06-26-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1995
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
PRESENTATION OF 1994 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 22
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE
12, 1995; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995 AND (3)
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF JUNE 19, 1995
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 1, 1995 WOMEN
OF TODAY FOUNDERS DAY
3. PRESENTATION OF POLICE AUXILIARY OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD
FOR 1994 TO GERALD RUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 162
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
.ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER
MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED'FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AS
AMENDED AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 1995 CONCRETE STREET
AND ALLEY REPAIR AND JOINT CLEANING AND RESEALING TO ARCON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF $30,658.20 C.L. 163
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PAINTING LOGAN AVENUE TOWER WATER
FROM DELOUGHERY PAINTING IN AMOUNT OF $295,440 C.L. 164
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
REJECTION OF BID FOR RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE ACTIVITIES AREA
FROM GLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS, INC. IN AMOUNT OF
$61,401.50 AND AUTHORIZE READVERTISING FOR WORK C.L. 165
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR GREENS AERATOR FOR USE AT RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE
FROM MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF $5,413.40 C.L. 166
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
MADE BY TIMOTHY KUNTZ, INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND
RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF DR. JOEL LOCKETZ DBA ANIMAL
MEDICAL CLINIC FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE AT PET FOOD
WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 167
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
7. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1994
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 168
CONSIDERATION OF CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON
JULY 3, 1995
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 169
9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
10. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
12. .COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
14. 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.
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 169
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Council consideration regarding conducting a City Council Study Session on July 3,
1995.
Background:
The City Council regularly conducts a Study Session on the first Monday of each
month. However, the first Monday in July 1995 is the day before the July 4 holiday.
Any business can be carried over to the August 7 Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for July 3, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. July 3 is the day before the July 4 holiday.
2: The holiday may cause a problem with a quorum for the Council.
3. Any business can be carried over to the August 7 regularly scheduled City Council
Study Session.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not cancel the July 3 Study Session.
2. Reschedule the Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the June 26, 1995 City Council agenda so proper
notification can be made if the Study Session is canceled or rescheduled.
Respectful s mitted,
James D rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. i6s
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of acceptance of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994.
Background:
The City's auditing firm of Deloitte &Touche completed the audit of the City's fiscal year
ended December 31, 1994 in May 1995. The CAFR was subsequently submitted to the
State of Minnesota as required and to the Government Finance Officers Association for
compliance review.
At the June 26, 1995 City Council Study Session meeting, representatives from Deloitte
& Touche made a presentation of the CAFR to the City Council and answered any
questions concerning the report. The action to be taken at the June 26, 1995 City
Council meeting is the official receipt of the CAFR by the City Council.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report of the City for the year ended December 31, 1994.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial records for the year
ended December 31, 1994 and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal
compliance and internal controls.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanation of their findings.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the June 26, 1995 City Council meeting. The CAFR
has been previously submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law.
Respl~ubmitted,
Jame$ C~jprosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. i6~
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Review findings, conclusions and recommendations made by Timothy Kuntz, an
independent hearing examiner, and reconsider the application of Dr. Joel Locketz d.b.a.
Animal Medical Clinic for a commercial kennel license at Pet Food Warehouse, 710
West 66th Street.
Background:
At the April 25, 1994 Council meeting, the Council considered an application for a
commercial kennel license for Dr. Joel D. Locketz d.b.a. Animal Medical Clinic, located
at Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street. At that meeting, the license request
was denied. Findings of Fact was scheduled for adoption by the City Council on May 9,
1994.
At the May 9, 1994 Council meeting, the Council approved a motion to reopen the
public hearing for consideration of Findings of Fact related to the application for a
commercial kennel license for Dr. Joel Locketz at 710 West 66th Street. There was a
dispute of facts; therefore, it was suggested that an independent fact finder be engaged
at the cost of the applicant to review the issues for presentation to the Council. It was
the consensus of the Council that this be undertaken. The applicant agreed. It was
originally anticipated that the reconsideration by the City Council would occur sometime
in July 1994.
On two occasions, the applicant requested a continuance in the independent fact finder
hearing as additional time was needed to gather supportive information.
On February 23, 1995, independent hearing examiner Timothy Kuntz took testimony
and considered evidence relating to the application. The hearing was held from 9 a.m.
to 12 noon.
At that time, all interested parties were given the opportunity to present testimony and
evidence and to make both oral and written submissions. That hearing was preceded
by a written notice, dated February 15, 1995, given by the City to all interested parties.
At that hearing, each party was allowed full opportunity to present their testimony.
None of the persons appearing were denied ample time.
A copy of those findings was distributed with Council Memo No. 71 dated June 16,
1995. Attached is a statement to be included at the request of Dr. Robert Dietl of
Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue.
/-I
Recommended Motion:
Review the independent hearing examiner's findings, conclusions and recommendation
and reconsider the license application for Dr. Joel Locketz d.b.a. Animal Medical Clinic
at Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The independent hearing examiner has, at the City Council's request, conducted a
public hearing to take testimony and consider evidence relating to this application.
He has provided his findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is being asked to review the independent hearing examiner's findings,
conclusions and recommendations and to reconsider the license application for Dr. Joel
Locketz d.b.a. Animal Medical Clinic at Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street, for
a commercial kennel license.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
l~~
T. W. WANOUS, D.V.M. D. HEIDEN. D.V.M.
R. A. DIETL, D.V.M. i I i M. GLATTLY. D.V.M.
AMERICAN ANIMAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
MEMBER HOSPITAL
WOODLAKE VETERINARY HOSPITAL
6436 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55423
861-7461
T'p 13 ~ s y ~r i S ~- ; G >-~ S ~ ~
~r r, -.~ ~ r ~ ~} ~ i c, t`
~o+~~P 1-,-~Q„~..8..~~ . fit. ~-~-~-,.,_~,..~~ ~, o-w,_
~.
4
~~. ~~
Dr. Robert Dietl
6837 Newton Ave., S. (home)
6436 tyndale (work)
Richfield, MN 55423
~~
~'1~ ~,
~,
<~
t
My name is Dr. Robert Dietl. I am a veterinarian. I'm co-owner of Woodlake
Veterinary Hospital and I have practiced in Richfield for 20 years. I'm a member
of the Veterinary Hospital Association. Our Association has over 200 member
hospitals in Minnesota whose purpose it is to deliver the best quality of medicine
possible to our patients.
I'm also the spokesperson for the Veterinary Hospital Association and
veterinarians listed in the material previously presented to the council.
We are opposed to the licensing of this clinic for several reasons. Our first area
of concern is the safety and welfare of both the pets and public. These clinics
have limited hours. They see a large number of pets in a short period of time.
No appointments are set up to stagger their arrival. This causes congestion both
in doors an outdoor that can result in:
1. Animal waste in the parking lot, on the sidewalks and in the store.
2. Animal fights.
3. Potential for bites and scratches to humans, inside and outside the
facilities.
4. Despite leash laws, pets do get loose and with such a congested parking
.situation there is a substantial risk of vehicular injuries to both animals and
humans.
I inquired about complaints at the location with Richfield Public Safety and was
told about the following reports:
May 5, 1994- Report of a dog in a car, unusually hot day, windows up located
near Pet Food Warehouse, owner located in store and was informed of risk to
dog
July 29, 1994- dog at large, white poodle in parking lot, investigated by
Community Service Officer
February 20, 1995- While going into Kinkos next to Pet Food Warehouse, I
personally observed an owner with a black lab leave the car and enter Pet Food
Warehouse. The dog had a leash on, but the owner allowed the dog to run
ahead 20 ft of the owner. The owner caught up to the dog at the doors of Pet
Food Warehouse, which they entered.
A forth incident related to me by Animal Control occurred about 2 years ago at
Pet Food Warehouse on 77th and Morgan. They had an "Adopt a Pet Day"
promotion sponsored by an animal adoption group. The adaptable pets were on
display and the report states that a child went to pet a cat in a cage and was
~-~
bitten. When the report was investigated by a Community Service Officer the
event was over, the cat and the people were gone. Further details were
unavailable.
One could argue that these reports are few in number and with exception of the
bitten child; minor in nature. They do however confirm the risks when people and
pets interact. It is common for 60-90 pets to be seen in the short period of time
that the clinics are open. I suggest that the clinic greatly increases these risks by
attracting a large number of pets in the short period of time the clinics are open.
My second area of concern is the parking at Market Plaza. Parking has been a
problem since it opened. Champps and Drug Emporium attract a large number
of customers. A visit to the parking lot quickly confirms that parking is a problem
~ ~ a~ Many of the spaces are restricted. Pet Food Warehouse representatives told the
'a Y k;,, ~ Council in April they had adequate parking for their customers. But, we contend
r ~ bl ~„, S ttracte At the Council hearingaon Apria25t~19946two opthe threetvoteslc ictwill
as o
deny the license stated concerns about parking. To quote the conclusion of the
council:
2. "The Council is concerned that permitting the licensed activity to occur at a
location which use on the busiest parking lots and at one of the busiest
intersections of the City may create risks to public safety. Notwithstanding
existing leash and restraint regulations in the City, some owners of pets do on
occasion allow their pets to be at large. The risk of injury or harm is magnified in
the close confines of the busy parking area which would serve the licensed
activity."
3. "The Council is further concerned that permitting the licensed activity at
the proposed location may create risk to public health. Because of the size of the
parking area, the prompt removal of animal feces will be very difficult. Permitting
the licensed activity would heighten the risk that animal feces may be tracked into
the center's restaurant, and the potential for food contamination."
My third area of concern is the clinic itself. It should be in compliance with
current Richfield Kennel Regulations which govern veterinary clinics. Some
examples are:
a. Separate entrances.
b. Floor to ceiling walls.
c. Tiled floors, impervious to infection and bodily wastes.
d. Separate heating, air-conditioning and ventilation units to control odor and
airborne diseases.
e. Sinks with hot and cold water in exam rooms.
f. Waste management controls both inside and outside the facilities.
g. Compliance with the Minnesota Infectious and Biological Waste Control
Act of 1989.
h. All OSHA regulations.
i. Handicapped accessibility.
~~
Prior to last April's hearing, we heard the clinic seeks waivers from some of the
requirements because it offers limited services and is only open part time. Pet
Food Warehouse and the clinic opposed the requirement of a separate entrance
and floor to ceiling walls, which would separate the store from the clinic. Pet
Food Warehouse told the council that they enjoy the relationship they have with
the clinics because it increases customer traffic flow and exposure of their
products. Again, I'll quote from the Councils conclusions:
"Pet Food Warehouse has recently opened a retail outlet at this location. One of
the special features of the Pet Food Warehouse operation is that customers are
encouraged to bring their pets with them when they shop. The clinic's activity
would be conducted in a portion of the premises which has separate entrances
and exits. However, neither the clinic nor the Pet Food Warehouse indicated any
plans to restrict entrance and exit to the clinic from the store."
"Although the clinic is proposed to only vaccinate well animals, the availability of
a veterinarian may prompt individuals to bring in sick animals for examination.
This will have the effect of exposing the other animals at Pet Food Warehouse
and products which are sold there to illness."
We concur with the Councils conclusions and believe the clinic should have
separate entrances and exits from the outside and not communicate with the
store.
My second concern about the clinic is it's manner of operation. The council was
told at the April hearings:
a. it is a first class operation
b. each pet is given a thorough physical examination and any questions or
problems are discussed with them by a DVM.-
c. They are given a certificate and physical findings are recorded.
I can tell you that in the short time allotted to each pet it is not possible to do all of
these things. To support my opinion I have submitted a copy of one their forms
brought to our clinic. (Item A).
You will note the form contains a Rabies vaccination certificate the owner would
need to get a Richfield license. Please note, date vaccinated- May 12, 1994,
also note the date vaccination expired-May 12, 1994. The city of Richfield would
not accept this certificate as it is written. Also, note under'Physical Findings",
Temp. is blank. I assume the temperature was not taken. Where it lists the
areas examined, it states items are either normal or abnormal, there is a vertical
arrow top to botto indicating all are normal.
~~ I't S~~r-} h Qr~ _~
Under services given they list the items performed and the cost of each. They
told the Council that their fees are 30-40 % below the comparable average fee in
this area. When I compare these fees to those at our clinic the actual difference
is the cost of the examination. We allow 15-20 minutes at our clinic to conduct
the exam.
~~Vl
By marketing their clinic in this manner, we fee! they give pet owners a false
sense of security that their pet is in "good health". In reality, medical problems
may have gone undetected in this brief visit. This could also result in the
vaccination of pets that may indeed not be healthy and may not adequately
respond to the vaccine.
In summary, we are opposed to the licensing of this clinic at Pet Food
Warehouse in Market Plaza because of
1. public safety issues
2. the additional parking burden the clinic will create, .and
3. the welfare of the public and their pets.
,~ I
__--
N~v~- co-~~2c~.~
/~ ~ v r 3 a .~" o-Q~ Ate- ~ i 1,~ ~fL.
S-eA ~ 1 y ~~
o~
,~
Yr~ o~ ~ }.~_:~- ~n 7
t~ n
C V ~~' Q ''''` ~
j= ~pw
C~Qrn~.T' V~ ~$ uS4 f
- S a--~-~ ~ O v r S ~ s G~ ; .~ i C .S
i.
~I
' ~~
i 1
-'-~ S A~-i ~/~. ~. ~ sZ )vim ~..~ -~Q~, ~-~ z a ~ ~ o~~ 4
~l S rv~ ~ C d r~^e c~' ~ ~`~.A ~ Q ~ j -~ ~ i~ ~'! Q ~ e'T~
L / 1
~ S 7 ~ ~1.~ i~ v 2~~- ' ~-, ~ i~ ~, i T j S
~' L v T ~`l~Z ~ 'C' f'> > ~.o V 2c.~. ~ 1-~~ i 7' U Q ~' e, r rr~ ~ y~.
1~ ~ ~7'~SL r-, G( ~ L !1 `{- mil' U r ~'~. O )^ ~ v Q~C`.-~) ~ ~ ~ D Y
r
~'1 v .~ . C ~ ~' ~1 C -~~ /~ ~ S lj j ~ j c~ n. ~ i~ r~ cX- l.(,.t~ (1
~. ~ . v
4 rill. ~..~ ~ ~ ~ -r ~ ~ 7~~ a r ~ e. ~ ~Q,~ ; C
r7~ ~J~' ~ r j ,+-~ tt r> > e. r~ ~/ ~ a s' / ~ h ae~ ~ C' s2. r~ ~ 3 J) C ~-P
1\ i)
l~J
f c-~
-- - v
11
V ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
~~
U
A
`r~ ~i
' \
°o o°, `b' o°, o° °o °o °o °o o° o° o° °o o°
ai r ri v ao ~ ai r- ri ~ Sri ui ui Sri
~ i9 En es> is tfs us EA t» es> v~ iA ~ ~
J
Q
H
0
}
~
Z ~
W
> ~n
w a w ¢ w
U w {{{
--- ~ 2
~ ~ L
1
~ ~
v ~ U
N
z
m ~
~ ~
~
d ~
w w
t--
~
~ ~=
g
Q ~
~
~ =
c7 ~ ' ~ w W ~ .-
Q = Q ~ Y Y ~
O 2 CJ ~ Q ~ Z
W Q O ~ ~ ~ Z J J m O O
~
~ r O Z ~ d z ~ O 2 Z U z U N
t~ D[ w g U d
Q ~ O ~ w w w w 2 w w w °' w w - U
~ ~ U J Y S u. ti U d tL ti Y lL ~
r N M ~t tff ~D h- CO Q1 O ~-- N M 'Ct lA <D ti
r r r r r r r r•
~rwrirr~ww~~~~~r~~~~w~~~
'' \
~~
a ~°-
a 1
~ ~° o ~ L,
U >~ ~
J QZd' ~~
~~~~~LL
~ C O n
w= ~`'~ 1
~~ ~ !
N ~ '
8
a ~
~ ~~«
r m~9.~
~ ~ t
L a
~ '
L
.. '
' ~ '
~ .. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
r
~
~ o
s
Q
` ~
~ ?
M~~---{{
YJ
>° ~ rNrrtrt
= z ~ 2
° $
N N
0 []
>
y~~~ ~ ~ IJ
~ N ~ s Q
~
~ ~
~~
u
`zr~l
~ 4 '
a ~ ~°i~? Z
w ~
_ o > >
5. ~.
` `
> F` ' ~. Q
2 ~
r
E ~
~ 1LF ~
~ ~ ~ ^ ~•
~ ~ ~
Z
• ~ ~ ~
v
i
ii ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ m
•
~ m m ^
~ < '
^
ffi
' v
_~
^o~
z
r ~aQ{ pQ q
YJ {.] U Z
1w- pe
O.
~ ~ {y Cq
~ U U'
31v~i~~sa3~ s~iava ----~
c
m
E
E
0
F
s
y
m
Z
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
s
o ~'
d
C L
~ ~- ~1 J{APR~05 '94 1659
r ~9~¢~~W ~~~~
U
e ~ ~~
~7
~m ~r~~r
DC~Gi~i _
Ihe~rs ~
Rabies $15.00 $8.00
Distemper- $30.00 $15.00
Hep~titis-
Parvo ~~-w~y~
(The Above $45.00 $24.00
Series)
Corona $10.00 $3.00
Lymes $21.00 $14,00
Kennel $1.8.00 $8.00
Cough
(Bordetella)
Heartworrn $22.00 $15.00
Test (Antigen)
Fecal Test $14.50 $x,00
Heartguard He artworm
Preventative (At Reduced Rates)
CdT+~
~~.
Rabies $15.00 $$.00
Feline $30..00 $16.00
Distemper-
Respiratory is-way)
(The Above
Series)
$45.OQ $24.00
Peritoniti$
(F.I.P.)
Feline
Leukemia
Feline
Leukemia
Test
X20.00 $15.00
X20.00 $1 s.oo
$25.00 $15.00
All Servlcas lncludo Free Exsnrlnetlon by a MM Licensed Veterinarian
1NAP~$Ilooa MIHHETONKA ~DB-~ PgAJRIE
3000 White Bear Avenue 13691 Ridgehaven Drive 8020 Qlen Lane
EVERY SATURDAY EVERY SATURDAY EVERY THURSDAY
9:p0 AM -12:00 PM 2:30 PM - 5:00 PM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
~(~~'t EVERY TUESDAY
T:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Senricse Provided By Animal Medical Clinic, • 2603 Hennepin Avo., Mpis • 374-4414
Not ~adad with Pst Food WarsAouao
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ /J
Council Letter No. 166
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 of a greens aerator for use at the Rich-Acres Golf Course.
Background:
The City Council 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 # 39, a 1986 Toro Greens Aerator, was fully depreciated and scheduled for replacement
in 1992. At that time, staff chose to not replace the unit, as the new models of aerators at that
time were unproven. This year, the frame cracked on the `86 machine. Repairs would cost
more than the aerator is worth, and staff has decided to request replacement rather than trying
to repair it. Staff requested quotations for a new greens aerator and received three quotes as
follows:
m n Base Bid Trade-In Total (w/Tax)
MTI Distributing Company $8,583 ($3,500) $5,413.40
Erv's Lawn Mower Repair $8,995 ($3,000) $6,384.68
Cushman Motor Company, Inc. $7,820 ($2,100) $6,091.80
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the sum of $5,413.40 to MTI Distributing Company for a new
greens aerator.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. MTI Distributing Company submitted the lowest responsible quotation.
2. The unit bid is compatible with other equipment used by the Golf Course, so parts for
repairs are interchangeable.
3. The revised 1995 Motor Pool budget will reflect this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject quotes and direct staff to obtain new quotations, however, staff
does not believe a better price from a reputable manufacturer can be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval of this purchase at the June 26, 1995 Council meeting.
Respe submitted,
Jam .Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
~~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 165
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of rejection of bid for Rich Acres Golf Course activities area.
Background:
The adopted 1995 Capital Budget includes $61,000 for an activities area at Rich Acres
Golf Course. The primary focus of the project is a picnic pavilion. The project also
includes the construction of an additional putting green and all related costs such as
consultant and advertising.
Design work for the picnic pavilion, to be located in the present picnic/grill area adjacent
to the clubhouse, estimated a bid price of $45,000. There were four plan holders for
the project but only one bid was received at the formal bid opening held on June 15,
1995. The bid submitted by Global Specialty Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$61,401.50 substantially exceeded the estimated amount for the work.
It is the opinion of staff and the consultant that rebidding the project later in the season
for completion this fall will produce more favorable prices from more vendors.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and reject the bid from Global Specialty Contractors,
Inc. in the amount of $61,401.50 for the activities area at Rich Acres Golf Course and
authorize readvertising for the work.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Only one bid was submitted.
2. The one bid submitted exceeded the estimated amount for the work..
3. It is anticipated that more vendors would bid on a project to be completed in the
fall when they are less busy and that prices would be more favorable.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Accept the bid submitted. However, the amount of the one bid submitted exceeds
the anticipated price for the work.
2. Do not readvertise: The present activities area is limited but adequate. However,
to proceed with the project, even at a later time, would improve customer service
and enhance the Rich Acres Golf Course.
~~ /
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the June 26, 1995 Council agenda. Council is requested to take action
at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
James rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
~~r~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 15, 1995
Activity Area at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course
Bid No. 95-14
City Project 705-1586
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 activity area at Richfield's Rich
Acres Golf Course, Bid No., 95-14, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 24,
1995.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
Global Specialty Contractors, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 61,401.50
Burnsville, MN
Alternates:
#1 deduct 6,813.00
#2 deduct 525.00
#3 deduct 1,080.00
#4 add 10,598.00
#5 add 495.00
#6 add 765.00
#7 add 1,984.00
#8 add 722.00
#9 add 274.50
#10 add 300.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June
26, 1995 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 164
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of award of contract to paint the Logan Avenue water tower.
Background:
The 1995 Adopted Water Maintenance budget contains $425,000 for painting the
Logan Avenue water tower. The tower was last painted in 1984. It is in need of
maintenance at this time. Since 1984, there has been much concern about lead-base
paint. Recent tests on this paint indicate that it is lead free. Also, because there is no
residential property immediately adjacent to the tower, no special containment is
needed. Bids were opened on June 1, 1995 as follows:
Deloughery Painting $295,440
Odland Protective Coatings $429,600
TMI Coatings, Inc. $488,610
Tenyer Coatings $580,200
Discussions with the bidders disclosed that Deloughery did a better job of investigating
the need (or lack of need) for containment. Therefore, their bid is much lower than the
others.
The engineer's estimate for this project was $415,500.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract in the sum of $295,440 to
Deloughery .Painting for painting the Logan Avenue water tower.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Deloughery submitted the lowest responsible bid. One reason their bid is
considerably lower than the rest is that they will not be confining the blasting portion,
however, the bid still meets Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements and
guidelines.
2. The bid is well within the budgeted amount for this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could reject the bids and instruct staff to obtain new quotations. However, staff
does not believe a better price can be obtained from a responsible contractor.
~g--l
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item; however, staff is requesting
approval at the June 26, 1995 meeting in order to facilitate timely completion of this
project.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:cak
~~~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 1, 1995
Painting the Logan Avenue Water Tower
Bid No. 95-13
City Project No. 703-1593
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 painting the Logan Avenue water
tower, bid no. 95-13, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 17, 1995.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
DeLoughery Painting Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 295,440.00
Minot, ND
Odland Protective Coatings 5% Bid Bond $ 429,600.00
Rockford, MN
Tenyer Coatings, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 580,200.00
Badger, MN
TMI Coatings, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 488,610.00
St. Paul, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June
26, 1995 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 163
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement•
Award of contract for 1995 concrete street and alley repair, and joint cleaning and
resealing.
Background:
Cleaning debris from joints in concrete streets removes inflexible material that can
cause the joint to erupt during times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are
resealed with material that expands and contracts with the pavement surface. This also
will reduce water intrusion into the pavement base, which weakens the street surface.
This year, work is scheduled for 76th Street between Colfax and Bryant Avenues, 65th
Street by the Richfield Post Office, driveway work at Fire Station #1, and ten alleys.
Bids were opened on June 8, 1995 from three contractors for the 1995 project as
follows:
Arcon Construction $30,658.20
Tenson Construction $36,596.90
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $46,500.8.0
*Corrected amount: original $36,725.90 calculation was. in error.
The 1995 Revised Street Maintenance budget contains $12,000 for the contract portion
of concrete joint cleaning and resealing. In addition, $20,000 is the estimate for alley
joint cleaning and resealing in 1995. The alley work is paid for with alley maintenance
assessment funds.
The contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual
work performed. Council would be authorizing contracts at the stated amounts, with the
stipulation that the contract documents allow variances. The following table shows the
amounts .actually spent on this type of work since 1990:
1990 $54,389.43
1991 $51,562.35
1992 $43,342.85
1993 $49,397.00
1994 $ -0
*In 1994, the money allocated for this work was spent on crackfilling blacktop streets.
5A-I
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation (as amended) and award a contract for the 1995
concrete street and alley repair and joint cleaning and resealing to Arson Construction
Company in the sum of $30,658.20.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from Arcon Construction Company, Inc. is the lowest responsible bid.
2. Arson Construction Company, Inc. is a well-known and reputable company that has
previously worked for the City.
3. The work is included in the 4995 budget.
A)ternative Recommendation:
The City Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new quotations.
However, the bids obtained are reasonable, and staff does not believe a better price
from a reputable contractor could be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay award of this contract. However, the contract documents
allow the bidders to withdraw their bids after 60 days of the bid opening, and an
extended delay could result in the loss of construction season. Therefore, staff is
asking for approval at the June 26, 1995 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja a D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
~`/'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 8, 1995
11:00 a.m.
Concrete Street & Alley Repair & Joint Cleaning & Resealing
Bid No. 95-16
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 concrete street & alley repair &
joint cleaning & resealing, bid no. 95-16, as advertised in the official newspaper on May
24, 1995.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Security Total Bid Amount
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $46,500.80
Osseo, MN
Arcon Construction Co., Inc. 5% Bid Bond. $30,658.20
Mora, MN
Tenson Construction, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $36,596.90
Big Fork, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June
26, 1995 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 162 .
Agenda June 26, 1995
Issue Statement:
Presentation of "Police Auxiliary Officer of the Year" award for 1994 to Gerald Rue.
Background:
Public Safety annually recognizes the outstanding efforts of a volunteer Police Auxiliary Officer
(Reserve) by presenting the "Police Auxiliary Officer of the Year" award. This award is
normally presented at the auxiliary volunteer recognition dinner, but Gerald Rue was out of
state on business the evening of the dinner and was not able to attend. Therefore, Public
Safety would like to present the award at the June 26 Council meeting.
Officer Gerald Rue has been a member of the Police Auxiliary for 16 years. As a sergeant in
the Rescue Auxiliary group, he exemplifies the standard for professionalism within the group.
He faithfully attends meetings, callouts, and special events and works hard to accomplish the
task at hand, Officer Rue is always quick to volunteer for special duty and can be counted on
to provide new ideas and constructive comments on issues facing the organization.
Officer Rue's dedication to the organization was demonstrated clearly last year when he
volunteered to write a computer database program to track volunteer hours and to maintain
the division roster. This program has been completed and is being used successfully to
simplify several of the administrative tasks that are necessary to maintain smooth operation of
the auxiliary.
Recommended Motion:
Present the "Police Auxiliary Officer of the Year" award for 1994 to Officer Gerald Rue by the
Mayor and the Public Safety Director.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The "Police Auxiliary Officer of the Year" award is an important tool for recognizing
outstanding volunteer effort.
2. The Department of Public Safety feels that a Council meeting is an appropriate public
setting for the presentation of this important award.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Presentation of the "Police Auxiliary Officer of the Year" to Auxiliary Officer Gerald Rue.
Resp submitted,
Jame rosser
City ger
JDP:cak