05-23-94 agenda0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MAY 23, 1994
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:15 P.M
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM #1
CALL TO ORDER
I. INTERVIEW OF YOUTHS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON CITY'S
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL' CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
0 CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF MAY 9,
1994 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 9, 1994
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 3, 1994 MARIAN
COUNCIL NO. 3827 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS DAY
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS
NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM
• BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE
OF PARITAL FEE TAKING, 7700 12TH AVENUE; PHASE II 77TH
STREET PROJECT C.L. 147
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO AWARD
CONTRACT FOR PHASE I 77TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORK TO LINO LAKES NURSERY
IN AMOUNT OF $411,951 C.L. 148
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION FOR SITE
REDEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON PARK AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC., INCLUDING BID ALTERNATE #6, IN
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $297,329.65 C.L. 149
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION FOR SITE
REDEVELOPMENT OF MADISON PARK AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
BARBER CONSTRUCTION IN AMOUNT OF $256,375.16 C.L. 150
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION FOR
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND SITE ELECTRICAL WORK AT MADISON
PARK AND WASHINGTON PARK AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CKC
CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING ALTERNATE BID ITEMS FOR METAL ROOFS,
IN AMOUNT OF $182,000 FOR MADISION PARK AND IN AMOUNT OF
$174,324 FOR WASHINGTON PARK C.L. 151
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
FOR UTILITY CARTS AT GOLF COURSE: ONE CUSHMAN MODEL #898630
• TURF TRUCKSTER FROM CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY, INC. IN AMOUNT OF
$9,121.73 AND ONE E-Z-GO TUFF 1 UTILITY VEHICLE FROM R.W.
GOLF CARS/UTILITY VEHICLES IN AMOUNT OF $4,064.04 C.L. 152
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION BY FOURTH OF JULY
COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT LICENSE WITH FEE
WAIVER REQUEST FOR JULY 4 ACTIVITIES C.L. 153
PUBLIC HEARING
RESOLUTIONS
5. CONSIDERATION OF (1) FINAL PLANS FOR 77TH STREET PHASE II
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR SEGMENT FROM PORTLAND AVENUE TO
CEDAR AVENUE TO SUBMIT PLANS TO MNDOT FOR BIDS; (2)
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO AGENCY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN MNDOT AND RICHFIELD FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
PHASE II PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COSTS; AND (3) RESOLUTION
APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO AGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN MNDOT AND RICHFIELD FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PHASES I
AND II RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS ON 77TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 154
6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DENYING A PETITION FOR
is ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET RELATING TO PROPOSED
SHOPS AT LYNDALE/CSM CORPORATION PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 155
0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
7. CONSIDERATION OF YOUTH APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARD OF
HEALTH, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND SISTER CITY COMMISSION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 156
8. CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
POLICY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 157
AIRPORT BUSINESS
9.-AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
10. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
0 CORRESPONDENCE
11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available
upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance
to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702.
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 157
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of revisions to the Storm Water Capital Improvement
Policy.
Background:
At their April 25, 1994 Study Session, the City Council directed
staff to prepare a revised Capital Improvement Policy for Council
consideration. An attachment shows the existing and draft
proposed policy.
The Storm Water Capital Improvement Funds attachment identifies
upcoming projects and present funding availability. The figures
in the attachment were updated to reflect the recent refinancing
of the 1986 storm water capital improvement bonds.
Pete Willenbring, OSM consultant engineer, has provided a letter
(attached) which contains a rationale for the application of the
policy, a discussion of street flooding and an outline of the
grant program.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the revised Storm Water Capital Improvement Policy as
presented.
Basis of Recommendation:
The benefits will take into account neighborhood-wide benefits in
addition to those limited to the flooded property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide not to make this change.
2. The Council may decide to provide different alternatives than
those included in this proposal such as a revision in the
City/resident cost split of 75/25.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for action at the Council meeting
of May 23, 1994.
Respe u y submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
40
0
•
9
cr.W
cr J W = a
Ha ?Zw
cc 0
W 1 wX
?2 WOZ
O j ?ZO
O
?? ?VO
CL cn W U.
W Zm=
Cl) W -.I I-
dQ LSO
O? OwS2
cr cc ?- U)
CL aim
V
(1)b a)
4) 4-) -H +)
r .,q
NC0.?0? 44 o
PAPS ? ?
a a) o •ri p
H?4a) p0 .Qp a)
a) I •r1 (1) w a) ro a r.
4-) a) r. 0 • ) N •I (a oa ?">4
-rl
O°r?P 00 U)0 A -
? 0 d {°-I 0) H PG; 0 0 0
?4 ?? ro aa) i ro (a > o ? ?
tom/)a)•?I~0 ro4 Pro +)3
a 0) a) -? r-I 0 4-) ro • a E04 ? aa) E
N, x a) 4-4 $4 3 9 •rI 0 E p
44 44 4 U 4-) P •U ? O W
a) +) ri a) 4-) 0 O O r-i a) S4
0Wr-I O pa)0 A0 0,a)
a) 0 •r1 (1) O +-) 9 0 0 0 E 4
ME3.Q+•) (!)a)O a0 H4-)
ri N M 4
m a) p
N0 01 roa) 44
vi O 0 m 4 ri O
4-) 0
aaim >- OAOrq
a a) 0 m i." -r1 44 }-)
N p 14 CD r-i
IEW 'd OHS
(a -? - IH I9 4-) r. -? H
•?i to sou s°4 .0 to •r1
4 r. 04 1 (1) a)
??r4 mIt pampa
(1) p I ro O4roU
?P -ri A? aro0?
o +°)o 0:0 ?(0E4--)
°'0 w rorl 44 o o ro a
ro •r1 (1) (1) R) O -ri f-1 p 0
?(0 4 fl mm to 0 E 0 0
O 0 >4 4P m 4-) a) •r? $4 0
4)r IIm'd$4-•?i?N
) ro ? aV ? -? A (0
•{ a)
-ri ( (U• $ wa? 0 0 p
U
In 1o
U) O
(1) ? ? 4-)
W -I
V W
•• a) r
-I 0 O m +> 5 0
-? aZw > G a a a) i p a04 a`a) 00
m
a
0
~
o
0
4-)
airo
rn
LLJ X
0
-C a a a
O
V o° ? b o
1-
Z Z
C a) 44 44
° s~ I~ •rl N
0
0 4-) +-)
14 P
044
?j
W p? te (1) cn
p a) O 44 4 04
WFn-?
O p
0 o 0
0 a)
A a)?
r
4
A Eb
4-) ro
-H a
0
w
Z 4
4 q 0( - W p 0
W F•- O J ca 04 ro r
ro -.i A,
W WA, a) ?4 p
O>
I- OV O J
?
0
b r-I
W LL ?
M
p a?
(GN •
40 0
4 P 0
O4-) H
0 ?N
0 O
?" m W w ? (10 ? w U) ? Z a)
0.
z -••? _
+-)
M ro
ro
w (1)
to (a 04
O
w tU)
(Ti ri
CC W -? H to a) .r 4-) a 4-) 3 ro -rl (1) (1) ca
(? G
C U. O
() f•1
0 r-i 4-)
4
0 I~ O
w r..
) E r-I 4-)
fa 4
4
) P 4-)0
00
Z W O -Z, ) V
p3: (U
Ea (1
5w 0
O° - >4p0
? --? > 2
O W cA 4-)
•r1 a)
A :1
+.) to a)
> 0 a) O
>4-) 4 o
U) ro 0)
o ca %
E 0 0
F
I•-- cn
to 44
(1)
+-) () -P
o 0 •rl
?4 r -I O U)
p a)
?4 rl
d-) 0
>44 0
.
_ Q
a o (n a) 044 a a) +-) ro a) ? 4-)
W 2U m r U)aa)i Ha H? (a r v•3 r-I
p„
Q ) z
?
V H N M d? lA ?O
003-i
? 0
(o?
O
Fa 0
44
? C
b z
(0 U
Ap
ri N
r-i
3 r.
-r.,
r.a
•r1 a) ro
0 -p m
r-I a a
4-) a) b
a) 0) ca
a) (o
? P N
U) ca ca
n
• Revised 5/2/94
STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
REVENUE
Cash Balance 12/31/93 $ 444,000
*Annual revenue available for $ 195,000
capital expenditures
Balance available for capital projects
December 1994 $ 639,000
December 1998 (assumes $195,000 per year) $1,419,000
EXPENSES
Richfield Lake outlet (revised) $ 275,000
1995 CIP
Wood Lake dredging $ 250,000
• 1996 CIP
6601 Stevens $ 22,000
7632 Logan $ 15,000
6645 Queen $ 7,500
70th/Russell, 70th/Penn S 750,000
** $1,319,500
* Assumes $7.55 quarterly single family fee, no interest revenue,
$700,000 annual revenues, $307,000 in maintenance, $198,000 bond
payment.
** Grant program not included. Potential liabilities for 77th Street
Project not included.
Note: An additional $1 per quarter per single family lot will generate an
additional $93,000 per year or $465,000 over five years.
Orr
Sdhelen 300 Park Place Center 612-595-5775
OAWS)rL Mayeron& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1-800-753-5775
Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774
•
TO: Mike Eastling and Don Fondrick
City of Richfield
r-?
FROM: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
OSM & Associates, Inc. w
DATE: May 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Suggested Revised City of Richfield Policy Regarding Funding
Improvements for Correction of Storm Drainage Problems
OSM Project No. 5200.00
Outlined below, please find a statement of City principles and information on a
municipal improvement project and grant program that could be utilized to prioritize
projects that could be implemented to assist in the correction of storm drainage and
flooding problems in the City.
• STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
• The City of Richfield has limited funds available to assist in the correction of
storm drainage and flooding problems, but has a desire to upgrade the storm
drainage system in the City in the coming years to the extent it can reasonably
fund these improvements.
• Funding for projects that would attempt to reduce flooding problems will be made
available on a year to year basis. The extent of funding will be based on revenues
generated and available from the storm drainage utility fund.
• Implementation of proposed projects will be prioritized based on the frequency
and extent of the flooding problem and the cost benefit ratio associated with the
problem correction.
• The City will consider funding projects associated with municipal improvements
and floodproofing improvements constructed by homeowners. Funding for
improvements constructed by homeowners will be facilitated through the use of a
grant program. The City will allocate funds to each of these programs on a year
to year basis.
• The City will provide technical expertise and education to residents having
flooding problems at no cost to residents in the City of Richfield.
No projects completed prior to the onset of this program will be grant eligible.
Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors
Memo - Mike Eastling, Don Fondrick
May 18, 1994
Page 2
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
A project will be considered a "Municipal Improvement Project" if the project work can
be completed on City property, within designated road right-of-ways, or on property over
which the City has easement rights that allow such an improvement project to be
constructed.
Projects associated with a "municipal improvement" could include but may not be limited
to:
A. Construct additional storm sewer to carry water from the area.
B. Provide additional stormwater storage in the drainage area.
C. Provide an emergency overflow from the area.
D. Construct a percolation/evaporation basin with or without a pump.
"Municipal Improvement Projects" could be considered in an area if they meet the
following criteria:
1. A physical residence or structure must be inundated by stormwater run-off for
rainfall events having intensities less than a 1% chance of occurrence. (Current
policy restricts projects to only those areas where structures are inundated by
events having intensities less than a 2% chance of occurrence.)
2. Areas with street flooding but not structural inundation would be considered for
an improvement project if street flooding to a depth greater than 1.5 feet above
the low catch basin grate elevation occurs for rainfall events having intensities less
than a 1% chance of occurrence. (Current policy provides no consideration for
areas with street flooding that do not result in structural inundation.) .
Municipal improvement projects meeting either of these two criteria would be prioritized
based on the cost benefit ratio of the improvement proposed to be constructed.
Calculation of the cost benefit ratio can take into consideration area wide damages and
benefits.
GRANT PROGRAM
A grant program could also be available to allow projects to be constructed by individual
homeowners or business owners on their property when municipal improvement projects
cannot reduce the flooding problem in a cost effective manner. Proposed projects will
• be reviewed by the City's Engineering Department for appropriateness of design. It is
proposed funding for this program be shared by the City and property owner on a 75%
9,5
. Memo - Mike Eastling, Don Fondrick
May 18, 1994
Page 3
City, 25% property owner basis. Project work that could be considered to be grant
eligible includes:
1. Floodproofing the structure by utilizing window wells, sealing windows and
walkouts, raising the foundation elevation, or reinforcing walls and floors as part
of floodproofing project.
2. The Council may also wish to consider repair of structural failures to basement
walls or basement floors as a result of the basement being subject to hydrostatic
pressure if not covered by homeowners insurance. (Many homeowners policies
already provide this type of coverage). Funds will only be made available in cases
where basements have suffered visible, catastrophic structural failure from
hydrostatic pressure during rainfall events having intensities less than a 1% chance
of occurrence in any given year. (Projects associated with waterproofing damp or
leaking basements, or repairing minor wall cracks will not be grant eligible.)
Prioritization for grant program funding will be based on:
1. Cost benefit ratio of proposed project.
2. Frequency of occurrence.
3. Technical viability of proposed improvement.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
I wish to advise you that incorporation of projects associated with reducing street
flooding may be more expensive to correct in a given area than that associated with
structural inundation. This is because floodproofing options for a given structure are not
available to correct a given street flooding problem. Correction of street flooding
problems typically require the use of either piping or storage solutions which are
considerably more expensive.
It is further noted that our measurements indicate that the majority of automobiles can
accommodate approximately 1 foot of standing water in the street without damage. The
1.5 foot depth was selected because the crown of the road is typically .4 to .5 feet higher
than the gutter line elevation, and cars driving through these areas should be able to
navigate such water depths provided they are traveling in the center of the street.
Furthermore, the attached table provides information indicated that depths on the order
of 1 foot are very common throughout the City, but the frequency of water depths to
exceed 1.5 feet is considerably more restricted. In these areas, structural inundation is
• more common.
?6 b
Memo - Mike Eastling, Don Fondrick
May 18, 1994
Page 4
As requested by the Council, the problem of structural failure to basement walls or
floors was also incorporated into the Grant Program by allowing the City to assist in
funding repairs to failed basement walls or floors if this failure is not covered by
homeowners insurance. Sudden structural failure is commonly covered by many
homeowner policies. Due to the difficulty in determining the potential for structural
failure (soils composition, hydrogeology of area, and construction techniques usually
unknown), funding for reinforcing walls and floors is not recommended unless it has
happened before or is part of other floodproofing improvements.
If you have any additional questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate
to contact me at 595-5767.
0
0 J:\52W.00\WATER\MEMOS\940518.ME
0
W_
LL
LL
O
U
•
N
W
Q
f?
LLA
J
O
V
Z
0
O
O
W
LLJ
h
E
i
a
0
C
C
1 - 66
m
m
} 0 Z5
O
iJ
N
4
O
O ?- ,0
7n
o m o
?
Q
?
a
cn
L
a)
O co
a
C t`
fl n
Q
0-
" ^ O c c c N C a ?N N
v
v ? -
a) m o :F5 § i
m c
o a)
a a ?
c o o
N g 0
U o ,o o?
U o
U
a) > U
C
C
c O O
c O O
o z
U
E O
=
o
2?
•a
?'
o
a
a
°
a.
o
x
o Q
<
z Q
z Q
z Q
z <
z <
z
•,
z <
z <
z <
z
c>I Q
z
§
5 Q
z Q c?Q r? -
z
</S §
Z5 -
z
Q <t
z
?
Sit)
VO>l 5t
8
°
8
? 53
Q C4 r- C14 cr> 04 CN -
N
M M V 10 t-I i-I co m 0 C) ? cV M :I V L 0 -0 M 0 r CV CV r- M 0 -0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -- - N N N N N N N M
Q
Q
.
O
N
r-
U)
O
T
N
0.
U)
tO
M
L
.Iq
LO
tom.
.-
I
CO
U)
N
N
t\
03
0,
I3
(>
1t)
(>
r-
C n
N -6
M O
M -6
N u-)
M N
N 0
N ?6
M 0
M ?
M O
M P
M M
M '?
G2 r-?
M c6
N CV
M O
N N
N O
M -4
N zl
N 6
M o:
N cV
M oi
N O
M r,
N
M J
-
co V m r v P t\ 'O v v, o_ o m r? -O M ? t? r N to
M o ry LL?
`r 'o
N
- 0
N co
N M
M CV
N M
N Uj
co U
N O
M O
M 01
c2 M
M ,O
M t-
M ?
N O
M u')
N N
- O-
N V
N x
LV -0
M 0•
? j
c
? M
cN
M P
N
W 8
m
U O
v p
O !\
T N
V 1^.
*o ? ^fJ cc??jj
0 ,,pp
O N
M M P
O fl.
Up co
U O
CO co
O
T? M
M O
LV V
I?
O :T
O GD
N C1
CM ia^J
- M
N M
O
3
a O
N X7
M 0
N M
N N
M +-:
N
- M
N
- ?
M
- co
N
- U
N
- U
N
- ?
? N
M
- Un
M
- tn
M
- c7
N
- P
N
- M
N
- O
N
-
N
-
t,- (V
N
- M
CV
- V
M
- I-
N
- O
M
- r-
N
- aO
N UY!
N
.p
C ? Li a) L
+-
O
t
Z
Zf p
a .C
G
o
z
66 c
c
6
3
t
r O
66
Z
,
? c
+-
C ?
'
'o
c D
a ? 'O
? { }
^ ?
? ?
t? N
1- ?
C;6 0
Y ,
S o2S
C ?
-
6
-a cd
a
{U
L
7
*
°?i
O
aS
mi
-a c
l`
a5 ?
C
't
O
U
?
C
$
5
a5
0
0
06
C L
;5,
O
?
0
C
? d
:F=
R
4
d
?
F o
6
C
^ 0
H
.
C
o
C7 Q?
c O ,
> ? a -
? N c Q3 C L o
o rs ? a
C ob
a) ,G1 O q? ?
, c L = C) o -
= C?3 ? < ZZ L U U M Vj ? Q Z ? Co . ' o m Q LrJ rv ? Q U Z,
H N
M UQ
Cl) ^ V
M N
N CV
+- O
M O
r- 'O
M +[)
N t\
c+7 M
M
V
co M
V
o co
co t\ ?
? r - M
? P
co N
N W
N M
V U
l V
N
lLoj
N
a)
Z
C
to O
0-0
a)Q
Q
a ?
a) 2
a) E
? h
5
cc O HE
U 3
.0 a) w
Q a
O a)
a E
O c
O O
o E}
N a O
a) 0• Q O
0
o E }
C
a O
> Q C N
() -0
L3 ?
O
7 '15
? •-
O
C a) a)
0 a)
o E a
N a 2E
n N
O M _ O
_
o
c 3
F
II
a)
Q 'a z
ZQ. z
98
2
\g
- N
LI)
N E
E
O
U
m
a
-7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 156
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of youth appointments to the Advisory Board of
Health, Human Rights Commission and Sister City Commission.
Background:
Early January 1994, the City Council made several appointments to
the City's Boards/Commissions. However, youth member vacancies
remained on three Commissions; one on the Advisory Board of
Health, two on the Human Rights Commission and one on the Sister
City Commission. Each term is for one year; expiring May 31,
1995.
Persons interested in serving on the above-referenced Commissions
were interviewed on May 23, 1994 at a Special City Council
meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Appoint youth members to the following commissions: one to the
Advisory Board of Health; two to the Human Rights Commission; and
one to the Sister City Commission.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. In order to ensure a quorum for future meetings, youth
appointments to the Board/Commissions should be made at this
time.
2. These youth appointments will complete the membership of the
Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission and Sister
City Commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer the youth appointments to a later Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the May 23, 1994 agenda for Council
consideration. The appointments will begin immediately.
Respectfu y submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
7-/
•
•
C7
W
H
U
z
9c
u
z
O
H
cn
cn
H
O
U
U') LO In LC)
O 0'1 0) O'1
ON m oli O'A
(Y) (Y) (h M
ro ro ro ro
U
ro
U
ro
0
H
U
i~
ro
U
ro
0
>1
U
ro
U
ro
0
N
I rl
x I
I
E+ z
a O z
RC H O
W V! H
x W
H V!
W E H
O e, z
O
A U O
a U
O ? ?
f
A x E
H
>4 4-) ? U ?
a %
a ? w
inc z ro
>v >I
A O H
?.? x? in -i
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 155
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution denying a petition for an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for the Shops at Lyndale, CSM Project.
Background:
A petition •was filed by Terry Feldman and others with the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting the preparation of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EQB referred the petition to the
City as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for response.
The related studies, records and documents have been reviewed
again.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution denying a petition for an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet, relating to the proposed
Shops at Lyndale/CSM Corporation Project.
Basis of Recommendation: .
1. A mandatory EAW is not required as the square footage is
less than the 300,000 square foot threshold pursuant to
• applicable Minnesota rule.
2. A discretionary EAW is not required because the issues and
impacts raised have been considered in a number of reports
and studies over the last several years.
3. An indirect source permit is not needed as the total parking
spaces of less than 1000 as well as the increase in parking
spaces of 409 are both under the threshold requirements.
4. Traffic and air quality issues were considered and measures
implemented as part of the widening of 77th Street.
5. An indirect source permit is not required because the
numbers are less than the threshold.
6. Stormwater runoff has been reviewed and approved by several
agencies.
7. Wetlands and mature vegetation has been and will be
considered and best management practices utilized.
8. Economic, employment and sociological issues are not
environmental concerns of an EAW.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to adopt the resolution.
6A-l
• 2. The City Council could defer consideration of this item until
a later meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the May 23, 1994 City
Council meeting. Notice of this consideration is not required.
Action must be taken at this meeting or a special meeting will be
required in order to meet the time constraints set by the EQB.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
Jame?nager
City JDP:cak
•
•
GA-a
. CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING A PETITION FOR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET,
RELATING TO THE PROPOSED "SHOPS AT
LYNDALE"/CSM CORPORATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, CSM Corporation has proposed a development project to occur within the
City of Richfield, encompassing all of the land bounded by Emerson Avenue to the West, 77th
Street West to the North, Lyndale Avenue to the East, and the frontage road (Market Drive) to
the South. The proposed project excludes an existing Conoco gasoline station, rendering the
total site area 16.54 acres;
WHEREAS, on or about April 18, 1994, Terry Feldman and other individuals filed a
petition with the Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") requesting the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW") and an Environmental Impact Statement
("EIS").
• WHEREAS, the petition asserted that an EAW was "mandatory" pursuant to Minn. Rules
§ 4410.4300, subp. 14(B), and, in the alternative, asserted an EAW was necessary based on
alleged increases in traffic, reduced air quality, the need for an Indirect Source Permit ("ISP")
evaluation, an increase in stormwater runoff, effects on wetlands and areas of mature vegetation,
and, finally, for possible economic impacts due to alleged job loss or displacement;
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1994, the EQB referred the petition to the City of Richfield,
and designated the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") for responding to the
petition;
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council has reviewed and analyzed the issues raised by
the petitioners, and has carefully examined the studies, records, and documents previously
compiled by the City involving the area in which the proposed project will be located;
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has had several occasions over the past five years in
which to carefully examine all of the various potential impacts raised by petitioners in their
EAW petition, on projects and proposed projects in and around the location of the proposed
project identified in the EAW petition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, AS FOLLOWS:
0 The City Council of the City of Richfield makes the following findings of fact:
6A-3
0 REQUEST FOR A MANDATORY EAW
1. The proposed project involves the construction of a new commercial facility,
totaling approximately 231,000 square feet of gross floor space. The project does
not and will not meet the 300,000 square foot threshold for a mandatory EAW
pursuant to Minn. Rules § 4410.4300, subp. 14(B).
2. On April 1, 1994, Gregg Downing of the Environmental Quality Board sent a
letter to Gary Tushie, President of Tushie-Montgomery & Associates, Inc.,
architect for the proposed project, advising that the proposed project does not
meet the threshold of 300,000 square feet of gross floor space, and advising that
an EAW is not required.
REQUEST FOR A DISCRETIONARY EAW
A. Traffic
1. The proposed project involves the creation of approximately 998 new parking
spaces, and the elimination of 589 old parking spaces, for a net increase of 409
parking spaces. Petitioners' challenge of 1,155 parking spaces is inaccurate, and
their reference to "Richfield ordinances" is ill-defined. The total number of
. parking spaces is less than the threshold number of 2,000 spaces established by
Minn. Rules § 4410.4300, subp. 15 (mandatory EAW requirements), and less
than the threshold for an Indirect Source Permit set forth in Minn. Rules §
7001.1280, subp. 4.
2. The current construction of a four-lane arterial street, along 77th Street between
I-35W and 24th Avenue, which implements medians, turn lanes, noise walls, and
looped residential streets to separate residential areas from commercial traffic,
also involved considerable studying, debate and planning of both existing and
expected traffic in the area surrounding and including the proposed project.
3. This widening of 77th Street into a four-lane arterial roadway specifically
involved extensive planning and design for future commercial development in the
area, including, but not limited to, the sort of development project at issue in the
petition for an EAW.
4. As designed and now under construction to be completed before the proposed
project, 77th Street has significant design capacity to accommodate any increases
in traffic which may result from the proposed project. While certain minor
changes may occur at various intersections with cross-streets and intersecting
roadways, such as stop lights or additional turn lanes, these types of changes were
n
U
-2-
61r-Lk
specifically contemplated when 77th Street was widened, as necessary future
measures to account for major developments and redevelopments in the area.
5. The minor changes and additions to streets and roadways intersecting with 77th
Street, as set forth in Exhibit 4 to the EAW Petition, involve considerations of
time delay and traffic flow issues. These changes and/or additions will, at most,
have only a minor impact on the convenience of motor vehicle operators and
passengers using the roadways per day.
B. Air Quality
1. As part of the widening of 77th Street, and its conversion into a four-lane arterial
roadway, considerable study and analysis was done on air quality conformity with
state and federal air regulations. Most of these studies and analyses were
completed in mid to late 1992.
2. The study and analysis of the 77th Street project included not only the street in
its widened condition upon completion, but also air quality forecasts as far into
the future as year 2010. These forecasts took into account the expected
developments, redevelopments and traffic levels that would occur in the area over
time.
• 3. Primarily, the studies focused on the increased emissions of carbon monoxide into
the air (CO), a pollutant which results primarily from motor vehicles. These
studies involved a microscale study of CO concentrations in the vicinity of the
proposed project, and a qualitative analysis of the impact of widening 77th Street
on regional emissions of CO.
4. The results of the studies and analyses show that there will be no violations of air
quality standards at either the state or federal level, both at the time the studies
were released, and projected to the year 2005 with increasing traffic.
C. Need For An Indirect Source Permit
1. An Indirect Source Permit ("ISP") has not been sought with respect to the
proposed project, because the number of parking spaces proposed make the
project exempt from such permit requirement.
2. Minn. Rules § 7001.1280, subp. 4(A), (B) exempt a new parking facility from
the ISP requirements where the parking capacity will be less than 1,000 cars or
where the modification will result in an increase of less than 500 cars.
n
LJ
-3-
bp-5-
3. 0 The proposed project site currently has surface parking to accommodate 589
motor vehicles.
4. The modification of parking spaces under the proposed project will increase the
number of parking spaces by 409 net spaces.
5. Even if an ISP were required, this would not be indicia that the project may have
the potential to cause significant environmental impacts.
D. Stormwater Runoff
1. The proposed site, in its present condition, is a developed site with considerable
impervious surfaces. The proposed project may result in minimal increases in
volume of stormwater runoff due to the possibility of additional impervious
surfaces.
2. Any additional stormwater resulting from the proposed project will, however,
flow through a new storm sewer line with sufficient capacities to handle the
additional water and runoff.
3. The stormwater runoff from the proposed project will not flow to Nine Mile
Creek in Bloomington as it would under the present drainage plan. The City of
Richfield recently received approval from the Board of Water and Soil Resources
to remove a 100 acre drainage area from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
and transfer it to a Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization
("WMO").
4. The stormwater from the proposed project will be pretreated to remove suspended
solids and other floating particulates. A storm sewer line has been designed and
partially constructed that will take the water and runoff from the proposed project
to Wood Lake.
5. A treatment basin will be installed in the southwest corner of Wood Lake, and it
will be the first recipient of the stormwater before it enters Wood Lake.
Additionally, an outlet will be constructed to carry the water from Wood Lake
and ultimately to the Mississippi River.
6. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the water
treatment plan, approved the plan, and issued a permit authorizing implementation
of the plan.
7. The Wood Lake storm sewer system, as amended, has been reviewed and
approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Nine Mile
-4-
Creek Watershed District, the City of Bloomington, the Board of Water and Soil
Resources, and the City of Richfield. All necessary and required governmental
approvals and permits for the overall system have been obtained; minor
adjustments and necessary permit amendments will be obtained in due course.
E. Wetlands and Mature Vegetation
1. The proposed project necessitates a relocation of the Emerson Avenue
Congregational Church and a new site has already been chosen. Although a final
site design plan for the relocation of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church
has not been selected and approved, the wetland on the new site will not be filled
under any proposal.
2. The City of Richfield will employ the best management practices to limit and
mitigate drainage to the wetland. Additionally, an outlet pipe may be used in the
wetland to eliminate a possible increase in the elevation of the pond.
3. The wetland will not be impaired, polluted, or destroyed by the proposed project,
or by any connected or phased projects relating thereto, such that there is the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
4. The City of Richfield will, to the extent possible, minimize the number of trees
that may be lost on the new church site. A limited number of trees, however,
may be lost due to the relocation of the church. These are the only mature
vegetation which may be affected by the relocation of the church.
5. The trees which may be lost are Oak trees. They are not rare, unique,
endangered, nor do they have any historical significance.
6. The loss of trees may be mitigated by replanting new trees to compensate for
those lost.
7. The loss of trees, if any, will have no significant consequential effect on any
other natural resources in the area.
F. Economic, Employment and Sociological Impacts
1. Under Minn. Rules § 4410.1100, subp. 6, an EAW must be prepared if there
may be the potential for significant environmental effects.
2. Minn. Rules § 4410.1000, subp. 1 describes an EAW as a worksheet designed
to "rapidly assess the environmental effects which may be associated with a
proposed project. "
0
-5-
6, /9 - --7
0 3. Under Minn. Rules § 4410.1700, subp. 1, an EIS must be prepared if there is a
potential for significant environmental effects.
4. The economic, employment and sociological issues raised by the petitioners in the
petition for an EAW, do not relate to environmental concerns and do not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR STUDIES
A. The proposed project site has been the subject of, or included in, several previous studies
and analyses that have extensively examined traffic and environmental issues. The
following studies are incorporated into this Resolution as further foundation for the
findings herein:
1. Final Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for 77th Street
Between I-35W and 24th Avenue, July 10, 1992.
2. I-35W Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, March, 1992.
3. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-494 from I-393 to Minnesota River,
• Minnesota Department of Transportation, April, 1992.
4. Cultural Resources Investigation, BRW, January, 1992.
5. Phase II Archeological Testing at the Cloverleaf Site, Richfield, Minnesota,
BRW, April, 1992.
6. 77th Street Reconstruction Project, Indirect Source Permit Application, BRW,
December, 1992.
7. 77th Street Reconstruction Project, Noise Variance Request, BRW, December,
1992.
8. Richfield ILN Redevelopment Traffic Update, City of Richfield, BRW, June,
1989.
9. ILN Redevelopment Study, City of Richfield, November, 1985.
-6-
(,'2A-8
• CONCLUSIONS
A. The City Council for the City of Richfield finds that the issues raised by Terry Feldman
and the other petitioners, in their written petition for an EAW/EIS, fail to demonstrate
that the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts,
as required by Minn. Rules § 4410.1100, subp. 6, or that the project has the potential
for significant environmental impacts, as required by Minn. Rules § 4410.1700, subp. 1.
B. The petition for a mandatory EAW, a discretionary EAW, or in the alternative, an EIS,
is hereby DENIED.
DATED: . 1994
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
• ATTEST:
Tom Ferber, City Clerk
TAN 53242
•
-7-
s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 154
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of: 1) approval of final plans for the 77th Street
Phase II Reconstruction Project for the segment from Portland
Avenue to Cedar Avenue to submit the plans to the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for bids, 2) resolution
approving supplemental agreement #1 to Agency Agreement between
MnDOT and the City of Richfield for reimbursement of Phase II
preliminary engineering costs and, 3) resolution approving
supplemental agreement #1 to Agency Agreement between MnDOT and
the City of Richfield for reimbursement of Phases I and II right
of way acquisition costs on 77th Street.
Background:
1) Phase II Construction Planning
The consultants, BRW and OSM, have prepared final plans for the
77th Street Reconstruction Project for the segment from Portland
Avenue to Cedar Avenue. The plans reflect the design solutions
to the issues raised in the environmental assessment that the
Federal Highway Administration approved in July 1992 and is
consistent with the layout approved by Council. The City Council
needs to approve the final plans so they can be submitted for
approval by the MnDOT in time for the project to be let for
construction in the summer of 1994. The final plans will be
available at the May 23 Council meeting.
The construction cost estimate for Phase II is in the $3.5 to
$4.5 million range.
Key features of the final plans for 77th Street include:
? a four-lane divided road with protected left-turn lanes;
? six loop streets just north of 77th Street;
? limited openings in the raised medians for left-turn access to
properties on the south side of 77th Street;
? a 12 foot high noisewall on the north side of 77th Street to
protect residential areas;
? breaks in the noisewall to provide pedestrian crossings at
Chicago, and Bloomington Avenues;
? extensive landscaping in the raised median, on both sides of
the noisewall, and in the boulevard on the south side of 77th
Street;
? two traffic signals where 77th Street crosses Portland and 12th
Avenues; and,
? a new storm sewer from the east end of Roosevelt Park to a new
storm water pond in Washington Park to solve storm drainage
problems along 77th Street and to provide additional relief to
the area north of 77th Street.
5-1
• The development of the final plans is the result of an extensive
public involvement process. Residents have been given several
opportunities to comment on the plan: a public hearing on the
environmental assessment; two neighborhood meetings on design;
meetings with individual property owners affected by the loop
streets; and, newsletters describing progress in designing the
project have been mailed to over 1,400 residents and property
owners. All businesses whose access will be affected by the new
77th Street have met with City and BRW staff.
The City Council recently received a letter from Chris Hayhoe,
attorney for New Orleans Court Apartments, expressing concerns
that the 77th Street Project will have a negative effect on this
property. City staff believes that his concerns as well as
concerns of other apartment owners reflect concerns about the
possible future expansion of I-494 and removal of the 78th Street
frontage road. Sage Companies, owners of three apartment
complexes along 77th Street, have voluntarily chosen not to have
direct access to 77th Street, even though City staff met with
them on several occasions since July, 1993 and offered several
design alternatives for providing access to 77th Street at no
cost to the apartment owners.
E
0 that were acquired in both Phases I and II of the 77th Street
The owners of PDQ have expressed their concern that the median on
77th Street diminishes the attractiveness of their location to
function as a convenience store.
From the perspective of stormwater management, the construction
plans contain a soil erosion control plan, storm sewers and a
retention pond that are consistent with the storm water
management plan of the Richfield/Bloomington Water Management
Organization.
2) Supplemental Agreement #1 for the MnDOT Agency Agreement on
Preliminary Engineering
On July 26, 1993, the City Council approved supplement #1 to a
77th Street contract for engineering design services with BRW and
OSM consultants. Supplemental Agreement #1 to the Agency
Agreement with MnDOT identifies all but $47,500 of the additional
design work as federally eligible. The federally ineligible
portion of the contract is split 75% MnDOT/25% Municipal State
Aid (MSA - gas tax).
3) Supplemental Agreement #1 for the MnDOT Agency Agreement on
Ri ht of-Way Acquisition
On May 20, 1992, the City Council approved an Agency Agreement
with MnDOT for Right of Way Costs for total takes needed for
Phases I and II of the 77th Street Project. This supplement #1
will reimburse the City for 80% of the costs for partial takes
project. Total approved costs for partial takes right of way
acquisition amount to $1,329,329. Federal reimbursement of 80%
• of this cost is $1,063,463. MnDOT will pay for 75% and the City
will pay 25% of the remaining 20% of the costs. The City will
use its MSA (gas tax) funds to pay its share.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve the final plans for 77th Street Reconstruction
Project from I-35W to Portland Avenue as submitted.
2. Approve the attached resolutions authorizing appropriate City
officials to sign the two Supplemental Agreements.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The recommended plans reflect refinements in the design as a
result of extensive public involvement.
2. The project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
by providing a major east-west minor arterial paralleling I-
494 to protect Richfield's residential neighborhoods from
commercial through traffic.
3. The plans will enable Richfield to intensify commercial
development south of 77th Street to enhance the City's tax
base.
4. The plans are consistent with the storm water management plan
of the Richfield/Bloomington Water Management Organization.
5. Two supplemental agreements are needed to reimburse the City
for 80% of the costs for additional preliminary engineering
work and right of way acquisition performed on the 77th
Street project using federal funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
No alternative is offered as the recommended action is
administrative implementation of the layout for 77th Street
approved by City Council.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval of the 77th Street construction plans is needed May 23
to keep the project on schedule for a summer 1994 construction
start. Approval of the supplemental agreements for preliminary
engineering and right of way acquisition is needed before the
City can receive 80% federal reimbursement for the additional
work performed on 77th Street.
Respectf ly submitted,
James rosser
City Ma• ger
JDP:cak
SJ
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
APPROVING SUPPLEMENT #1 TO AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 69489
WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGARDING THE 77th STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
and the City of Richfield (City) negotiated Supplemental
Agreement #1 to Agency Agreement No. 69489 on Preliminary
Engineering for the 77th Street Reconstruction project; and
WHEREAS, Supplemental Agreement #1 is essential for the City
of Richfield to complete the design work of Phases I, II and the
extension of the storm sewer along Humboldt Avenue to Wood Lake
of the 77th Street project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota
Statute Section 161.36, the Minnesota Commissioner of
Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richfield to
accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made
available for eligible preliminary engineering costs for S. P.
157-108-06 and 157-108-07; Supplement #1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed for and on behalf of the City Council to execute and
enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation
prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid
participation as set forth and contained in Agreement No. 69489,
Supplement #1, a copy of which said agreement was before the City
Council and which is made a part hereof by reference.
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1994.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
Attest:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
?- 7
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
APPROVING SUPPLEMENT #1 TO AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 69490
WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGARDING THE 77th STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
and the City of Richfield (City) negotiated Supplemental
Agreement #1 to Agency Agreement No. 69490 on Right of Way
Acquisition for the 77th Street Reconstruction project; and
WHEREAS, Supplemental Agreement #1 is essential for the City
of Richfield to complete the acquisition of parcels identified in
the Partial Take Right of Way Plans for Phases I and II of the
77th Street project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota
Statute Section 161.36, the Minnesota Commissioner of
Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richfield to
accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made
available for eligible right of way acquisition costs for S. P.
157-108-04, 157-108-05, 157-108-06, 157-108-07 and 157-108-13;
Supplement #1.
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed for and on behalf of the City Council to execute and
enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation
prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid
participation as set forth and contained in Agreement No. 69490,
Supplement #1, a copy of which said agreement was before the City
Council and which is made a part hereof by reference.
Adopted this 23rd day of May, 1994.
Markin J. Kirsch Mayor
Attest:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
C
qft
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 153
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Application for a community celebration event license with a
request for a fee waiver by the Fourth of July Committee for
events scheduled to take place on July 4, 1994.
Background:
Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a
community celebration event license and requests that the fee be
waived for the activities that take place throughout the City on
July 4, 1994.
A detailed activity plan of the day's events is currently on
file. A copy of the committee's bylaws and articles of
incorporation are also on file. The food concessions will be
staffed by members of nonprofit organizations who have been with
the committee since the celebration began. Any proceeds of the
concessions are used for community programs. No other outside
vendors will be allowed to sell at a concession.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of
Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are
• followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow
their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event
license with request for fee waiver for the Fourth of July
Committee for activities held throughout the day on July 4, 1994.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the
City application process and meets the requirements for fee
waived.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This
would result in the applicant not being able to conduct
activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on
the Fourth of July.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a
community celebration event license for July 4, 1994 for the
Fourth of July Committee is presented at this time.
Respeigtfii.lly submitted,
• James Prosser
City a ager
JDP:ds
YF
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.152
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for utility carts for use at the
Golf Course.
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.
Two 1988 Cushman Turf Truckster (Units #44 and #45) are fully
depreciated and scheduled to be replaced in 1994. For heavy duty
work, staff requested quotes on a 1994 turf truckster, with a
trade-in of one of the fully depreciated units, and received
quotes from two vendors as follows:
Cushman Motor Company, Inc.
1994 Cushman Model #898630 $11,065.00
Less Trade-In - 1988 Cushman ($2,500.00)
$8,.565.00
Sales Tax $556.73
Total ............................ $9,121.73
0
MTI Distributing Company, Inc.
Toro Workman 3200 $12,600.00
Less Trade-in - 1988 Cushman ($1,500.00)
$11,100.00
Sales Tax $721.50
Total ............................$11,821.50
For light duty work, to be used primarily as a personnel carrier,
staff requested quotes on a 1994 utility vehicle, with a trade-in
of one of the fully depreciated units, and received quotes from
two vendors as follows:
R.W. Golf Cars/Utility Vehicles
0
E-Z-Go Turf Utility Vehicle
Power Dump
Less Trade-in - 1988 Cushman
Sales Tax
Total .......................
Cushman motor
1994 G.T. Gas
Headlight Set
Hour Meters
Less Trade-In
Company, Inc.
Vehicle
- 1988 Cushman
$4,525.00
$491.00
($1,200.00)
$3,816.00
$248.04
......$4,064.04
Sales Tax
Total ............................
$5,645.00
$120.00
$80.00
($1,800.00)
$4,045.00
$262.93
$4,307.93
qr--l
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve a purchase order in the amount of $9,121.73 to
Cushman Motor Company, Inc. for a Cushman Model #898630 Turf
Truckster (equipped as specified).
2. Approve a purchase order in the amount of $4,064.04 to R.W.
Golf Cars/Utility Vehicles for one E-Z-Go Tuff 1 Utility
Vehicle (equipped with power dump).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Cushman Motor Company, Inc. submitted the low quotation for
the heavy duty type of equipment desired.
2. R.W. Golf Cars/Utility Vehicles submitted the low quotation
for the light duty type of equipment desired. This equipment
is similar to the rental carts and ranger cart at the course.
3. The adopted 1994 budget includes replacement of these units.
There is sufficient funding available for these purchases.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could direct staff to obtain additional quotes for this
equipment.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the May 23, 1994 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
E
qL
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 151
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract(s) for building construction at Madison Park
and at Washington Park.
Background:
The total funding for the redevelopment of Washington Park, site
and building, is expected to be $540,000. This includes $340,000
from Special Revenues and $100,000 from the 77th Street
improvement project. It is estimated there will be an additional
sum of federal monies for replacement of park features such as
tennis courts. This exact dollar amount has not been determined
but is estimated to be at least $100,000. The existing tennis
courts in Washington Park are located in an area designed for
storm sewer system improvements. If the cost of storm sewer
related improvements in the park area exceed the funds available
from the federal government, the costs could be charged to the
storm sewer utility.
The building designs were created through meetings with the park
neighbors. The building contract(s) include site electrical
work. The engineer's estimate for the Madison Park base bid is
$135,000 for the building and $40,000 for the electrical work.
The engineer's estimate for Washington Park base bid is $135,000
for the building, and $30,000 for the electrical. The engineer's
estimate for the Washington Park soccer lights, an alternate bid,
is $75,000.
On May 3, 1994, bids were received for the Madison Park building
and for the Washington Park building. The two buildings could be
bid separately or as one project. The Madison Park building
includes Alternate #1 for a trellis which is a shaded structure
near the play area and Alternate #2 which substitutes a metal
roof for the asphalt shingles. The Washington Park building
includes Alternate #1 which substitutes a metal roof for the
asphalt shingles and Alternate #2 which provides lighting of the
soccer field.
It is the opinion of staff that the metal roofing is extremely
desirable in terms of long range value; i.e., maintenance and
aesthetics. Because there are a number of mature trees at
Madison Park, the trellis is not necessary at this time but could
be added later if desired. At present, the major demand time for
soccer facilities to be used by young children would not
necessitate lighting of the field. This lighting could be added
later if desired.
The low bid proposal, submitted by CKC Construction, included a
• combined base bid price of $338,124 for the Madison Park and
Washington Park buildings and alternate bid prices of $9,500 for
each of the metal roofs at Madison Park and Washington Park. The
qE-1
• prices bid for the base and alternates are within the budgeted
amounts for the redevelopment projects. The architect,
Schwarz/Weber Architects, has verified the prices bid, contacted
references and reviewed subcontractors for the apparently
successful bidder, CKC Construction. The architect recommends
award of contract to this bidder.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation, accept the alternate bid items
for metal roofs, and award a contract, including base bids and
selected alternates, to CKC Construction in the amount of
$357,124 for building construction and site electrical work at
Madison Park ($182,800) and at Washington Park ($174,324).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Redevelopment of Madison Park has been determined to be of
merit to the Richfield community.
2. Redevelopment of Washington Park has been determined to be of
merit to the Richfield community.
3. Funding for redevelopment of Madison Park and Washington Park
has been included in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program and
the storm sewer utility.
. 4. CKC Construction submitted the lowest responsible bid for
base price plus selected alternate.
5. The building work and site electrical work can be performed
within the project funding allocations.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not award any contract for a building at Madison Park.
2. Do not award any contract for a building at Washington Park.
3. Reject the alternate to be used in the award of contract.
4. Award a contract to anothe r bidder.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the May 23, 1994 Council meeting.
Action is requested at this time to meet construction deadlines
which would allow use of the redeveloped parks beginning with the
1994/95 winter season.
lly submitted,
0
James Prosser
City Ma Wager
JDP:cak
•
a
0
M
E0
O
O
N
z?
CA
a ,
O
N ?
a
W ?
O
E O
U 0
a)
O
ro
-A
m
0 W 4-)
P4
O
b
O
b
N
ao
ON
0 W
2
-H zo
W 4-)
3 ?
ro $4
P4
o >4
-H
4-)0
m?
r. ro
U (0d
t7) O
?W
:3 O
Wz
4-) 0
4) o
0) ar
-x r 4
(4-)
aU
A?
O ?
r? a x
IdO14
U 10
.a
N a)
O > O
3 a) N
4-I a) b
ca N 1?
+-
(A O
4-) k
9 as 0
-ri td b
al (00
$4 o
+) 0 x
(1) -H $4
-ri
9 4)a
I M
a a) ?
401
H
4444.0
W O 0
00)3
G0. a Imo
??a
Q ° 10
-H
r. O?
td 4.) : %
?.0 (d M 0 H
O U -
-rl
• (1) to a
0 0 0 4
r-I O
0 0 -H
-H r. Z $4
+-) N A a)
-I-I o w 0
r
M34-) 3
ax.0 s~
O0m?
4-)U(0 0
a0) ? a w
S -r1 W W
WU O O
O ? ? A
V 4-)
L+ 0 A -4
?wVrO
4-)a o CO
i
a r-I -H
WU)(0 4-)
0 ca ?
??ba)
w.
? 4 t(D?ro
a E M as
O
O
rl
b $4
r-I O
r.U
O
A t11
a)
+) a)
(0 U)
t~ a)
O N
as
oa
a
,
?m
4-) U
Ua)
x?
0
Q U
(1)
?-H
a) A
x°
a)
UN
>I >1
H -H
U 0
,
AU
f?
wx
U
CQ -H
(0 $4
O
E W
..
a)
N
P4
O
r-I
0
b
0
N
0
N
P
-ri
A
O
3
In
b
-ri
A
?i
0
r-I
r-I
0
w
2
E
A A O L- V O O O In O
t- 0 ? 0
Z m O rI v 0 0
H
0
ac co M M M co " co co
U fa
N O 0 O O O O O N
1 O O O O t? O O H
al co I L? O O 10
?O
n
In
E
co 1
I
W
M
O
r1
d?
C?
rn
0 0 0 o 0 ? O 0%
a r-i 7-4 7-4
r
1 %0 M O O v O N O
A eN 1 ?O In W m %0 0 O
E
ri 1
I
ri
rn
W
rn
.-1
rn
?
a r-I ? ,? ri
a
z o E- V 0 0 %0 o Il
N O
M H I L- W C? N I
n M
,
U) 0:9 M 1 d? In O If), M e q
Q H U) co co 'O co L- r-I L? Co
R1 CQ 3 ri ri ri ri r-1 N ri r-i
(
1 N O V-1 O O N O In O
a ° ° ° ° rq 0
I
n a
o o 0
E-1
r? o r-I rn W rn r1 0 .-I
a r? ?, ri r?
r-I
0 r-. 0
r? a? O N O 0 M O N 1
n
d? N v O N O O? O l?
a O 0 ri In w W l? L? W
r4 ri r--I
0 n 0 0 ? n M
a z 0 n 0 0 0
?D 0 El- M W r-I r-1 r-1 qA
N A 0
a H H W N N v w 0
? ? N
ri r-I ri N N
0
0%0 a) 4) N (D 0) N
N
Lo R1 R1
w O P 4-) 0
w a H
• r
-I 4F a) -
4 0 U O O O p
H O 4-) 1 r
0 U m N r
-I U {-1 4-)
A O 0 A
rn 0) H r.
A U N G4 -ri N
x O X U
p p x U a) o $4 0
a h -H ,/ (c) 0 0
V
x l
V Fr V E W
U
d?
p?
C%
T-4
M
N
9r
N
E
0
b
a)
b
44
fA
1~
U
C
ro
b
r--I
A
ca
A
b
ri
O
W
b
-ri
A
FO
U
a
O
0
0
x
r--II N
Ua)
U U
o
EE U
q L-- -a.
a
?LD
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 150
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for site redevelopment at Madison Park.
Background:
The 1994 Capital Budget includes $500,000 for redevelopment of
Madison Park. The site design was created through meetings with
the park neighbors. The engineer's estimate for the site work
contract was $279,992.
On May 3, 1994 bids were received for the Madison Park site
construction. A copy of the bid minutes/tabulation is attached.
Proposals included a base bid price and three alternates. The
first alternate is related to a resilient surface for play games
such as hopscotch. The second alternate includes installing a
resilient surface with the City logo within a concrete walkway.
The third alternate is for capping the well. Staff suggests only
the base bid be accepted and all the alternates rejected because
the resilient surfaces may be added at a later date if desired
and the well has already been capped.
The architect, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. has verified the
• prices bid, contacted references, and reviewed subcontractors for
the apparently successful bidder, Barber Construction. The
architect recommends award of contract to this bidder.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Barber
Construction in the base bid amount of $256,375.16.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Redevelopment of Madison Park has been determined to be of
merit to the Richfield community.
2. Funding for redevelopment of Madison Park has been included
in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program.
3. Barber Construction submitted the lowest responsible bid.
4. The site work can be performed within the project funding
allocation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not award any contract for site work at Madison Park.
2. Select one or more of the alternates to be used in the award
of contract.
0 3. Award a contract to another bidder.
qf)- I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled fo
Action is requested at th
which would allow use of
1994/95 winter season.
JDP:cak
r the May 23, 1994 Council meeting.
is time to meet construction deadlines
the redeveloped park beginning with the
•
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
0
7 jn ?L
3 ro
3
44 t.0 CY)
44 0) CO O O N
+•? •ri o? ? o o ?
(n 4-) Ei o ro
(1) • a 1 10 in
(1) (1) 0 a
>Ers~
4-) (3) ro d-)
?4 4 4-)
(a
U) 44 O O O
•ri O U) N O O O ro
•rl a) ? • O O ? ?
E-4 co
r0 O rz ?-l N ? N ro
a a a) a rA
r.
a)?0
4 a -------- ----- ----- ---- --- O
4-) U
(1)E 0>0 O o O
4-4 -H 4-) •ri 4-) r-? 0 0 0 rd
O 0 4-) CO
Ca
a) a) (a s~ 0 0 o ro
E 0) i-) +-> S4 4-J •ri H O O 10
O O (a •ri vi i~ rC ?-l (14 0 d* ro
cn ri Q a) ?4 a)
z a) x d+ U) a) o ro
z a) ro S 4 ON (1) ?4 U
H (1) ro m 0 a -------- ----- ----- ---- --- 0
E oIq aH >a
?
ro a
i ko
O %.0
i ?o
I ro
4
)
a ri °` O 0 a) r -
C CO 0
Q) in i~ co r1 cn (1) J :J 0 ko LO a)
0
' ,-i C •ri 0) p O W Q dq co r-
A
4
o
' o (a ro r•i >4 0 a) r-I U) H O cY)
w O C
' o r-i cro •ri x i-> i~ (n ro Q CQ ro
x ,O • • 0 x p ri
ro. w ?o o tlo r-I
U r i
H (a • A OA c
L. ro ?o 00 In
a CQ
z 3 0?
U E
0
a)
N
N
N
3
Jv a
c
4a O Ez d-) U) !a -------- ----- ----- ---- ---
[J4 r- .x 0 0 •ri H U)
O o 14 U) i-) U U a) ro ro ro rc$ rc$
•ri a) ro f-I •H 4 C: C C: C: •ri
>+ d-) q •ri a) U (a 0 O O A
Ei :1 U A 04 ,x N • Ei CQ CQ CQ
H H
co •
0 rl .'X
' ro H a)
U 1?
o >i a (
?
r?
M -H o 1.1 a) Q a ro ro ro A
U) 4J rO U) a) p A (a -P H rI ri ri -P
U) a) •ri :? 3 A ro 5 rl +•> m U CQ CQ CQ
d-) a u O a) p r. ;:$ CQ •ri w 4-)
o r-I a) o p E's Cn 0\0 0\0 OP (a
a) 44 , ro CL4 W Y i~ A In LO LO A
E; o S4 r? a) o
Q) a) rC (a U) ro 1 4 U) -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- - ?
'J U) A ro •ri (0 ri >, V U) ro C:
o i••' k a) 0 E: (0 k -P a) O C: a) ri
k i~ a) f-4 •ri 0 r. a) a) p Oro ri U P
040 a) w 4a 4 0 A?4 a) H E s~ x C a)
E: ON E; CO 4-4 E- Q U Ur 3 ro r{ O ^
W o a)
H 01 a) • r- 0 S-i • ri ri 0 0
ao a (0
H >i 3
O i
a) ro r 0 c H
4-) :3 U) s~ ?" i-) ri co a) 0 ri
•ri 0 01 (0 a) +-) O A z U) ? 0
to z a) E+ 04 a) a o ?4 +) 0 C:
S40 0 r, U? rn o o U) O o
C ri a) O Q z O H a) O
p 010 O Ei • ?4 ri z cz O r i u
(a iv rn ) ro
4-)
a a 3 w ro U U
C4 •n 1?
I?
?4 > a) 0 > C: 0 9r ?+
O r0 4-) A •ri U) r? ro (a ?4 O >i 4-)
S4 •ri i~ a) •ri r1 H a) ro -P •ri
o w CA (a ro v -P 0 44 a) 4 04 ri U
U) U) a) a) 4a 44 U
-ri >, ?,
cn H a)
? a)
o (a
ro ro (a 0
o
?r
rO4J +-) ?4r? > N x ?l m u a) 0)
(a "I -H ::$ m 010 401,
E U U a 0 is ro E+ -------- ----- ----- ---- --- E-+ r-I
(1)
a)
w
a
a)
0
0
•ri
44
ra
a)
0
a)
?4
0
0
U)
a)
O
0
a?
Q
`T o---
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 149
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for site redevelopment at Washington Park.
Background:
The total funding for the redevelopment of Washington Park, site
and building, is expected to'be $540,000. This includes $340,000
from Special Revenues and $100,000 from the 77th Street
improvement project. It is estimated there will be an additional
sum of federal monies for replacement of park features such as
tennis courts. This exact dollar amount has not been determined
but is estimated to be at least $100,000. The existing tennis
courts in Washington Park are located in an area designed for
storm sewer system improvements. If the cost of storm sewer
related improvements in the park area exceed the funds available
from the federal government, the costs could be charged to the
storm sewer utility. The site design was created through
meetings with the park neighbors. The engineer's estimate for
the contract is $298,628.95.
On May 3, 1994, bids were received for the Washington Park site
construction. Proposals included a base bid price for site
improvements as well as storm water improvements. The first four
alternates are for a variety of trees: #1 - 10 @ snowdrift
crabapple, #2 - 5 @ siouxland poplar, #3 - 3 @ 6' high black
hills spruce, #4 - 2 @ 8' high black hills spruce. Alternate #5
is for colored concrete in the plaza area. Alternate #6 is for
the soccer/football goal post.
Although the first five alternates may be desirable, these
alternates are not being recommended because additional trees can
be added later and because colored concrete is not essential.
The soccer/football goal post, however, is essential if the
activity is to take place at this site. These goal posts are
specially sleeved because the football/soccer field overlays the
softball field and it is desirable to have the ability to
quickly, easily and safely provide this amenity.
The architect, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., has
verified the prices bid, contacted references, and reviewed
subcontractors for the apparently successful bidder, Sunram
Construction, Inc. The architect recommends award of contract to
this bidder.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation, accept bid alternate #6, and
award a contract to Sunram Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$297,329.65 for the site redevelopment of Washington Park.
0
qc-1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Redevelopment of Washington Park has been determined to be of
merit to the Richfield community.
2. Funding for redevelopment of Washington Park has been
included in the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. Storm
sewer improvements at the park will be charged to the storm
sewer utility.
3. Sunram Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible
bid for the project.
4. The site work can be performed within the project funding
allocation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not award any contract for site work at Washington Park.
2. Award a contract to another bidder.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the May 23, 1994 Council meeting.
Action is requested at this time to meet construction deadlines
which would allow use of the redeveloped park beginning with the
1994/95 winter season.
JDP:cak
Res lly submitted,
Jam s Prosser
Cit anager
C7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Bid Opening
May 3, 1994
10:00 A.M.
Neighborhood Park Construction at Washington Park
Bid No. 94-4
City Project No. 8970
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 neighborhood park construction at
Washington Park, bid no. 94-4, as advertised in the official
newspaper on April 13, 1994.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Gretchen Blank, Leisure Services Coordinator
E
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ; G RAND
SECURITY ; BASE BID ; TO TAL BID
Hoffman & McNamara ; 5%
Hastings ; Bid Bond ;*321,963.02 1*333 ,318.02
Barber Construction Co. 5% ; 331,763.20 ;*341 ,933.20 ;
Inc. Hopkins ; Bid Bond ;
Sunram Construction, ; 5% ;*296,329.65 ;*302 ,789.65
Inc. ; Bid Bond
Lakeland Nursery, Inc. 5% ;*319,006.20 *324 ,345.20
Wilmar ; Bid Bond
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the May 23, 1994 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
*Denotes corrected figure
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 148
Agenda May 23, 1994
. Issue Statement:
Recommendations to award landscape and irrigation system contract for
the 77th Street Improvement Project.
Background:
When the Phase I construction contract was bid, it did not include the
landscaping, plants, trees and irrigation which was bid separately.
Bids were opened Monday, April 25, 1994, under direction of the
Minnesota Department of Transporation (MnDOT), for landscape and
irrigation system work.
Although the contract is with MnDOT and not the City, it is necessary
for the City of Richfield to make a recommendation for action on the
award of contract(s); i.e., reject bids or favor award to apparent low
bidder. The attached bid tabulation summary indicates that Fairs
Garden Center submitted the lowest bid. However, MnDOT officials have
reviewed all the bids submitted and determined that Fairs Garden
Center had an error in their bid because there was an altered bid
price and the change was not initialed. MnDOT officials have
confirmed Lino Lakes Nursery has submitted the lowest responsible bid
in keeping with state specifications at $411,951. The bid is well
under the engineer's estimate of $551,276. The contractor must comply
with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirement. There appears
to be no cause to reject the bid.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend an award of contract for Phase I 77th Street Improvement
Project landscape and irrigation system work to Lino Lakes Nursery for
$411,951 and direct the City Clerk to complete and submit the required
certificate of award recommendation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City must make a recommendation for action on the award of
contract as part of the MnDOT process.
2. Lino Lakes Nursery has submitted the lowest responsible bid and a
review by MnDOT and City staffs of their bid gives no cause to
reject it.
3. The total amount specified by Lino Lakes Nursery to complete the
work is well in keeping with the engineer's estimate of $551,276.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is asked to make a recommendation at the May 23, 1994 Council
meeting.
Resp ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City a ager
46-
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD
77th STREET PHASE I LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM
STATE PROJECT SP-157-108-11 (MSAS 108 - 77th Street)
MINN. PROJECT NO. DPR 0023(003)
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
APRIL 25, 1993
Name of Bidder Bid Amount
Fairs Garden Center $368,991.96
Lino Lakes Nursery $411,951.00
Artecka Natural Green $457,426.09
Minnesota Valley Landscaping $487,972.00
Greenworks $495,431.28
Hoffman and McNamara $519,386.08
•
Engineer's Estimate $551,276.00
0
46 -a
Mn/DOT TP-30308-01 (3/80)
C L E R K L A D M I N I S T R A T 0 R' S C E R T I F I C A T E
FEDERAL AID PROJECT
STATE OF MINNESOTA) REFERENCE (S.P. 157-108-10
)ss
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, Thomas P. Ferber, the duly appointed, qualified and
acting City Clerk/Administrator of the City of Richfield, and
State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Richfield held on the 23rd day of
May, 1994 the following names contractors:
Fairs Garden Center, Lino Lakes Nursery, Artecka Natural Green,
Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Greenworks and Hoffman and McNamara
submitted bids for the furnishing of all labor, tools, materials
and equipment necessary for the construction of the work provided
under plans and specifications for that improvement on 77th
Street; otherwise known as S.P. No. 157-108-11 (MSAS 108 - 77th
Street), Minnesota Project DPR 0023(003), located between I-35W
and 24th Avenue being approximately 2.88 miles in length.
• The bid of Lino Lakes Nursery in the amount of $411,951.00
appeared to be the lowest bid received, subject to final audit,
and on motion by Councilperson and seconded by
Councilperson , it was voted by said City Council
to recommend to the Commissioner of Transportation, as Agent for
said City, that said contract be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder.
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor, City Council
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal this 23rd day of May, 1994.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Recommendation:
District State Aid Engineer
4A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 147
Agenda May 23, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of adoption of a resolution authorizing purchase of
a partial fee taking, 7700 12th Avenue; Phase II 77th Street
Project.
Background:
This partial fee taking is required for Phase II of the 77th
Street Project. Phase II begins at Portland Avenue and continues
easterly to approximately Bloomington Avenue.
At 7700 12th Avenue (Parcel #69A) is the West Virginian
Apartments. Just compensation was set by the Council at !MO for
a temporary easement and partial fee taking on April 11, 1994.
The easement is no longer needed. When the offer was presented
it was discovered that there is a lessor and lessee involved with
this property rather than a traditional owner. Each of them felt
entitled to $200.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which establishes compensation for
the partial fee taking at $400.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. MnDOT and FHWA procedures were followed including
notification of the owner.
2. Project funds are available.
3. Approval is needed to obtain the support of the lessee and
lessor.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval will make it possible for this process to continue in a
timely manner and help meet project deadlines.
Res u ly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
yP-l
• RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION
FOR PARTIAL FEE TAKING AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE
OF PARTIAL FEE TAKING; 7700 12TH AVENUE
PHASE.II - 77TH STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to
purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of
the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City
of Richfield (City) said real property being described in Exhibit
A, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for
improvements to 77th Street; and
WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the
purchase of real property; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to
acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this
project; and
WHEREAS, just compensation was set at $200 by the Council on
April 11, 1994; and
WHEREAS, negotiations have concluded with lessor and lessee
each demanding $200.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That compensation is determined to be $400.
2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute
appropriate agreements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of may, 1994.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Orr
sdrien 300 Park Place Center 612-595-5775
OAMS)t = Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1-800-753-5775
ASSOa?Oes,Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774
PARCEL NO.: 69A
PID NO.: 35-028-24-340043
OWNER W. Virginian Ltd. Partnership
Description of Taking.
rxh;b;44
(0z)
q 14a
Fee Taking for Right. of Way
That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
which lies southerly of the north 30.00 feet, westerly of the east 33.00 feet, and
northeasterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point 30.00 feet south of the north line of said East Half
and 43.00 feet west of the east line thereof; thence southeasterly to a point
that is 40.00 feet south of said north line and 33.00 feet west of said east
line and said line there terminating.
4
0
H:\493400\SURV\M1SC\69A
NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise
location of this tout
I bereby certify that this survey, pba, or report was prepared by
sne or under my direct supervisim and that I am a duly Ucensed
land surveyor under the burs of the State of Mbummota.
L
D. Edward Arneg, LS. -Lk- No. 11394 Twe,
Fstgineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors
I Y <
W
G
11yy
C Q ? < Z ? ?_y
oQC y? LL ? L -
V
1
? 7
0
O
? V W
? LL
=
C, C,
V
W
J QQ yy??
= W N N< Z
? ? a ? V1I
LL G N.. a r _
_ <
C
? u r?.
N M II
+1 ?1 +I
W
LL??
LL LA- LA- 0
OG3C3 a
I
o? O m ?
N1 t1') ap
•. ? F
~
• W
J Z
co co
co
0 zZ
co
II II it +I z
to < !?
w `` a
p
a?
a ? a
LLJ z c va
\ Z r-
u??- 0w
tv.., o w W
W
S •3AV H1Z L
_ I-Zc -
MS
3S - b?l
3S - Z,I
3 3N I I '3
--` r? _
g
m
d
N?I ? o
f l o£
U;f
. I
w
I? 1 Ln
J
Z
I
I
L.L.t
1
L LJ 1
Lij
Ln
I
r`
I F-
II 1
1 .r.LJ
I ?? 1
0£
? M
0 0
f,
..`Y
0
0
I
,r
OM ? +
?Lr)
I ^? ? LL
I ? t I Iv
.t i
MS 3S 3 3N I -1 'M --?
_Q
+_
ly_ •s?
O p
A
O?
o ?
Y
vim,
l
1 - i
O
^
W
I ,
cr,
II ? ?