The URL can be used to link to this page

2-28-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER I. DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION II. INTERVIEW OF STUDENTS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON SISTER CITY COMMISSION 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 FEBRUARY 14, 1994; AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 6-13, 1994 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK 3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO ADOPT-A-PARK GROUPS COUNCIL LETTER NO.63 AGENDA APPROVAL 4. 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. 5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF LARRY EMOND AND GLENN ERICKSON AS RESIDENT MEMBERS TO 1994 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION C.L. 64 B. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SETTING INTEREST PENALTY, CERTIFICATION FEE AND ASSESSMENT. INTEREST RATE FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER UTILITY ACCOUNTS C.L. 65 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR PHASE I CONSTRUCTION; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 66 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR NEW ARTICULATED SIDEWALK PLOW FROM MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $44,646.93 C.L. 67 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR, BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING IN 1994 FROM FAIR'S GARDEN CENTER, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $8,946 C.L. 68 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ROCK SALT FOR REMAINDER OF 1993/94 WINTER SEASON FROM CARGILL, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $7,680 C.L. 69 G. ESTIMATE #4 PAYMENT FOR RICHFIELD ICE ARENA REROOFING; G&B CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $29,359.99 PUBLIC HEARING 6. PUBLIC-HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 7 TO LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WITH RSA MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY APPROVED DURING LAST QUARTER OF 1993 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 70 RESOLUTIONS 7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO UNCAP APPROPRIATION FOR TARGETED PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS FOR 1994 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 71 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND EXTENSION OF MATURITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS PROJECT) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 72 9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING REOPENER ISSUES OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL 123 BARGAINING UNIT, FOR 1994 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 73 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED PERTAINING TO GUNSHOP USES AND PLACING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH USES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 74 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 11. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS; AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT OF GUNSHOP USES WITHIN CITY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 75 12. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REGULATE DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 76 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 13. CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR UNLICENSED GROUP HOME FOR FIVE HANDICAPPED UNRELATED ADULTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 77 14. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND STUDENT APPOINTMENTS TO SISTER CITY COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 78 015. CONSIDERATION OF REJECTION OF BID FOR ONE 20 PASSENGER AND 2 WHEELCHAIR CAPACITY BUS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 79 AIRPORT BUSINESS 16. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 17. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 18. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 19. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 20. 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. • Issue Statement: Rejection of bid bus. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 79 Agenda February 28, 1994 for one 20 passenger and 2 wheelchair capacity Background: On February 10, 1994, bids were received for a handicapped accessible bus for the Community Center. Of the five plan holders, only one submitted a bid. That bid was received from the Hoglund Bus Company in the base bid amount of $70,008. This bid did not meet specifications with regard to several items and was considerably higher than the $46,000 budgeted figure. Since the bid was received, the City has been unexpectedly notified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) that the application for grant assistance for purchase of a bus has been approved due to new guidelines recently adopted by the Federal Transit Administration. Prior to bidding the bus, the City was told it was not eligible for these funds in 1994. For these reasons, it is deemed financially prudent to rebid the bus in cooperation with the MnDOT Capital Assistance Grant Program. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and reject the bid from Hoglund Bus Company for one 20 passenger and 2 wheelchair capacity bus in the base bid of $70,008. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bid did not meet specifications. 2. The bid was much higher than expected. 3. Richfield is now eligible for grant assistance if rebidding for the bus is done in conjunction with MnDOT. Alternative Recommendation: Accept the bid. However, this would not permit the City to take advantage of grant assistance. This grant could pay up to 80% of the cost of a new bus. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the February 28, 1994 Council agenda. Action is requested at this time. lly submitted, Jame Prosser City pager JDP:ds Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1 1 -/ Bid Opening February 10, 1994 11:30 A.M. One New Bus, 20 Passenger & Two Wheelchairs Bid No. 94-2 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 one new bus, 20 passenger and two wheelchairs, bid no. 94-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 19, 1994. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Lil Hipp, Community Center Manager Ray Wroblewski, Clerk Typist Central Garage The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL SECURITY i ;Hoglund Bus Co., Inc. Monticello; 5% Bid Bond ;base $70,008.80; Trade-in AH#1 -2,600.00; Luggage rack AH#2 + 450.00; ;Skirted Luggage AH#3 + 941.00; Comp. The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 28, 1994 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 14- Council Letter No. 78 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of one appointment to the Human Rights Commission and two student appointments to the Sister City Commission. Background: Several terms of City Board and Commission Members expired on January 31, 1994. In addition, some Commissions had vacancies resulting from resignations. At the January 24, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council appointed persons to fill the vacancies. Due to a resignation, there is a vacancy on the Human Rights Commission. This is a one year unexpired term that ends on January 31, 1995. Applicants interviewed by the Council in January will be considered for appointment. The Sister City Commission currently has two student vacancies. These are one year terms which expire on January 31, 1995. Students interested in serving on the Sister City Commission were interviewed on February 28, 1994 at a Special City Council meeting. Recommended Motion: Appoint a person to fill the one vacancy on the Human Rights Commission and appoint students to fill two student vacancies on the Sister City Commission. Basis of Recommendation: 1. These appointments complete the membership of the Human Rights Commission and Sister City Commission. 2. Applicants interviewed by the Council in January will be considered for the Human Rights Commission. 3. Applicants for the Sister City Commission were interviewed on February 28, 1994. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the appointments to another Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the February 28, 1994 Council agenda for Council consideration. The appointments will begin immediately. Respec lly submitted, `-1 Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 77 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Continuance of consideration of zoning classification for unlicensed group home for five handicapped unrelated adults. Background: On February 14, 1994, the Council continued to the next meeting consideration of the zoning classification of a Fairweather Lodge proposal to permit legal review. Tasks Unlimited provides an employment program for about 150 mentally handicapped adults in Hennepin, Ramsey, and Anoka Counties. About half of those served by Tasks Unlimited also receive housing support, through what is called "Fairweather Lodging". This housing arrangement provides small group living in single family dwellings. A lodge is purchased through federal and state housing programs and residents pay rent based on their income. The lodge is not a treatment or transitional housing facility. Residents maintain the lodge and yard, and staff support is provided a couple times per week. Residents usually share a single vehicle or utilize mass transit. Tasks Unlimited currently operates eight Fairweather Lodges in surrounding . communities. Tasks Unlimited is proposing a Fairweather Lodge in a Richfield home. This single family home would house five unrelated adults. The zoning code allows only three or fewer unrelated persons to occupy a dwelling unit unless licensed as a group care facility by the State. Tasks Unlimited is an unlicensed program. Recommended Motion: Refer this issue to a Special Hearing Officer to conduct a public hearing, make findings of fact and a recommendation to the Council by March 14, 1994, pursuant to Sections 505.11 and 545 of the City Code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There are no districts in Richfield which specifically permit unlicensed group homes for more than three unrelated .persons. The proposed use is considered to be a "use not listed" according to the City Code. 2. Section 505.11 of the City Code states that when a proposed use is not listed, the Council should determine the appropriate classification, or grant a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 545 of the City Code. 3. Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed use and privacy • issues raised at the February 14 meeting, conferred with counsel for Tasks Unlimited, and recommends that it be referred to a Hearing Officer for a hearing, fact finding and recommendation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission. 2. The Council could conduct a public hearing on the matter. 3. The Council could determine that the proposed Fairweather Lodge is a permitted use in the R district and not subject to further action. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the February 28, 1994 City Council meeting. No publication or notification is required. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak C_1 0 / Cl?_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 76 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amendment to regulate driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks in the R (single family) and R-1 (low density single family) districts. Background: The zoning ordinance does not adequately address or regulate parking in the single family districts. Last summer, the Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the construction of new front yard parking areas. The moratorium was imposed to protect the planning process, and to allow adequate time to study residential parking issues and develop appropriate regulations. Over the past few years, the City Council and staff have received complaints about certain residential parking situations. In extreme cases, entire front yards have been paved or graveled and used as parking for up to eight cars. The City cannot regulate these situations if the cars are licensed, operable, and parked on an established driveway. Many residents have requested that an ordinance be adopted to regulate residential parking, especially within the front yard areas. The attached ordinance would regulate parking setback, surface treatment, amount of impervious surface, number of parking spaces, and would also set standards for driveways within the City boulevard. In addition, the ordinance would require a City permit for expansion or installation of driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance to regulate and set a second reading and public hearing for March 28, 1994. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The ordinance limits the amount of impervious surface in front yard areas, which will help to control the quality and quantity of storm water run-off into the City storm sewer system. 2. The ordinance would protect aesthetics and property values of the City and its neighborhoods. 3. The Planning and Zoning Division has received inquiries from individuals who want to pave over major portions of their front yards this spring. The ordinance would stop the proliferation of front yard parking lots. 9 4. A permit requirement would provide an effective means of regulating code compliance. /a-1 5. On January 25, 1994, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could modify the amendment. 2. Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for further study. 3. Deny the amendment at first reading. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for February 28, 1994. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be held on March 28, 1994. y submitted, James D' Prosser City Mafiager JDP:ds 0 • %C;?-C)- 0 Bill No. 1994- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 515 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: residence districts" is hereby amended by amending Section 515.05, Subds. 10, 11, and 12 to read as follows: 515.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are accessory uses in the R district. Subd.10. Private driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks provided the following conditions are met: a) for the purposes of this subdivision, the term "front yard area" shall mean the area which extends across the entire width of the lot, between the front lot line and the principal building; b) all such driveways, oarkina areas. and sidewalks shall be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel, except that upon written request from the land owner, the Director may reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements or with a finding of necessity and public convenience; c) all such driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks shall be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director; d) unless the Director authorizes a greater amount for landscape purposes, the maximum driveway, parking area, and sidewalk coverage within the front yard area shall comply with the following table: Lot Width 50 feet or less: 51-60 feet: 61-70 feet: 71-80 feet: over 80 feet: Maximum Coveraae Within the Front Yard Area 50% 48% 46% 44% 42% e) within the front yard area, no more than three parking spaces shall be permitted -- the area between each garage stall and the street shall count as one parking space; f) driveways, where located within the boulevard, are subject to the following requirements: 9--5 (i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width (curb cut radii excluded); (ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the boulevard of abutting properties; (iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb lines of the streets intersect; (iv) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut from each public street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and v upon written request from the land owner, items (i)ce (ii), (iii) and (iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of necessity and public convenience. g) driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks legally existing on or before December 31, 1993, may continue to exist and to be repaired and maintained, except that upon full replacement, such driveway, parking area, or sidewalk shall comply with this subdivision; and h) any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit upon adoption of this subdivision. Subd. X11. "a srrteneaAntennas and towers conforming to section 425 of t4i-Sthe city code. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 75 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance establishing a one year moratorium on gunshops. Background: At a previous Council meeting, staff was instructed to review ways in which gunshops could be regulated within the City. Since that time, a number of issues related to gunshops have surfaced that require further study. In addition, it is quite likely that the State Legislature will be dealing with a myriad of issues relating to the sale of firearms. One such issue will be the ability of cities to recover their costs in processing transfers. It is for these reasons and others that an ordinance establishing a one year moratorium on any additional gunshops be adopted, allowing the Council and staff time to study the issues. The ordinance proposed deals with zoning which will allow the City to establish standards which will, through zoning, protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Recommended Motion: Consider first reading of an ordinance declaring a one year moratorium on gunshop uses and set the public hearing and second reading for March 28, 1994. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do nothing. Wait and see if the Legislature provides any direction. In the meantime, however, additional gunshops could locate within the City. 2. Reduce the moratorium to less than one year. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance establishing a one year moratorium on additional gunshops and setting public hearing and second reading for March 28, 1994. Respectfully submitted, Jam Prosser anager Cit JDP:ds 0 ORDINANCE NO. INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECT- ING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFE- TY, AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS; AND REGULAT- ING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUNSHOP USES WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: Section 1. Background. 1.01. As used in this ordinance, the term "gunshop uses" means commercial uses involving the retail sale of firearms, 1.02. Gunshop uses are currently treated as "retail stores and shopswhich are permitted uses in a C-2 general commercial zoning district. 1.03. Gunshop uses present different public health, safety, and welfare concerns than do other uses also included in the "retail stores and shops" classifica- tion, such as card shops and grocery stores, and it is unclear whether a new classification should be adopted for gunshop uses. 1.04. In addition to the proper zoning, classification of gwashop uses, there are a number of significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses, including the following: 1. The particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted or conditional uses. 2. The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods. 3. The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. 1.05. There is a need for a study to be conducted so that the City can adopt a set of comprehensive plans and land use zoning regulations pertaining to gunshop uses. Such a study will address the land use and zoning issues, including those referenced above. 1.06. There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance until such a study has been completed. There is a need to restrict such uses until such a study has been completed and any modifications to the City's zoning and land use regulations are accomplished. 1.07. The City Council has directed that such a study be undertaken 1.08. Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subd. 4 (Act) permits the adoption of is interim zoning ordinances during the planning process. j / -P- Section 2. Planning and Zoning Study; Moratorium. 2.01.. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff to determine how gunshop uses should be regulated within the City. The scope of the study should include, but is not limited to, the following: a. the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or conditional uses; b. the density and concentration of such uses; c. the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area; 2.02. Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. 2.03. A moratorium on the development of gunshops is adopted pending completion of the study and the adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. No building permit may be issued for such uses or for the expansion of any existing use during the moratorium period nor may any rezoWngs, plattings or replattin.gs, or land divisions or consolidations be granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium period. The moratorium period shall expire one year from the effective date of this ordinance or on such earlier date as may be further adopted by ordinance. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable time by ordinance, as may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amend- ments to the City's zoning ordinance. See. 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTESTThomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 r? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 74 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution establishing a moratorium on gunshops. Background: At a previous Council meeting, staff was instructed to review ways in which gunshops could be regulated within the City. Since that time, a number of issues related to gunshops have surfaced that require further study. of firearms. One such issue will be the ability of cities to recover their costs in processing transfers. In addition, it is quite likely that the State Legislature will be dealing with a myriad of issues relating to the sale It is for these reasons and others that a resolution establishing a moratorium on any additional gunshops be adopted, allowing the Council and staff time to study the issues. The moratorium proposed deals with zoning which will allow the City to establish standards which will, through zoning, protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Recommended Motion: Authorize a study to be conducted pertaining to gunshop and gunshop uses and place a moratorium on development of such uses pending the outcome of the study and analysis by the City Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do nothing. Wait and see if the Legislature provides any direction. In the meantime, however, additional gunshops could locate within the City. 2. Reduce the moratorium to less than one year. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter is presented for action at the Council Meeting on February 28, 1994. Respe pt-fully submitted, Prosser James Inager City JDP:ds 0 lD-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED PERTAINING TO GUNSHOP USES AND PLACING A, MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH USES WHEREAS, as used in this resolution, the term "gunshop uses" means commercial uses involving the retail sale of firearms; and WHEREAS, gunshop uses are currently treated as "retail stores and shops," which are permitted uses in a C-2 general commercial zoning district; and WHEREAS, gunshop uses present different public health, safety, and welfare concerns than do other uses also included in the "retail stores and shops" classifica- tion, such as card shops and grocery stores, and it is unclear whether a new classification should be adopted for gunshop uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary for a study to be conducted to determine how such uses should be regulated within the City and deems it desirable to place a moratorium on the development of such uses until the study has been completed and any amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance are adopted. • NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows : Y . The City staff is directed to conduct a study to determine how gunshop uses should be regulated within the City. The scope of the study should include, but is not limited to, the following: a6 the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or conditional uses; b. the density and concentration of such uses; c, the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area; 2. Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. 3. A moratorium on the development of gunshop uses is adopted pending completion of the study and the adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. No building permit may be issued for such uses or for the expansion of any existing use during the moratorium period nor may any rezonings, plattings or replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium period. The moratorium period created under this resolution shall expire on dune 1, 1994 or such earlier date as may be further adopted by resolution of the City Council or ordinance. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable time by ordinance, as may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. ID-0- 4. This resolution is effective immediately upon its adoption. Martin Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City clerk 0 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 73 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Approval of the•1994 reopener issues of the 1992-94 labor contract with the Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS), Local 123. Background: City staff has completed negotiations with the Richfield Police Officers Federation on a Labor Agreement for the third year of a three-year period of 1992, 1993 and 1994, subject to Council approval. LELS, Local 123 represents the positions of Police Officer and Investigator/Agent. There are 34 employees represented in the unit. Only wages and insurance were open for negotiations. The tentatively approved settlement includes the following changes effective January 1, 1994: 1. WAGES A 2.5% across-the-board increase. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE • A $30 increase from $285 per month to $315 per month for dependent coverage. 3. DENTAL INSURANCE A $1 increase from $22 per month to $23 per month for single coverage. On January 1, 1995, these changes will go into effect: ? A Police Officer assigned by the Employer to POP (Problem Oriented Policing), Crime Prevention or as an Investigator/Agent trainee shall be compensated at a rate of an additional $75 per month, or prorated share thereof. ? A Police Officer assigned by the Employer to act as an FTO (Field Training Officer) shall be compensated at a rate of $1 per hour for all hours worked as an FTO, provided that the hours so worked which are less than four consecutive hours shall not qualify for the additional compensation. Recommended Motion: Approve the Labor Agreement with the LELS, Local 123 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. Basis of Recommendation: .1. The City has met and negotiated with the Union and is bound • under the Public Employers Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. 9- • 2. The tentatively approved 1994 portion of the settlement is identical to other City employee groups, and the 1995 portion is similar to police unit agreements in other, comparable cities and other City employee groups. The total cost of the settlement for 1994 is 2.96%, the cost of the 1995 items is less than one-half percent. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the terms of the agreement requiring further negotiation and/or arbitration. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 1994 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on February 28, 1994 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes effective January 1, 1994. lly submitted, James Prosser City anager • JDP:ff Attachment • 9-a • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING REOPENER ISSUES OF LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS), LOCAL 123 BARGAINING UNIT FOR'THE YEAR 1994 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers Federation have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for the year 1994; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize LELS members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the third year of the three-year Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and LELS local 123 Bargaining Unit for the year 1994 under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective January 1, 1994. • Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 72 Agenda February 28, 1993 Issue Statement: Resolution approving second extension of maturity of Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project). Background: Commercial •Development Revenue bonds for the Richfield Shoppes Developers Project were issued in 1983 in the amount of $4,350,000. The bonds were sold to what is now Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association. The proceeds were loaned to Richfield Shoppes Developers to finance a retail facility in Richfield. The City of Richfield's role in the bond transaction is as a conduit for the issuance of an industrial revenue bond. The City has no liability in the bond issue. The original Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement, dated October 1, 1983, called for the maturity of this bond in October 1993. However, on January 24, 1994, the City approved a request by both parties to extend the maturity of the bond. The amendment permitted the continued amortization for the note until all principal is paid or, if earlier, until March 1, 2009. This was an extension of approximately 15 years to final maturity. The City staff recently received notification from the law firm of Faegre and Benson which represents the Richfield Shoppes Developers in this revenue bond extension matter. They have requested that an additional extension of the bond to October 1, 2013 be approved by the City Council. In reviewing the bond and its other debt with its advisors and lenders, the Borrower has concluded that extending the final maturity of the bond to October 1, 2013 results in the most advantageous overall cash flow for the project. The proposed extended maturity date is the latest date permitted by state law. Thus, the request for a second extension is before the City Council at the meeting of February 28. The action requested of the City is to: 1. approve the extension of the maturity of the bond by continuing the amortization of the remaining unpaid principal at the interest rate specified in the bond in monthly installments in the amount provided in the bond. The extension would continue until the date upon which all unpaid principal of and interest on the bond is paid or, if earlier, until October 1, 2013 when all unpaid principal and interest of the bond shall be paid; and 2. approve any amendments to the loan agreement and bond • necessary to reflect the extension of maturity authorized above; and 3. authorize the Mayor and other City amendments on behalf of the City as legal counsel to the City. • officers to execute such shall be approved by This action also does not require a public hearing. Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving extension of maturity of commercial development revenue bond (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project). Basis for Recommendation: 1. The borrower (Richfield Shoppes Developers) and the bondholder (Norwest Bank America, National Association) have requested the extension of maturity. 2. The extension of maturity is beneficial to the Richfield Shoppes retail facility. 3. As issuers of the Commercial Development Revenue Bond for the Richfield Shoppes Project, the City of Richfield has no liability in this bond issue or any extension of maturity. 4. The City's legal counsel, David Kennedy, has reviewed the requested second extension of maturity for the bond and sees no reason not to approve the request. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could reject the extension of maturity request. However, this may require new financing for the Richfield Shoppes Project and leave them with an unfavorable debt arrangement. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this extension is requested at the February 28, 1994 City Council meeting in order to establish the extended maturity as soon as possible. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Ma ager JDP:ds 0 0-a- 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF MATURITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has heretofore issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project) (the "Bond"), sold the Bond to Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association (now Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association) (the "Bondholder"), and loaned the proceeds of the Bond to Richfield Shoppes Developers, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Borrower"), to finance a retail facility in the City, all pursuant to a Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of October 1, 1983 (the "Loan Agreement"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a First Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement, effective as of January 25, 1994 (the "First Amendment"), the City, the Borrower and the Bondholder have agreed to extend the final maturity of the Bond to October 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bondholder have requested the City to further extend the final maturity of the Bond to October 1, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City hereby appro" the maturity of the Bond to October amendments set forth in the form of Commercial Development Revenue Bond Agreement (the "Second Amendment"), City Manager. ies the further extension of 1, 2013 and the additional Second Amendment to and Loan and Bond Purchase which is on file with the 2. The Mayor and other City officers are authorized and directed to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City, substantially in the form on file, but with all such changes therein as shall be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. Approved MFFOF38E_WP5 , 1994. 0 53 SECOND AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND AND LOAN AND BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT This SECOND AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND AND LOAN AND BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Second Amendment"), between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, Minnesota (the "City"), RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Borrower"), and NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (formerly Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association) (the "Bank"), is effective as of March _, 1994. WHEREAS, the City has heretofore issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project), dated October 26, 1983 (the "Bond"), sold the Bond to the Bank, and loaned the proceeds of the Bond to the Borrower to finance a retail facility in the City, all pursuant to a Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of October 1, 1983 (the "Loan Agreement"), between the City, the Borrower and the Bank; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a First Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement, effective as of January 25, 1994 (the "First Amendment"), the City, the Borrower and the Bank have agreed to extend the final maturity of the Bond to October 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bank have requested the City to further extend the final maturity of the Bond to October 1, 2013, and the City, by resolution adopted , 1994, has approved the extension and authorized execution of this Second Amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City, the Borrower and the Bank hereby agree as follows: 1. The third and fourth clauses of paragraph 1(a) of the Bond, as heretofore amended by the First Amendment, are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows: Commencing on October 1, 1988, and on the first day of each month thereafter until and including June 1, 1994, principal and interest shall be payable together in equal, consecutive monthly installments of $39,138.08 each. Commencing on July 1, 1994, and on the first day of each month thereafter until and including September 1, 2013 (or, if earlier, the date on which all principal hereof and interest accrued hereon has been paid), principal and interest shall be payable together in equal, consecutive monthly installments of $ each. One final installment equal to the entire unpaid outstanding Principal Balance and all accrued but unpaid • interest thereon, if any, shall be due and payable on October 1, 2013. 2. The Loan Agreement, and particularly Section 3.03 S thereof, shall be construed to incorporate the amendments to the Bond made hereby. 3. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Bond and the Loan Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. n 0 -2- ?-5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Borrower and the Bank have executed this Second Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD BY Its Mayor By Its City Manager [Signature Page to Second Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement] MFFOF388.WP5 -3- NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By_ Its • [Signature Page to Second Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement] MFFOF388.WP5 i -4- The undersigned executes this Second Amendment both individually and as a general partner in the Borrower, and by execution hereof, the undersigned confirms and ratifies the Guaranty dated as of October 1, 1983, from the undersigned to the Bank and acknowledges and agrees that the Guaranty shall continue to apply to the Bond and the*Loan Agreement as amended hereby. RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS, a Minnesota general partnership By James W. Lupient is [Signature Page to Second Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement] MFFOF388.WP5 • -5- Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, Thomas P. DuFresne has executed this instrument as a general.partner_of:the Borrower, solely for purposes of binding the Borrower'to the terms and provisions of this instrument; nothing contained herein shall create or impose any personal liability, obligations or debt on Thomas P. DuFresne, nor shall the terms and provisions of this instrument be enforceable against Thomas P. DuFresne, individually. RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS, a Minnesota general partnership By Thomas P. DuFresne • [Signature Page to Second Amendment to Commercial Development Revenue Bond and Loan and Bond Purchase Agreement] MFFOF388.WP5 • -6- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 71 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Resolution supporting legislation to uncap the appropriation for targeted property tax refunds for 1994. Background: Current State Statutes provide for targeted property tax refunds for homeowners who experience a homestead property tax increase of more than 12% over the net property tax payable in the prior year on the same property. The property must also have been owner owned and occupied by the same owner on January 2 of both years and the tax increase must be $100 or more to qualify for the program. The current law places an annual cap of $5,500,000 on the total refunds paid by the State under this program. If the State estimates that the next year's total refunds will exceed the $5,500,000 cap, the statute now provides that the $100 minimum tax increase must be raised until total projected refunds come within the $5,500,000 cap. The effect of the current statute language would bring the minimum tax increase threshold to approximately $300 in 1994. As a result, properties which are lower or moderately valued would not likely qualify for the • targeted refund program because the tax increases on those properties would not be in excess of $300. Representative Mark Mahon has introduced a bill (H.F. 1826) in the 1994 Legislature that would remove the funding cap for targeted property tax refunds for 1994. The result would be that the $100 minimum tax increase threshold to qualify for the program would remain fixed for 1994 and more Richfield properties could potentially qualify for refunds. The excess funding to support the additional targeted property tax refunds would come from the State General Fund. This would not further erode the Local Government Trust Fund and result in additional aid reductions to cities such as Richfield. The attached resolution indicates Richfield's support for Representative Mahon's bill in the current legislative session. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution supporting legislation to remove the targeted property tax refund program cap for 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The current statute language would eliminate most Richfield homes from participating in the program. 2. Representative Mahon's bill would raise the total funds available for targeted property tax refund's for 1994, which would benefit Richfield homeowners in general. q-1 • 3. Additional funds for the program would be paid for by the State's General Fund instead of the Local Government Trust Fund. This would not further erode funds available to pay state aids to cities such as Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to support this bill. 2. The City Council could decide to support a bill such as this with a different funding cap or minimum tax increase threshold. Discussion/Decision Mode: Due to the short time frame to deal with issues in this legislative session, action on this item is requested on February 28, 1994. This would provide adequate time to present official City support of this bill. Respec ully submitted, James Prosser City pager is JDP:ds 0 I-C?- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.F. 1826, UNCAPPING THE APPROPRIATION FOR TARGETED PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS FOR 1994 U WHEREAS, current State law provides for targeted property tax relief for certain homestead properties where the property tax has increased by at least $100 over the prior year; and WHEREAS, the current targeted property tax refund program is capped at a total of $5,500,000 annual payments under the program; and WHEREAS, the effect of such cap-is to raise the minimum property tax increase necessary to qualify for the program to a property tax increase of approximately $300 or more for 1994; and WHEREAS, a minimum property tax increase of $300 or more would exclude the majority of all Richfield properties from participation in the program; and WHEREAS, H.F. 1826 would remove the cap for the targeted refund program for 1994, with additional funding necessary to be paid from the State General Fund, making the program available to a number of Richfield homeowners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby support H.F. 1826 and urges its passage in the 1994 Legislature. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 70 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and adoption of a resolution to conform the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial Development Improvement Program with the RSA medical office facility approved during the last quarter of 1993; Modification No. 7. Background: During the?last,quarter of 1993, the HRA, Planning Commission and City Council took a variety of actions which made it possible for RSA to undertake the construction of a 22,000 square foot medical office facility at the corner of 66th Street and Grand Avenue. It would now be appropriate to take action to approve a modification to the LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program. Recommended Motion: Following the public hearing, adopt a motion which approves the attached resolution which incorporates the medical facility into the LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA approved Modification No. 7 on January 18, 1994. 2. The Planning Commission found the proposed modification to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan on January 24, 1994. 3. A notice of the City Council public hearing was published on February 9, 1994. 4. Hennepin County and Richfield School District were given proper notice of the public hearing. 5. The LHN Commercial Development Improvement Program should reflect the activities previously authorized by the Planning Commission and City Council under the zoning ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Refuse to approve the modification. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval on February 28 would complete the processing of Modification No. 7. Resp c ully submitted, • Jame D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 7 TO THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PLAN RELATING THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City.of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) approved a redevelopment.plan for an urban renewal project for the "Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program" (Plan) on October 15, 1975. 1.02. The City Council of the City of Richfield Minnesota (City) held a public hearing on the Plan and approved the Plan on November 24, 1975. 1.03. The Plan has been previously modified. 1.04. • acquisition 1.05. property de, Plan and to The need for further redevelopment and property has prompted the HRA to prepare a modified Plan. It has been determined that the acquisition of the scribed in Attachment A is necessary to implement the carry out the purposes of the Plan. 1.06 The monies for the purchase of this property are available in the LHN tax increment fund. 1.07. On January 18, 1994, the HRA approved the modified Plan contingent upon review and a favorable finding by the Richfield Planning Commission, and referred the Plan to the City for public hearing and consideration as provided by Minn. Stat., Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (HRA Act) and Minn. Stat., Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (TIF Act). 1.08. The modified Plan was referred to the Richfield Planning Commission which on January 25, 1994 found the Plan to conform and not be in conflict with the general plans for the development or redevelopment of the city as a whole. 1.09. Copies of the modified Plan have been forwarded to Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public hearing as required by the TIF Act. 1.10. The City Council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Plan and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Modified Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program and Plan adopted. 2.01. Except for the modification stated herein, and as required by Section 469.179 of the TIF Act, the City reaffirms its findings and conclusions as approved on November 24, 1975 and in subsequent modifications and reaffirms its intention that the LHN continue to be regulated as a TIF project approved prior to August 1, 1979. 2.02. Modification No. 7 to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program and Plan is hereby approved including the method proposed for financing. 2.03. The HRA is requested to file a copy of the modified Plan with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue as required by the TIF Act. 2.04. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the Resolution to the HRA. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 1994. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Mayor • (0-3 0 n U ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION 0 1-35 0 vI; ?i, l.'''! il!?i il??? ,. 'CL1_lL 11-1111 ..I i ! I - I I Rr•L[?[R?[E?RR?SE?[ LMERSON AVE. LVNW000 DUPOMT AVE. /? j, ? 717171 JJJ ? ? A• ?„ COLFAX AVE. o r v J a" a° a° [y r- 0 " p m w a an w n ?n G COH µ a K rt r o 0 0 v L m 0 c z D m J v HTM a c 0 D { .1 1V1.1 A l l . ?(11MIAMT Al ??[. _..L _- iIJ1?IlIT? ALDRICN HARRIET AVE. ?y GRAND AVE, RE PLEASANT AVE. FT 1 MILSRURT AVE. 1-[H] __ 1-TE --m WENTWORTH AVE. Tl] RUM ELL AVE. r y -H. iT? IL's _ [ I -L fIEIII'll,i?l fidti- - O N N cOc i 2 S x $ LYNOALE /HUB/ NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RICHFIELD, MN 5F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 69 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 of salt for remainder of 1993/94 winter season. 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. Each year, the City purchases rock salt, which is usually mixed with sand, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. On October 11, 1993, Council approved a master purchase order to North American Salt, the low bidder on the State contract, for approximately 500 ton of rock.salt for the 1993/94 winter season. This minimal tonnage was based on 1993 weather conditions which were expected to limit the availability of ice control salt. On October 25, 1993, Council approved a minimum of another 500 ton of rock salt which North American Salt indicated they would, in fact, have available for the 1993/94 winter season. However, conditions have been such that Richfield has used 1,400 ton, at the State contract price of $25.66 per ton, and North American Salt has indicated their salt supply is exhausted.. Staff estimates at least an additional 200 ton of salt will be needed to see Richfield through the remainder of the 1993/94 winter season. Staff contacted Morton Salt and learned this vendor also does not have any product available for Richfield. Staff then learned Cargill, Inc. would have 200 ton of salt available at $38.40 per ton. Although this is $12.74 per ton more expensive than the State contract price, it appears to be the only salt currently available. As a result, staff immediately ordered 200 ton in an attempt to have an adequate supply for the remainder of the 1993/94 winter season. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of rock salt for the remainder of the 1993/94 winter season from Cargill, Inc., an estimated 200 ton for a delivered price of $38.40/ton, for a total estimated purchase price of $7,680. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Additional rock salt is needed for the remainder of the 1993/94 winter season. 2. Cargill, Inc. has available the anticipated needed supply. 3. Staff has ordered 200 ton of salt under the new price. SF- I Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of a new master purchase order for the remainder of the 1993/94 winter season at the February 28, 1994 Council meeting. submitted, James D rosser City Ma Vager JDP:ds Is is 54? r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.68 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for boulevard tree planting in 1994. 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. In October 1993, requests for quotations on boulevard trees were sent to ten nurseries. Four nurseries responded: Bachman's, Fair's, Treemendous and Wilson's. Prices were requested on four species in two size categories, 1-1/2" and 1-3/4" diameter. Prices returned were very competitive and in many cases, were the same price from different vendors or within a dollar per tree. The City's tree inspector visited all four nurseries and inspected their trees. Fair's Nursery had the largest trees and the best quality. They matched or had the low quotation on three of the four species and were only $1 per tree more on the fourth species. Staff is requesting approval of a purchase order to Fair's Garden Center, Inc. for 140 1-3/4" diameter trees for a total of $8,946. A breakdown of previous year's purchases is shown below for comparison purposes: Year No. of Trees Total Cost Average Price/Tree 1990 134 Trees $11,917.50 $88.94 (no tax) 1991 160 Trees $13,104.00 $81.90 (no tax) 1992 145 Trees $12,688.50 $87.51 (no tax) 1993 118 Trees $ 7,902.30 $66.97 (with tax) 1994 140 Trees $ 8,946.00 $63.90 (with tax) Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Fair's Garden Center, Inc. in the amount of $8,946 for the purchase of 140, 1 3/4" diameter balled and burlapped trees. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Fair's had the best stock. 2. Fair's prices were excellent. 3. Fair's has been a reliable vendor in the past. Alternative Recommendation: Council could reject this purchase and direct staff to seek other sources for boulevard trees. However, it is unlikely that sufficient numbers of quality trees would still be available. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 28, 1994 Council meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely delivery for spring planting. Respectfull submitted, James D.Prosser City Man?kder JDP:ds Attachment 0 0 5k-:7`c?- 1994 BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING QUOTATION TABULATION (1 1/2" TREES) Vendor Sugar American Red Norway Maple Linden Maple Maple 1 1 Bach-nanIs Inc. ; 75 50 50 ; 50 ; $65.00 ; $60.00 $65.00 $60.00 ; 1 , 1 1 1 Fair's ; 1,000 1,000 1,000 ; 1,000 ; Garden Center ; $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 ; , 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 I 1 , ? , 1 1 ? 1 1 Treemendous Inc. ; 150 20 150 ; 150 ; $54.00 $62.00 $58.00 $58.00 ; , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 ? 1 1 1 1 Wilson Is NW ; 25 ; --- 25 ; 25 ; Nursery ; $75.00 --- $75.00 $59.00 ; 1994 BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING QUOTATION TABULATION (1 3/4" TREES) Vendor Sugar American Red Norway Maple Linden Maple Maple 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 , Bachman's Inc. ; 75 ; 50 ; 50 50 ; $65.00 ; $60.00 ; $65.00 $60.00 ; , , 1 1 1 L Fair's ; 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Garden Center ; $60.00 X ; $60.00 $60.00 X $60.00 X ; tax included ; # 60 # 48 # 32 ; 1$ 3,834.00 1 1$ 3,067.20 1 $2,044.80 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Treemendous Inc. ; 150 ; 20 150 150 ; $59.00 $68.00 $64.00 $64.00 ; 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Wilson's NW ; 25 --- 25 25 ; Nursery ; $89.00 ; --- $89.00 $69.00 ; 0 J- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 67 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for an articulated sidewalk plow. Bac kground• 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. Several different brands of sidewalk tractors have been tried over the last several years'. The City currently has four units used for sidewalk snow removal: two Prime Movers, one M.T. and one Holder (these are brand names). The Prime Movers are not Richfield's best sidewalk plow because they are underpowered and difficult to operate. However, they are very reliable mechanically and are still running well. The City's two Prime Movers have also been good for summer uses. The City has one M.T. unit which is considered to be the best all around sidewalk snow removal unit. It is, therefore, staff's recommendation to keep unit #275, a 1984 Prime Mover due to be replaced in 1994, • and replace unit #318, a 1987 Holder sidewalk plow purchased in 1988. On February 10, 1994, bids were opened for one new articulated sidewalk plow with a trade-in of our 1987 Holder sidewalk plow. The specifications called for a 100 horsepower unit. It is anticipated the additional horsepower will be helpful with removal of wet heavy snow. Other cities are finding this extra horsepower to be superior. Two bids were received as follows: Base Bid (Trade-in) Net Bid w/tax Mac Queen Equipment Inc. $50,922.00 ($9,000.00) $44,646.93 Aspen Equipment $43,635.00 ($6,000.00) $40,081.28 The only unit to meet specifications was the trackless M.T. bid by Mac Queen Equipment Inc. Aspen Equipment's unit, a Bombardier (a brand name), did not have a 100 horsepower engine and did not have the hydraulic capacity to run the hydraulic blower without the addition of an extra hydraulic pump. Only $42,000 was budgeted for this purchase, but some of the light truck purchases have been less costly than anticipated and the 1994 budget does have adequate funds for this purchase. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid mintues/tabulation and approve the purchase of a new sidewalk plow with trade-in of the Holder sidewalk plow from Mac Queen Equipment Inc. for the net bid price of $41,922.00 and sales tax of $2,724.93 for a total cost of $44,646.93. 5D-1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bid from Mac Queen Equipment Inc. was the low bid for a machine that met specifications. 2. The City presently owns another M.T. and it is considered to be the City's best sidewalk plow. 3. There is sufficient funding in the approved 1994 Central Garage Capital Outlay budget for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council could decide to reject all of the bids; however,,staff believes the prices received are the lowest available to obtain the equipment desired. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 28, 1994 Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval of this item at that time. y submitted, James?D Prosser City Manager • JDP:ds Attachment 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 10, 1994 11:00 A.M. One New Articulated Sidewalk Plow Bid No. 9.4-1 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 one new articulated sidewalk plow, bid no. 94-1, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 19, 1994. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Ray Wroblewski, Clerk Typist Central Garage • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ; SECURITY ;MacQueen Equipment Inc. St.Paul ; 5% Bid Bond $ 50, 922.00 ; trade-in 9, 000.00 total $ 41, 922.00 ;Aspen Equipment Co. Savage ; 5% Bid Bond ; $ 43, 635.00 trade-in 6, 000.00 total $ 37, 635.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 28, 1994 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Authorizing the?City Manager and Mayor to execute temporary easements on City-owned property for Phase I construction; 77th Street Project. Background: There is a?need to extend temporary construction easements on City- owned property for Phase I of the 77th Street Project. The temporary easements were first granted by the City for 1993. Construction was not completed during this period. Now, there is a need to reauthorize the signing of easements which are the same in all respects but for changing 1993 dates to 1994 dates. The following properties would be impacted: Pro j ect Parcel Number Property Address PID Number Description 35 300 West 78th Street 34-028-24-33-0013 Former Lambert Lumber site 36 7700 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-34-0052 City Garage 52 400 East 77th Street 34-028-24-44-0005 Roosevelt Park Attached to this letter are the site drawings and legal descriptions for the temporary takings. Recommended Motion: Adopt a motion which authorizes the City Manager and Mayor to sign the temporary construction easements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The easements are needed so the contractor may legally enter the property. 2. The easements were approved previously and only the year has been changed. Alternative Recommendation: Do not authorize the extension of the temporary takings. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will make it possible for staff to ensure that all necessary and proper documents are in place in a timely manner for 77th Street construction to continue. Res t lly submitted, James . Prosser City pager JDP:ds 5?- DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS THIS DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS IS MADE this day of , 1994, by the City of Richfield,-a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Declarant. WITNESSETH, that whereas. Declarant is the owner of the tract of land in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Parcel 35: The West 239 feet of the East 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except part taken for State Highway, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (ABSTRACT) Parcel 36:. • Lot 3 except the north 75 feet thereof; Lots 4, 5, and 6, in Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Torrens Certificate of Title No. 354175) Parcel 52: That. part of the North 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of the south line of Block 4, Nicollet Garden Lots Third Addition extended easterly and lying West of the East line of Fifth Avenue as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended northerly, except that part now platted as A. G. Bogen Company's Third Avenue Addition. (Certificate of Title No. 269681) That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of the South line of Block 4, Nicollet Garden Lots Third Addition extended Easterly and lying East of the East line of Fifth Avenue as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended Northerly and lying North of Registered Land Survey No. 665, Files of the Registrar of Titles. (Certificate of Title No. 411638) WITNESSETH, that the Declarant desires to create easements for street purposes over a portion of the above-described property. ROCELC50682 RC145-175 5&c -_ NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares and agrees that the above-described property shall be held, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to easements in favor of Declarant over, under and across the following portions of said property: DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS: Parcel 35 Easement : A temporary construction easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under and across the South 15.50 feet of the North 45.50 feet of the West 239.00 feet of the East 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except part taken for State Highway, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said temporary easement expires December 31, 1994. Parcel 36 Easement: A temporary easement for building removal, and roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the South 40.00 feet of the North 100.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a temporary easement for building removal and roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the North 35.00 feet of the South 74.00 feet of the East. 110.00 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a temporary easement for roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the North 15.00 feet of the South 54.00 feet of that part of Lot 5 Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies West of the East 110.00 feet thereof. Said temporary easements expire December 31, 1994. (Affects lands described in Certificate of Title No. 354175) Parcel 52 Easement: A temporary easement for roadway and utility construction, and park restoration over, under, and-across that part of the North 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of the south line of Block 4, Nicollet Garden Lots Third Addition extended easterly and lying West of the East 'line of Fifth Avenue as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended northerly, except that part now platted as A. G. ROCKLC50682 RC145-175 Bogen Company's Third Avenue Addition lying northerly of the permanent easement affecting Parcel 52 as described in that certain Declaration of Easement dated April 8, 1993, filed April 14, 1993 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 6064995 and filed May 27, 1993 as Document No. 23.79396 in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles and--lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of said North 1/2 and the East line of Fifth Avenue as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended northerly; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds East, grid bearing, Hennepin County Coordinate System, along said East line extended 244.50 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds West 369.52 feet; thence South 38 degrees 19 minutes 45 seconds West 178.66 feet.; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds West 62.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 09 minutes 37 seconds West 206.79 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds West 128.45 feet to a point in the East line of said A. G. Bogin Company's Third Avenue Addition distant 204.50 feet north of the south line of said North 1/2 and said line there terminating. Affects lands described on Certificate of Title No. 269681. A temporary easement for roadway and utility,construction, and park restoration over, under and across that part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of the South line of Block 4, Nicollet Garden Lots Third Addition extended Easterly and lying East of the East line of Fifth Avenue as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended Northerly and lying North of Registered Land Survey No. 665, Files of the Registrar of Titles lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the North Line of R.L.S. #665, files of the Registrar of Titles and the East line of Fifth Avenue, as platted in Ranft's Addition, extended. northerly; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds East; grid bearing, Hennepin-County Coordinate System, along said East line extended 244.50 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds East 86.47 feet; thence South 36 degrees 41 -minutes 14 seconds East 174.40 feet; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds East 107.37 feet to a point on the east line of said Government Lot 1 and said line there terminating. Affects Land Described on Certificate of Title No. 411638. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set its hands the day and year first above written. ROCELC50682 RC145-175 '6-c- - q 0 r? U STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) CITY OF,RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by Martin J.. Kirsch and James D. Prosser, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, Declarants. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Holmes & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 ROCKLC50682 RC145-175 v 3 V) I I e ? 3 I N ? I _ I W / N \ ? " I LLJ 1 I • 1 I Z II II I 3 v I? O Iz • ? I i L LJ C i j o (- ~ O N ? ? W M L I? // ? I M I ;JItt ?Vi i I LrJ 1 I I _ W l = i T V ? J S n p ? ? 1gO N W w A •T: ? ?? ? Z z ? r • • • • f?6 l? ? H Z I c ' n 47 i ? II I i i r'? ! ? 1 ? 1 ? 1 LL LL LL. ? cn . o ? 0' A me O 4r- N N • j Q II II LLJ. LAi Q M Z ? 8 owl. •Q Q F - ?, c c / /yy O O W H Z ~ 8 O 7 - ? 5c W W ??N • • • • ii l?V. acS I ( I W I 'b8 QLL G?T I ZN . Z N m QED crm 3 \W '6b I ? cD '179. 3M 1 W ?. -+ - Z W Z + 1 +I +I U. U. U. +1 +1. n O ? O H H N Ln N w U. co %D N O O W J < CO co O NV) 3 _ c O 00 z z co c c ti r- O Q x LO N M M 01) ca tD 0 a w II q- II II 0. Q II II < 4 °' a w = = Y Q 3 D H H - \ Z O ° a cn a z a W W -I Z? I - I 1 1 r' -- 3 \ M 1 r S 6 QLL ! ui. I i Z 1 ( N 1 I W ? Iz e 1 I f ; i B W iLO-1 0 SIP ..1 .-h•1 I- LLI W?yy LL V) I- . 1 V Y ? a f r •Y g W W • O O ia iI i,B z W N Y < J W Z U O r $` j ? = a 2 ,? W s J Z L Z a y Z r r > N °1 &A LA a O Z O O r. W a Ix O v Z u r Y1 G t - I I I I I ? W W ?? GI s Z I I I ? i I I sss ul? vo u?1 -3AV ONdIIUO lIf''- itS'rS9 M„60,S?.OOS Otte" L'i ? I 411 • • 3AV Hl5 ?. '04 y r W ? t W AU- ?... 2Z •2S '?? 1 II ? r-7 d IZ s c. S '3AV HIP V.T7 J1 I _._.. we *so. jo# 19+I ' j ' .co N I ? • r .m a..,.... ow mo n »,• Acquisition Map 5-6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 65 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Resolution setting interest penalty, certification fee and assessment interest rate for delinquent water and sewer utility accounts. Background: At the February 7, 1994 City Council Study Session the subject of penalties and interest on delinquent utility billings was discussed. It was the general consensus of the City Council that staff prepare a resolution which would make the following modifications in the late fee penalties and certification fees of the City's.delinquent utility accounts: 1. Increase the quarterly rate from five percent to six and one- half percent. 2. Increase the certification fee from $20 to $25, and 3. Assess interest on the assessment for the 15 month period between the time the assessment is made and the time it is collected by the City. Most City assessments include interest charges during the period the assessment is being • collected. Attached to the Council Letter is a resolution which provides the authority to implement the changes outlined above. However, the certification fee and the interest charged during the assessment period will also be included on a resolution presented to the City Council in September when the actual assessments for delinquent accounts are under consideration. The late penalty charged quarterly will be implemented after one complete 11 week cycle of water bills has been sent to customers advising them of the change. Similarly, water bills issued in the cycle immediately preceding the August certification deadline will contain an advisory to customers of the $25 certification fee and interest charges. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution setting the penalty rate, certification fee and assessment interest rate for delinquent water and sewer utility accounts. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The number and total amount of water and sewer utility accounts certified to property taxes in the past few years has increased to an undesirable level. • 2. The current penalty fee, certification fee and practice of not collecting interest on delinquent utility assessments must be adjusted to address the problem. 6-i-1 • 3. The State Statute does not give specific authority for cities to assess interest on delinquent utility fees which are certified and collected through the special assessment process. However, the City may create appropriate authority to collect interest by adopting the interest charge as part of the resolution setting rates. Most cities in Hennepin County do assess such interest on certified delinquent utility bills. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to adopt only a portion of the penalty and certification increases cited in this resolution. 2. The City Council could decide not to change any of the current penalty and certification fee structure. Discussion/Decision Mode:. It is suggested that the City Council formally address these issues at the February 28, 1994 Council meeting in order to allow ample time to institute the desired changes and give adequate notice to residents. y submitted, C? James D Prosser City ager JDP:ds • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SETTING INTEREST PENALTY, CERTIFICATION FEE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER UTILITY ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the number and total dollar amount of delinquent water and sewer utility accounts has increased in the past several years, and WHEREAS, these delinquent accounts must be certified to the property tax of the respective delinquent account in order to collect the fees, and WHEREAS, the cost of collecting the delinquent accounts and loss of timely revenue has a negative impact upon the water and sewer utilities, and WHEREAS, the current penalty and certification structure do not adequately compensate the water and sewer utility for the cost associated with delinquent payments and certification, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to modify penalty and certification procedures in order to address these concerns. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby direct the following changes to be made in the water and sewer utility rate and fee structure: 1. Effective April 1, 1994 the penalty rate-be increased from five percent to six and one-half percent, and 2. Effective for 1994 certification of delinquent utility fees that the certification fee be increased from $20 to $25, and 3. Effective for 1994 certifications of delinquent utility fees that the certified accounts include interest charges at eight percent. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk jlr? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 64 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement Appointment to the 1994 Board of Equalization (Board of Review). Background: City Charter provides that the Local Board of Equalization shall consist of all of the City Council Members and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters. The purpose of the Board is to hear appeals from the property owners concerning their property values. Mr. Larry Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has indicated his willingness to once again serve as a residential representative to the Board. He has been an independent property appraiser for well over 20 years and has served on the Richfield Board of Review since 1983. Mr. Emond holds a Federal Appraisers License and is working primarily in conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is also experienced in building construction and held a real estate license. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield resident for over 30 years and is very knowledgeable of the City. His previous input on the Richfield Board of Equalization has been extremely valuable as determinations and • appeals presented by Richfield citizens were considered. The second Richfield resident under consideration for appointment for the 1994 Board of Equalization is Glenn Erickson, 7240 Bryant Avenue. Mr. Erickson has been a resident of Richfield since 1950 and has been in the property appraisal business since 1951. He first served on the Richfield Board of Review in 1991. His business has predominately included appraisal of single family residential, duplex and fourplex properties. The appraisals have included those for a mortgage loan business and a number of appraisal audits. Mr. Erickson currently holds both an appraisers and real estate brokers license. Like Mr. Emond, Mr. Erickson's previous service on the Richfield Board of Equalization has been very valuable. It is recommended that the compensation for resident members be set at $42.50 per session or $17.00 per hour per session, whichever is greater. This rate was established in 1993 and was to remain in effect for 1994. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution confirming the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson to the 1994 Board of Equalization, at the proposed level of compensation stated herein. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson are very knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of real estate appraisals. They are also both licensed appraisers. 0 • 2. Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson have served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in the past and have done a very good job in that capacity. 3. It is required by City Charter that there be two resident representatives on the Board of Equalization who are knowledgeable in real estate matters. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select other qualified individuals as expert resident representatives on the-Board of Equalization, in place of either Mr. Emond or Mr. Erickson or both. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is requested that the City Council set the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson at the City Council meeting of February 28, 1994. The Board of Equalization will meet at 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 2, 1994. The appointment at the City Council meeting of February 28, 1994 ensures that the City staff has adequate time to establish appointments to the Board. Resp?ec f lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 Jrfi-a- • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby approves the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. Glenn Erickson as 1994 resident members of the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the City Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum of $42.50 per session of the Board or $17.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City C 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 63 Agenda February 28, 1994 Issue Statement: Recognition of organizations which have adopted Richfield parks. Background: Adopt-A-Park is a public service program for volunteers to pick up litter and keep Richfield's parks clean. It enables citizens to contribute to a cleaner environment. Litter clean-up is expensive. Citizens lending a hand to keep parks clean help the City save money on maintenance costs. The Community Services Commission approved the program at its April 9, 1991 meeting. Richfield community groups and businesses may "adopt a park" by contacting the Community Services Department. Terms and conditions of the program, safety tips and a copy of the permit/agreement are made available to the groups adopting a park. On March 10, 1992, the Community Services Commission created a park subcommittee to brainstorm public relations related to park maintenance. Subcommittee members included Greg Allers, Arnie Auschstetter, Jim Clinite, Gayle Freeman, Randy Hughes, Rick Johander, Ron Johnson, Jim Kruse, David Lamberger, Dale • Pemberton, Sue Sandahl, Maureen Scaglia, Roger Spencer, Matt Stokes, Tom Ulmer and Dick Walker. The first subcommittee meeting was March 24, 1992. At the second meeting, held April 28, 1992, it was decided that some of the members of the committee would meet to develop a marketing plan to improve the.image of the parks and the City. Members of this marketing task force included Greg Allers, Don Fondrick, Gayle Freeman, Ron Johnson, Maureen Scaglia and Randy Hughes or Roger Spencer. Recommendations of the marketing task force included: ? the "parks hotline" which has been expanded to a 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week message center related to any City maintenance item, ? the "Park Pathways" newsletter, and ? an agreement that marketing task force members would work to find groups to adopt the remaining, unclaimed parks and to establish Adopt-A-Park group meetings. The Community Services Commission, with staff, would evaluate these programs. . Adoption of City parks was complete in 1993. As each park was adopted and as the Adopt-A-Park groups had clean-up days, these events were noted in the Status and Information weekly reports. At the November 30, 1993 Community Services Commission meeting, it was agreed that the park subcommittee and the marketing task force would disband. The Community Services Commission did request that the Adopt-A-Park groups receive recognition for their contributions. Recommended Motion: Extend a thank you to the Adopt-A-Park groups for their contributions; present certificates of appreciation to the groups on the attached list. Basis of Recommendation: These clubs and organizations provide a tremendous service to the City of Richfield and are to be commended for their contribution. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Members of the Community Services Commission, park subcommittee and marketing task force have been invited to share the expression of the thanks to the Adopt-A-Park groups. lly submitted, • JDP:ds Attachment Jame' . Prosser City anager 0 3^62- • z z H 0 H z E o Q H H E U Q x W a = a a H x ? P, U a QI P4 H Q Q E W a w a a o a U) a a w o 0 E G4 A U A = H W 44 E H z E W a W w w U a w rn z co 0 N H E >4 Q S-I N (? H z w 0