occupied)
subject to recurrent flooding would be eligible for a grant.
? The City would pay 75% of the cost of an approved project
and the property owner would pay 25% of the cost.
? All applications would be due by May 15. The total eligible
project funding is compared to the $50,000 identified in
the policy. Projects are awarded by the Council. If funds
remain, additional projects submitted after May 15 could be
funded.
? The property owner would apply for a grant. The Housing and
Redevelopment Division would administer the program.
Applicants would be interviewed to evaluate the flooding
problem. A solution would be devised by the Engineering
Division to provide 1% protection.
Eligible improvements which could be approved by the City
Engineer would include but not be limited to the following:
1. Filling, grading and sodding around the house or points
of water entry.
2. Adding or modifying window wells.
i 3. Eliminating basement windows and substituting with glass
blocks.
B -I
0 4. Replacing large basement windows with smaller windows.
5. Replacing basement doors with windows.
6. Building poured concrete or concrete block wall dikes.
No funds will be available for decorating, carpeting or
remodeling needed as a result of flood damage.
Only flood damaged areas may be improved. The cost and type of
improvement must be reasonable. The reasonableness will be
determined by the City.
Section IV of the guidelines.beginning on Page 3 delineates
program procedures. Several exhibits are also included beginning
on page 6. Administrative costs would be paid by the annual
funding allocation.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the proposed flood relief grant program guidelines and
$50,000 of stormwater utility funds for the program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed flood relief program would be another tool to
assist residential property owners in dealing with unwanted
run off water.
2. Funding is available from the storm water utility fund and
was identified in the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program.
3. The property owner must contribute 25% of the cost of the
flood relief project.
4. The Community Services Commission has endorsed the concept of
this program.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay consideration.
2. Modify the proposal.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Timely action would help staff prepare for implementations in
1995.
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachment
Respectf ly submitted,
James rosser
?-C?
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD'S
0
FLOOD RELIEF"
PROGRAM
1994
[Housing]Flood
9
8 -3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 I. General
111. Eligible Applicants
III. Eligible Properties
IV. Eligible Improvements
V. Ineligible Improvements .
VI. Program Procedure
EXHIBITS
A. City Map - Identifying Potential Areas of Recurrent Flooding
B. Property Owner Letter - Program Introduction
.C.. Application
• D. City Engineer's Determination of Recurrent Flooding
E. Change in Work Form
F. Contractor and Property Owner Contract
G. Sworn Contractor Statement
H. Commitment Letter
1. Proceed with Work Letter
J. Completion Certificate
K. Completion Letter
L. Covenant
•
1
FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM g -,q
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO SERVE RICHFIELD PROPERTY
OWNERS WITH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO RECURRENT
FLOODING. FLOOD RELIEF IS ANY MEASURE, APPROVED BY THE CITY,
THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MIGHT TAKE TO MINIMIZE FLOOD DAMAGE TO
THEIR PROPERTIES.
I. GENERAL
This document sets forth the guidelines for the administration of the City of Richfield's
Flood Relief Program, hereafter known as the "Program".
A. Grants will be offered to Richfield property owners under funding allocated
by the Richfield City Council from time to time.
B. The City of Richfield will provide a grant equal to 75% of contracted
improvement costs; the property owner will be responsible for the
remaining 25% of the costs.
C. Grants will be available on a city wide basis.
D. The Program will become effective immediately upon City Council
approval of program guidelines and funding.
E. The Program will be administered by the Community Development
Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division in cooperation with
the Community Services Department, Engineering Division.
0 IL ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
A. Eligible applicants are owners of residential property in Richfield.
B. There are no income, asset or equity requirements.
C. Applicants must complete an application form and indicate source of funds
to be used for owner's contribution.
D. Owners of property, subject to recurrent flooding, that has not been
previously identified by the Engineering Division, may request participation
in the Program. Requests will be evaluated by the Engineering Division on
a case by case basis.
M. ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
A. Any residential property subject to recurrent flooding by storm sewer
overflow as determined by the Engineering Division. Recurrent flooding is
determined by properties located in an impacted area as designated by the
Engineering Division, or properties that do not have at least a 1% flood
protection.
B. Property may be either owner or renter occupied.
•
2
5-5, IV. ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
A. Improvements are limited to flood relief improvements as approved by
• the City Engineer and may include, but are not limited to, any of the
following items.
1. Filling, grading and sodding around the house or points of water
entry.
2. Adding or modifying window wells.
3. Eliminating basement windows and substituting with glass blocks.
4. Replacing large basement windows with smaller windows.
5. Replacing basement doors with windows.
6. Elevating house and accessory buildings.
7. Building poured concrete or concrete block wall dikes.
NOTE: All improvements to basement living space must retain a proper
means of egress.
B. Other eligible improvements are those items needed to adjust to the new
elevation of a house or garage, such as; interior/exterior stairs, electrical,
plumbing and heating extensions, fill and grading of soil around new
foundation with sod as needed, and elevating driveways or walks.
V. INELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
• Only flood damaged areas may be improved. The cost and type of improvement
must be reasonable. The reasonableness will be determined by the City.
VI. PROGRAM PROCEDURE
A. Funding availability will be announced during the first quarter of each year.
Applications are due by May 15th. Additional applications may be
accepted after May 15th if funds are available.
B. HRD shall maintain a project file which, upon project completion, will
contain the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
City Map - Identifying Potential Areas of Recurrent Flooding
Property Owner Letter - Program Introduction (Exhibit B)
Application (Exhibit C)
City Engineer's Determination of Recurrent Flooding (Exhibit D)
Change in Work Form (Exhibit E)
Contractor and Property Owner Contract (Exhibit F)
Sworn Contractor Statement (Exhibit G)
Commitment Letter (Exhibit H)
Proceed with Work Letter (Exhibit I)
J. Completion Certificate (Exhibit J)
K. Completion Letter (Exhibit K)
L. Covenant (Exhibit L)
C. The Program may be advertised in the Richfield Sun-Current , Your
City, and the Cable Station.
0 D. Application packages shall be mailed to property owners upon request.
E. As completed applications are received, the following will occur:
1. Program Specialist meets with property owner to
discuss what happens with storm water, what damage has
been caused and what month and year it has occurred.
2. To ensure a high quality response, HRD, and Engineering will
coordinate an initial site visit. Inspections may be requested to
participate.
3. Engineering will determine the 1% flood level and the lowest
opening in the building.
4. Program Specialist, and Engineering share their observations and
Inspections if appropriate.
5. Engineering recommends methods of flood relief.
G. The Program Specialist shall review the proposed flood relief, including
ancillary items, with the property owner and answer any questions they
may have.
H. If property owner agrees to the proposed method, the Program Specialist
shall write-up, with assistance from Inspections if appropriate, the
specifications for the work to be completed.
1. Specifications will be given to the property owner to obtain three bids.
Should the property owner have problems getting three bids, two bids will
be acceptable. The property owner should return contractor bids to the
Program Specialist as soon as possible.
J. Bids shall be reviewed by the Program Specialist for completeness and cost
reasonableness. The lowest responsible bid will be accepted, unless
property owner wishes to pay the difference between low bid contractor
and contractor of their choice.
K. Once a contractor has been selected by the property owner, a Contract
(Exhibit F) shall be signed between the property owner and selected
contractor. The Program Specialist shall send the property owner a
Commitment Letter (Exhibit H) stating the approved grant amount and that
the contractor may now start work. A Sworn Contractor Statement
(Exhibit G) shall also be signed by the contractor. The contractor is
responsible for normal City permits and fees as required.
L. In the event that changes to the approved work are necessary, a Change in
Work Form (Exhibit E) must be completed. The form outlines all changes
in the approved work and in the grant amount. It must be signed by the
contractor, the property owner and the Program Specialist. As applicable,
revised bids should be attached to the form.
4
M. While work is in progress, the Program Specialist shall notify the
Engineering Division. The Engineering Division shall make site
inspections to make sure. specified construction meets elevation
• requirements. If construction does not comply with requirements, the
Engineer shall inform the Program Specialist on necessary construction
changes.
N. All improvements subject to the grant shall be completed within a period of
six months from the date of the commitment letter. Delays or extensions of
time will be evaluated on a case by case basis when a request is received in
writing. HRD has sole responsibility for determining whether time
extensions would be granted.
0. Upon project completion, the contractor shall arrange for final inspection
of all work. If appropriate, the Building Inspector shall notify the Program
Specialist of approval. The contractor shall submit a bill and sign a
Completion Certificate (Exhibit J) for payment. The property owner and
Program Specialist shall also sign the Completion Certificate after
reviewing all work completed. A check shall be released to the contractor
upon receipt of all necessary lien waivers.
P. The Program Specialist shall mail a final Completion Letter (Exhibit K)
with all lien waivers to the property owner, and close out the file with all
previous listed documentation.
9
Exhibit B
•
Dear Resident.
Thank you for inquiring about the Flood Relief Program. Please read the information
listed below. If you are still interested in flood relief for your property, please fill out the
attached application and return it to our office as soon as possible. All ARnlications are
subject to availability of funds.
Grants are available to residential property owners (either rental or owner
occupied) where property has been subject to recurrent flooding by storm sewer
overflow.
2. There are no income, asset, or equity requirements for eligibility.
3. Improvements are limited to flood relief improvements as approved by the City
• Engi neer and may include, but are not limited to any of the following:
a. Filling, grading and sodding around the house or points of water entry.
b. Adding or modifying window wells.
C. Eliminating basement windows and substituting with glass blocks.
d. Replacing large basement windows with smaller windows.
e. Replacing basement doors with windows.
f. Elevating the house and accessory buildings.
g. Building poured concrete or concrete block wall dikes.
h. Other eligible improvements are those items needed to adjust to the new
elevation of a house or garage, such as; interior/exterior stairs, electrical,
plumbing and heating extensions, fill and grading of soil around new
foundation and elevating driveways or walks.
4. No funds will be available for decorating, carpeting or remodeling needed as a
result of flood damage.
Should you have further questions, please feel free to call me at 861-_
Sincerely,
9
6
B4
9.9 Exhibit C
APPLICATION FOR THE FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM
Name of Applicant(s) _
Address of Applicant(s)
Phone Numbers Home: Work:
Address of Property to be Evaluated:
************************************************************************
Please fill in the information requested below:
1. Indicate the month and year you purchased the property to be evaluated.
2. Is the property to be evaluated:
Single Family Apartment Duplex
3. Describe what happens with storm sewer overflow on your property. (Use
additional paper if necessary.)
4. When storm sewer overflow has occurred, what damage has been caused? (Use
additional paper if necessary.)
5. Month(s) and year(s) the damage occurred.
Applicant(s) Signature Date
Please return your application to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Division, 6700
• Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, Attention:
7
g_/0
Exhibit D
EVALUATION FORM
CITY ENGINEER'S DETERMINATION OF. RECURRENT FLOODING
Date
Applicant(s) Phone Number
Address of Property to be Evaluated
This property is a: Single Family House , Duplex , or an Apartment Building _
1. Is the property in an impacted area? Yes No
2. What is the 1% flood level?
3. What is the elevation of lowest building opening?
4. Recommended flood relief methods:
(Itemized list of improvements or no improvements recommended)
0
Person Completing Form Date
Please return this document to Richfield HRD to the attention of
0
8
f Exhibit E
J
FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM
CHANGE IN WORK FORM
Property Owner
Property Address City State Zip Code
Changes to the flood proofing specifications and cost changes for the same are described
below. Revised bids will be attached on all major changes.
CHANGE(S) IN WORK
COST
Date
Original Contract Amount Approved $
Cost Increase (credit) $
Cost Decrease (debit) $
New Contract Price $
New Grant Amount $
The above prices and specifications of the Change in Work Form are hereby accepted. All
work to be performed under the same terms and conditions as specified in the original
contract and in all warranties.
- OVER -
•
9
n
•
Change in Work Form
Page 2
Name of Construction Firm
Authorized Signature Date
Signature of Property Owner Date
I hereby approve the above described change(s) in work to the specifications covered in
the Contractor and Property Owner Contract.
Signature of Program Specialist Date
THIS FORM IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
OF THE PROGRAM SPECIALIST.
ff is
10
?-) 3 Exhibit F
CITY OF RICHFIELD FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM
CONTRACTOR AND PROPERTY OWNER
CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 199
by and between
hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and
hereinafter referred to as "Contractor".
WTTNESSETH
That the Owner does hereby employ the Contractor to do all the work and provide all
materials, tools, machinery, supervision, etc., necessary for the improvement of the
property known as:
for the total sum of dollars ($ ), all in
accordance with the estimates, plans and specifications which are attached hereto and
• expressly incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof (the Contract).
1.
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
Upon approval of the grant amount and execution of all Contract Documents by all the
parties, and upon submission of all certification of insurance coverage and bonds called for
herein, the Contractor shall proceed with the work.
2.
COMPLETION OF WORK
The City of Richfield, hereafter known as "the City", shall pay 75% of the costs to the
Contractor for the performance of the contract in current funds subject to additions and
deductions, the sum of dollars ($ ).
Work is limited to the contract which consists of this document plus the attached bid dated
199 . Work shall be completed within six months of the grant
approval date. Any extension of these dates must be approved by the Program Specialist
in writing. The improvements and cost of the work are shown on the attachment.
0
11
?-/ 4
3.
RIGHT TO RESCIND
. The Owner has the right to rescind this contract by notifying the City by mail, teiegram or
any other form of written notice identifying the transaction delivered to the office of the
HRD at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota within seventy-two (72) hours
after entering into this Contract. An Owner exercising this. right will not incur any penalty
or obligation.
4.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The Contract shall consist of the following component parts:
1) This instrument
2) Instructions to Bidders
3) Bid
4) Drawings (if any)
5) Change Order Forms (if any)
This instrument, together with other documents enumerated in this Article 4, which said
other documents are as fully a part of the Contract as if hereto attached or herein repeated
in the Contract. In the event that any provisions of any other component part and conflict,
the provisions of the component part first enumerated shall govern, except as otherwise
specially stated. The various provisions in change order forms shall be construed in order
of reference of the component part of the Contract which each modifies.
5.
FLOOD RELIEF GRANT
Contractor understands that Owner proposes to pay for 75% of the work by means of
a flood relief grant payable through the City and agrees that no payment shall be due
Contractor until the work is completed, inspected, and approved by the City and is
authorized by the Owner to disburse the grant (with the exception noted in Number 12).
6.
WARRANTY
The Contractor hereby warrants to the property owner, and to subsequent Owners of the
property to be improved, that all materials, hardware, fixtures, and utilities of whatever
kind or nature, incorporated in said dwelling by the Contractor, are of good quality, and
free from defects in workmanship or material. The Contractor shall repair, correct, or
replace at no cost to Owner or subsequent Owners, any instances of defective
workmanship or materials or deficiencies subject to the warranty contained in this
paragraph 6; provided however, that the warranty set forth in this- paragraph 6 shall apply
only to such deficiencies and defects as to which Owner or subsequent. Owners shall have
given written notice to the Contractor, at its principal place of business, within two (2)
years from the date of the final payment to that Contractor as shown on the certification of
improvements.
12
- 5 7.
HOLD HARMLESS
Contractor shall. defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Owner, and the officers,
members and employees of the City from all liability and claims for damages arising from
bodily injury, property damage, sickness, disease, or loss and expense resulting from or
alleged to result from Contractor's operations under this Contract.
8.
LIEN WAIVERS
Contracto -r shall protet, defend and indemnify Owner and the City from any claims for.
unpaid we >rk, labor omnaterial. Payment shall not be due until Contractor has delivered
complete release of all liens arising out of this Contract or receipt in full covering all labor
and materials for which a lien could be filed, or a bond satisfactory to the Owner
indemnifying against any lien.
9.
PERMITS AND CODES
Contractor shall secure all necessary permits and licenses required to perform the work
called for by this contract, and all such work shall be in compliance with all building code
regulations and ordinances as shown in the Instructions to Contractors, whether or not
covered by the specifications and drawings for the work.
10.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Contractor shall provide equal opportunity to all persons, without discrimination as to
race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap, marital status, affectional
preference, public assistance, or criminal record.
11.
UNACCEPTABLE RISK
Contractor shall not be listed on the "unacceptable risk determination" list of the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U. S. Farmer's Home
Administration.
0
13
. 12.
ARBITRATION
Any controversy or claim, including but not limited to quality of work or customer
satisfaction, arising out of or relating to this Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be
settled by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of
the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the
arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The parties agree that either party hereto and the City shall have the right to submit such
claim to arbitration provided that nothing herein shall result in any position of liability on
the part of the City. City may unilaterally pay contractors based on results of arbitration.
13.
PAINT
The Contractor shall remove any and all peeling paint and repaint using non-lead based
paint to comply with M.S. 570.611 Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act.
14.
COLLUSION CLAUSE
The Contractor has not colluded with any other person, firm or corporation in regard to
• any bid submitted pursuant to this Contract.
15.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The above warranties are in addition to, and not in limitation of, any and all other rights
and remedies to which the Owner, or subsequent Owners, may be entitled, at law or in
equity, and shall survive the conveyance of title, delivery of possession of the property, or
other final settlement made by the Owner and shall be binding on the undersigned
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any instrument heretofore
executed by the Owner. The Contractor hereby acknowledges that this warranty has been
approved by the City.
0
14
8,11
CONTRACTOR(S)
•
Firm Name
Phone
Firm Address City Zip Code
Signature
OWNER CONDMONS
Title
1. The Owner certifies that Flood Relief Program funds shall be used only for eligible
property improvements, and shall not be applied toward any work begun or completed
before the date of the grant.
2. The Owner agrees that the improvements specified in the attached shall be inspected by
the City Inspector and the Program Specialist before grant funds are disbursed.
Signature of Owner
0
•
15
?_/ 8
•
Exhibit G
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CONTRACTOR'S SWORN STATEMENT
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) .
The undersigned, hereinafter called "Contractor", being first duly sworn, as Contractor
improving the property having the address of
City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, deposes and says that the following names of all
parties who had or currently have contracts or subcontracts with the Contractor, for
specific portions of the work on said property and building(s) or who had or currently
have contracts or subcontracts with the Contractor for materials or who have contributed
materials at the Contractor's request entering into the construction thereof, and that the
items set forth below include all labor and materials contracted by or obtained at the
request of the contractor required to complete the work according to the specifications
and drawings or the contract; that there are no other contracts outstanding entered into by
the Contractor or the Contractor's subcontractors.
Item
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Notary Public
Furnished by Laborers, Suppliers
and Subcontractors retained by
Contractor identified below
day of
Contracting Firm
19
By
Its
The City of Richfield must have obtained lien waivers evidencing payment in full from the
Contractor, Suppliers and Subcontractors set forth above as a condition to releasing the
final balance of the grant proceeds.
16
S-19 Exhibit H
Date
Dear
Your application for the City of Richfield's Flood Relief Program has been evaluated and
a grant commitment of $ has been authorized with the following
conditions:
That all grant funds will be utilized for flood relief at your
property at as described in your
application.
2. That all work be done according to City codes and ordinances and that
appropriate permits be obtained.
3. That all improvements subject to the grant shall be completed within six
months from this date.
4. That grant funds will be paid to the contractor after the City has
determined that the approved work eligible for the grant has been
completed and a Completion Certificate has been signed by all parties.
. 5. That any cost of improvements exceeding the committed grant amount
will be the responsibility of the homeowner.
6. The property owner is required to deposit an escrow of $_
which represents percent of the total contract price.
Upon City receipt of the escrow, you will be sent a proceed to work notice and may then
contact your contractors.
If you have any questions, please call me at 861-.
Sincerely,
0
17
?-Cm
Exhibit I
Date
Dear
Our office has received an escrow of $ from you. With this requirement
completed you're ready for the next step in the process.
You may now make arrangements with your contractor(s) to proceed with work.
If you have any questions, please call me at 861-
Sincerely,
•
E
18
B ai
Exhibit J
FLOOD RELIEF PROGRAM
COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
C]
Property Owner
Address
Address of Improved Property
City
CONTRACTOR:
Payment will not be processed without an itemized bill. The undersigned Contractor
hereby certifies that the improvements specified by the Contractor and Property Owner
Contract pertaining to the above Property Owner have been completed in their entirety
and in accordance with the Contract between the undersigned and the Property Owner
relating thereto, and that all work performed by the undersigned is subject-to and in
conformity with the Contractor's Warranty set forth in said Contractor and Property
Owner Contract.
Name of Firm Date Completed Amount
Signature of Authorized Representative
INSPECTOR:
The undersigned Inspector hereby certifies that the Contractor listed above has completed
the work and/or delivered all materials for the flood relief improvements per applicable
City codes.
Signature of Inspector Date Inspected
PROPERTY OWNER:
The undersigned Property Owner hereby certifies that the Contractor listed above has
completed the work and/or delivered all materials for the flood relief improvements, in full
compliance with the terms' of the Contractor and Property Owner Contract between the
undersigned and said Contractor. The undersigned hereby authorizes the HRD to disburse
the funds directly to the Contractor.
Signature of Property Owner
•
19
Date
gas
ADMINISTERING ENTITY:
The undersigned Administering Entity hereby certifies that the above-referenced Property
Owner is in conformity with eligibility requirements as set forth in the Flood Relief
Program guidelines, the improvements specified by the Contractor and Property Owner
Contract have been inspected and completed, and the Warranty as set forth in the Program
guidelines/Contractor and Property Owner Contract are true and correct, as applied to the
above-referenced Property Owner.
Authorized Signature
Title Date
•
0
20
g a3
Date
Dear
Exhibit K
This letter serves as notice of the completion of Flood Relief Program improvements .
approved for you on The work was completed for a final
total amount of $
Enclosed you will find any applicable lien waivers.
If you have any further questions, please contact us at 861-
Thank you for your participation in the program.
• Sincerely,
•
21
Exhibit L
COVENANT
This covenant is executed this day of
19 , by
(hereinafter "The Owners"), on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns.
RECITALS
The Owners are the fee owners of certain property situated in the City of
Richfield, County of Hennepin,.State of Minnesota, which is legally described as:
Said property shall hereinafter be called the "Property".
The City of Richfield has established a Flood Relief Program which is
publicly funded and intended to provide financial assistance.to.eligible property owners in
undertaking measures to reduce the risk of flood-related damage to the property
(hereinafter the "Program").
• The Property meets the eligibility requirements of the Program.
The Owners have agreed to hire a contractor to complete the work prescribed under the
Program.
The City agrees to use Program money to pay for 75% of the reasonable value of the
work prescribed by the Program as determined by the City.
The City does not guarantee that the flood relief measures for which Program money is
paid are adequate or will prevent future flood-related damage to the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owners agree as follows:
1) This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding on Owners, their
heirs, successor, and assigns;
2) Owners, their heirs, successors and assigns agree to defend, hold
harmless and indemnify the City of Richfield for and against any claims for death,
personal injury, or damage to or taking of real and personal property, from flood-related
damages to the Property caused, in whole or in part, by inadequacy of the flood relief
measures undertaken through the Program.
? -;?q
22
?-as
OWNERS
0
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day
of 19 by
and. , the owners and
covenantors hereunder.
NotaryPublic
This document was drafted by:
The City of Richfield Housing and-Redevelopment Division
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
0 November, 1994
23