09-26-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
0
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 SEPTEMBER
7, 1994; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF,SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 AND (3)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED
ON THE AGENDA
2. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 25-OCTOBER 2, 1994 AS MINNESOTA
CITIES WEEK IN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 268
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 SETTING JUST COMPENSATION
AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ON VOLUNTARY BASIS OF PROPERTY IN 6901
BLOCK OF PENN AVENUE C.L. 269
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF
CONTRACT TO WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES FOR NEW MOBILE OPERATIONS CENTER
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT IN AMOUNT OF $71,881 C.L. 270
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FROM
NORTH AMERICAN SALT COMPANY FOR ESTIMATED 1,200 TON ROCK SALT FOR
1994/95 WINTER SEASON IN ESTIMATED PURCHASE PRICE OF $32,952.00
C.L. 271
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL
KENNEL LICENSE FOR ELAINE'S GROOMING, 7429 HUMBOLDT AVENUE
C.L. 272
E. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR SITE REDEVELOPMENT OF MADISON PARK CP899;
BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.; $38,242.15
PUBLIC HEARING
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION OF CHECK EXPRESS MINNESOTA TO CONDUCT
CURRENCY EXCHANGE BUSINESS AT 6525 NICOLLET AVENUE (REQUIRED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 273
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
6. CONSIDERATION OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND REJECTION OF ALL BIDS
FOR STORM SEWER WORK AND DIRECT STAFF TO PERFORM WORK USING CITY
CREWS AND CONTRACTORS ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 274
7. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON STATUS OF WATER TASTE AND ODOR PROBLEMS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 275
AIRPORT BUSINESS
8. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
9. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
11. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. 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.
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 275
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Report on status of water taste and odor problems.
Background:
The installation of new water softening treatment process at the
Water Plant was completed in February of this year. Residents
were advised to expect a return to prior water quality a few
weeks after completion of the improvements. However, water taste
and odor problems persist.
Recommended Motion:
Receive a report regarding efforts toward resolving water taste
and odor problems.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Water quality is an important issue within the community.
2. The City continues to receive valid water taste and odor
complaints from residents.
3. It is important to provide continuing reports on efforts to
address this matter.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not discuss the matter at this time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Attached is a report regarding efforts to eliminate water taste
and odor problems for Council review. In addition, this matter
is scheduled for discussion at the October 3 Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja FsD. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
N
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
September 23, 1994
Council Memorandum No. 94
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Water Taste and Odor
Council Members:
Installation of a new water softening process was completed in
February of this year. Residents were advised that water taste,
odor and softness would return to its same characteristics in a
few week after the completion of that conversion. Clearly that
has not happened. The City continues to receive many valid
complaints regarding water taste and odor. Approximately one
month ago, the City retained the services of Gerry Allen, an
expert in water quality processes, to assist the City in
resolving these continuing problems.
One by one the causes of the persistent water taste and odor
problems are being addressed. The following chronology provides
a history of the Water Plant renovation, associated taste and
odor problems, and actions taken to reduce the taste and odor
complaints. Be assured that at no time has the City water been
unsafe.
? October 1993. Water softening unit is taken off line to allow
renovation to begin. Residents register concern mostly about
hardness, but also changes in taste and odor. Flyers, press
releases and public contact address hardness issues.
? February 15, 1994. First of two softening units are up and
running. All controls are manual. The new unit produces soft
water immediately. However, inconsistent operation due to
manual controls bring inconsistent taste , odor and color. The
inconsistency can be tracked with turbidity i.e. clarity of the
water. New unit does an immediate good job of softening.
Shakedown of new operation begins.
? February 1994. Infilco, the supplier of the softening unit,
provides 10 days of start-up services required by the contract.
? March 1994. City begins program of using water observers.
Combination of 330 random and volunteer observers begin
providing information on water taste, odor and color.
? May 1994. Second new softening unit brought on line. Start-up
of second unit not nearly as inconsistent as first. But,
turbidity continues to occasionally run higher than desirable.
• ? May-July 1994. Fine tuning of operation leads to more
consistent water treatment of turbidity reading at the plant.
Flushing of two million gallon clear well stabilizes chlorine
levels leaving plant. Staff asks for and Infilco provides
their top senior chemist to assist in this fine tuning.
? August 1994. City contracts with Gerry Allen, SERCO
Laboratories, the premier water laboratory and treatment expert
in the State to reduce remaining complaints. But staff
continues to receive sporadic complaints.
? September 8, 1994. After studying locations of lingering
complaints and performing tests on the 120 mile water system,
Mr. Allen and City staff agree that distribution pipe residue
from last winter's hard water and lime precipitate from the
shakedown continue to introduce odor and taste to the otherwise
consistent water from the plant. This residue is causing a
drop in the chlorine as the water travels to the far corners of
the system. The decision is made to increase the chlorine from
1.5 ppm parts per million (ppm) to 2.0 ppm. This .5 ppm
increase result in a higher than anticipated increase in
chlorine. This is good news because it signals that the
chlorine demand in the troublesome residue has been satisfied.
However, the bad news is that this extra chlorine is noticeable
to taste. Starting September 11, the chlorine level is
• gradually reduced by .5 ppm over the next week. The following
chart shows the chlorine feed rates and resulting system with
chlorine residuals. These changes were made to bring the
system to previously acceptable levels.
Gerry Allen from SERCO will be at the October 3 City Council
Study Session. He will be prepared to deliver a detailed report
of his study at that time.
Additionally, we will be preparing information to the public
providing a summary of efforts to resolve the water taste and
odor problems. The public has been amazingly patient with the
continuing issues. It is important that we provide adequate
information regarding progress on this important matter.
Resp,era ?tlly submitted,
Jams/D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Copy: Community Services Director
.3
•
Date Chlorine *Change in Average
Feeder Levels in SYstem
Settings Two Days Later
September 7 1.5 .2
September 8 2.0 1.3
September 11 1.8 1.2
September 13 1.7 1.0
September 15 1.5 .8
September 18 1.3 .7
September 20 1.1 .6
September 21 1.1 .3
* Historically, we have found that chlorine levels in the .3 to
.7 range are acceptable to most residents' taste.
0
4 . 2
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 274
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Review and rejection of bids for storm water improvements.
Background:
At the June 27, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Council
directed staff to make improvements to the storm water system at
the following locations:
? 6601 Stevens. A 150' storm sewer pipe can placed under the
sidewalk on 66th Street extending west of Second Avenue.
? 7632 Logan. A manhole can be placed on theistorm sewer, a
storm sewer stubbed to the property line and the street.
? 6645 Queen. The alley apron can be raised in this area.
Since the June 27, 1994 Council meeting, the staff has identified
an additional minor improvement to the storm water system in the
same category as those listed above. Several homes in the 6700
block of 14th Avenue sustained flood damage to the basement
during the July 1, 1993 storm. A review of the catch basin
capacity in this block revealed that the addition of several
. catch basins would provide significant additional protection to
the block. Therefore, staff has added these catch basins to the
work.
All of the bids listed below exceed the engineer's estimate of
$70,000 by over 30%. The engineer's estimate had taken into
account the adverse late season bidding climate. The consultant
engineer from OSM also recommends that the bid be rejected.
S. M. Hentges & Sons. Inc. $ 93,495
Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. $ 98,151
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $ 99,590
Penn Construction Inc. $102,200
However, the work can still be accomplished this year by having
the City utility crew install the pipe and having the curb and
gutter repair contractor perform the street repair work. The
total cost of this work will be less than the engineer's
estimate. It should be noted that using this approach to do the
work will mean some of the sewer division goals; i.e., televising
120,000 feet of sewer and stenciling 1,000 catch basins, may not
be totally met in 1994.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and reject all bids for the
• storm sewer work and direct staff to perform the work using City
crews and contractors already under contract.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Council approved the storm water plan at the June 27,
1994 Council meeting.
2. Concern has been expressed about the level of storm water
protection in the community.
3. Bids exceed the engineer's estimate by an unreasonable
amount.
4. City utility crews and a street repair contractor are
available.
5. City Council and affected residents have expressed the desire
to get the work done this year.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Accept the low bid. Staff finds these bids to be
excessively high.
2. Reject all bids and rebid the work in the spring. The
identified location would not have increased protection for
the spring rains.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• This item is scheduled for the September 26, 1994 Council
meeting. Action is requested at this time to meet construction
deadlines which would help alleviate the problem in the spring.
Respectf,glly submitted,
Jam Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
U
l ";L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
September 19, 1994
10:00 A.M.
Miscellaneous Storm Sewer Improvements and Appurtenant Work
City Project NO. 708-1583
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 miscellaneous storm sewer
improvements and appurtenant work, as advertised in the official
newspaper on September 7, 1994.
Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Michael Eastling, City Engineer
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
1
' VENDOR
I
1
I
BID ; TOTAL
SECURITY ;
1 ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
11 11
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc Jordan; 5% Bid Bond ; $93,495.00
Penn Contracting Inc.Centerville ; 5% Bid Bond 1$102,200.00
I 1 I
, I 1 1
I I 1 1
Thomas & Sons Rogers; 5% Bid Bond ; $98,151.00 ;
I 1
1
1 1 I
Progressive Contractors,Inc.Osseo; 5% Bid Bond ; $99,590.00 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the September 26, 1994 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
i
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
Council Letter No. 273
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Public hearing for Check Express Minnesota, 6525 Nicollet Avenue,
as required by Minnesota Statutes.
Background:
Cary D. Weller, President of SGS Express, d/b/a Check Express
Minnesota, has applied with the Minnesota Department of Commerce
for a "currency exchange license" at 6525 Nicollet Avenue (in
Richfield Shoppes Shopping Center). While the City does not
regulate this type of business, Minnesota Statutes (MNSA 53A.04,
para a & b) require the local governing body to conduct a public
hearing and either indicate concurrence with the issuance or
recommend denial.
It appears that the applicant (Check Express Minnesota) meets the
statutory requirements. However, the Council, after a public
hearing, could recommend to the State that the license be denied,
provided they have sufficient reason.
Within the past year, the Council, while enacting a zoning
ordinance on pawn shops, did.consider including check cashing
• businesses. However, it was not included in the final ordinance.
This hearing was originally scheduled for September 12, 1994, but
the Richfield Sun Current misplaced the public hearing notice and
therefore, it was not published. In addition, because of the
unpublished notice the 60 day comment period will be missed by
about four days. Staff has requested that the Department of
Commerce grant an extension to September 26, 1994. At the
writing of this letter, staff has not received a reply.
Mr. Weller and his attorney are aware of this situation and,
while not agreeing to the extension, will be present at the
hearing. It may be that the 60 day comment period will have
lapsed and the State will issue the license in spite of the
Council's action. However, staff believes the Council should
still comment on this application.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing as required by Minnesota Statutes on the
application by Check Express Minnesota, 6525 Nicollet Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. State law requires that the City conduct a public hearing on
this matter.
Alternative Recommmendation:
1. The Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission
or a hearing officer. However, final action by the City
Council is required by September 26, 1994.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Conduct a public hearing on the application of Check Express
Minnesota and recommend approval or denial to the Minnesota.
Department of Commerce.
Respectf y submitted,
osser
JamYaq
Citr
JDP
•cak
0
5=
•
September 12, 1994
James Ulland - Commissioner
Department of Commerce
133 East 7th Street
St. Paul, MN. 55101
RE: Check Express Minnesota - 6525 Nicollet Ave. S.
Dear Commissioner Ulland:
I am writing regarding documents we have received indicating that
Check Express Minnesota has applied for a currency exchange
license to operate at the above address.
• Unfortunately, your letter dated July 23, 1994 was misdirected
for about a month. We had originally planned to conduct a public
hearing on September 12, 1994 however, the Richfield Sun Current
(the City official newspaper) failed to publish the hearing
notice. As a result, the governing body (City Council) will miss
the 60 day deadline.
We are therefore, requesting that we be granted an extension on
the 60 day provision so that we may bring it before our City
Council on Monday, September 26, 1994. We have contacted the
applicant and while they are not in total concurrence, they will
be present at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Betsy Christensen
Support Services Manager
Richfield Public Safety Department
bac:ttf
cc: Tim Welch - Attorney for applicant
• Mary Lippert, Commerce Department
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 272
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for renewal of a commercial
kennel license for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue.
Background:
On June 29, 1994, Elaine Bergquist submitted an application for
the renewal of her commercial kennel license. Ms. Bergquist's
application had all contiguous property owners' signatures on it.
On July 16, 1994, an inspection of the property was conducted by
a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems
found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors
surrounding the area of the commercial kennel license when it is
located in a residential neighborhood. Staff received no
complaints from any of the other neighbors.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel
license be approved.
• Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City Codes pertaining to
a commercial kennel license.
2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Elaine's
Grooming.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial
kennel license. However, the Public Safety Department has
not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel
license for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue, is presented
for Council consideration at this time.
Respec ully submitted,
James Prosser
City am ager
0 JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 271
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Master purchase order for salt to be used in ice control during
the 1994/95 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. A recent history of prices for this product is:
Year Unit Price Delivery Total
83/84 16.69/ton 2.00/ton 18.69/ton
84/85 21.41/ton 3.15/ton 24.56/ton
85/86 23.47/ton Included 23.47/ton
86/87 20.05/ton 1.95/ton 22.00/ton
87/88 18.96/ton 1.80/ton 20.76/ton
88/89 24.96/ton 1.43/ton 26.39/ton
89/90 26.48/ton 1.85/ton 28.33/ton
90/91 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton
91/92 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton
92/93 25.66/ton Included 25.66/ton (500 ton)
92/93 36.92/ton Included 36.92/ton (500 ton)
93/94 25.66/ton Included 25.66/ton
Funding for this purchase is included in the 1994 and 1995
operating budgets for street maintenance.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of an estimated 1,200 ton rock salt for the
1994/95 winter season from North American Salt Company, Overland
Park, Kansas, at a unit price of $27.46/ton/delivered for a total
estimated purchase price of $32,952.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with
Hennepin County.
2. Hennepin County solicited bids for all the participants in
the joint purchase agreement.
3. Under this particular joint purchase agreement, the City of
Richfield has an obligation to purchase from the low bidder.
0 4. North American Salt Company was the lowest responsible bidder
for rock salt.
0
E
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking approval at the
meeting in order to facilitate
early snowstorms.
JDP:cak
September 26, 1994 Council
timely delivery in the event of
James Prosser
City Manager
Respectf ly submitted,
0
?qg
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 270
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for new Mobile Operations Center for the Public
Safety Department.
Background:
The Public •Safety mobile communications unit is 17 years old and
is no longer adequate to serve the needs of the department.
Replacement funds are available, and have been budgeted for 1994.
The mobile communications unit serves the department in a variety
of ways. Although it was originally constructed for the support
of field communications, the role of the communications unit has
grown over the years. The vehicle serves as a command and
control center for emergency field operations, and a
headquarters/base of operations for community events. The unit
has proven its usefulness in a variety of events and situations,
such as major crime scenes, emergency response team call-outs,
major fires, July 4th celebration, National Night Out, Cattail
Days, DWI checkpoints, etc.
The replacement vehicle, to be called the Public Safety Mobile
Operations Center, will serve an even broader role in department
field operations and public education, such as: command/control
center for emergency field operations; support of emergency or
event field communications; headquarters/office/first aid station
for community events; mobile field office for neighborhood
Community Oriented Public Safety efforts; backup 911 Dispatch
Center if building is damaged or must be evacuated; and a
platform from which neighborhood education programs can be
offered.
The vehicle's large profile will be useful in attracting
attention and crowds when taking Public Safety education programs
into the neighborhoods, parks, apartment communities and business
areas. The unit will carry chairs, video equipment and other
educational materials necessary for field presentations.
As a mobile office, the Mobile Operations Center will enable
officers to open the equivalent of a storefront police station in
a neighborhood for a few hours or for several days. A temporary
field office would be useful in areas where there is a perceived
crime problem or where there has been a major incident and
residents want information, may express concerns and ask
questions.
Staff prepared specifications asking for a base bid and five
alternates. Total estimated cost for this vehicle was $72,000.
Bids were opened on Friday, September 16 for a new Mobile
Operations Center. Two bids were received as follows:
q6'1
A Road Rescue, Inc.
Winnebago Industries
Base Bid
No Bid
$65,746
Alternates
"A" $2,850
"B" 1,550
"C" 2,335
"D" 600
"E" 950
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award the contract for a
new Mobile Operations Center to Winnebago Industries, Forest
City, Iowa, for $65,746, plus Alternates A (rear entrance), C
(hydraulic jacks) and E (TV/VCR unit with inverter) for a total
purchase price of $71,881.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The current communications unit is no longer able to meet the
needs of the Public Safety Department.
2. Winnebago Industries is a reliable, well-known manufacturer.
3. The bid submitted was well within the estimated cost for the
unit.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could instruct staff to re-bid; however, six vendors held
specifications for this project, and only one submitted a bid.
Staff doubts a better price could be obtained for the vehicle
than the one submitted.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at the September 26, 1994 Council
meeting in order to facilitate delivery of the new Mobile
Operations Center before the end of the year.
Res 1 y submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachment
0
m
ro ?N
0 r?
4
w
-I ON
4
ro a)
+.)
Cn O
a) o
>+-) ro
•rl ri
4-) 44 Q
(a O
[ 1
• -) a) S4
UIwa)
•ri 0 • -)
O ac
-rl ?4 a)
E OU
a va
a) o
C -P °
.
+-) (00 ? w o 0
4-r 0?4 H E O O
0 .0 a) d-) a
4-) 04 (a z C;
0' O ? `
"
0 w ?
w rl a) a) a) E
W 4-) 0 r•i f-1 Ul ?-l N r-I
z BO ?
r a e
rn A P a at
H ON E O 0 0 04 (0
-- -- -- -
- -- -- -
-- -- -
z o? ?? -Y a) a 4-)
0
? ro
-?
• ro 3 a) •? •?
O
O
0 a) .--i A ? U) ro
a)
W 04 S4 O
O a) O 0 3 S?
r+ 0 >+ ? CU a
4-) a) o a) ?
ro N A
a CU d?+
44 -r-I 44 CO >
H ? N° U U ? ro
A 0 p U)
z ' o
a ?b 0•N S4
0 S
d
UA -i
U)
0 fn O ?r
-IU ro ro
•rq >1 ? 04 •rl O o
4
a H W
H "4U 0 r-i 5 ro
U 0 rI A O ro a) A fZ ro
ro 0)(0 0 a) 4 a • -) ?- i s r?
a) 0 •rq o E 4-> as U CL1
a ro > •r+ o I •r+ w
s? 4-) CO (1) x S-1 (10 E to 0\0
a) 44 0 a) A U) x co a in
4-) 0 a $-I ?4 p o
a) ro , ro a)
U 4-)4 0 > x ?4 -H (1)
O E > o tnnu0? 3
0 a)
3
S4 A 0, (n
4-) rl O ro 0
ro z r. 4-) •H
V a) % 0 A ro
04 r1 p (1) > M 0) O H
O i 4-) •ri a) O A d->
10 o cn a) p H z 0 rl
ON
o a 0 0 U
i
r >4 a >
.Hro -PA S4 r-I A4-)
A r1 O H 0 U)
A to o
0
E N ? 44 hd
41 r 0
3
3 -I a)
$4 r a) 1
X4
a) -H O ro ro A
z u Qa 0 3 E -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -
0
0
ch
(h
N
U ?
0
0
0
0
?o
A ?
0
0
0
rn
a)
A
E
a)
a
(2)
U)
ro
+)
+)
ro
ro
a)
a)
ro
0
0
u
ro
0
ro
ro
ro
-P
(a
A
ro
-P
(1)
A
ro
0
3
ro
A
a)
A
4-) 0).
roo
? 4-)
a)
ro a)
a) E
0 0
0 0
0 ?
(0 0
U
? ?4
a) d-)
r-I -ri
UU
?4 `0
4-) rn
-H ON
Uri
ro
A?
F N
x
-P
U
a)
w
a
N
ro
0
A
E
1-114
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 269
Agenda September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution setting just compensation and
authorizing the purchase on a voluntary basis of a property in
the 6901 block of Penn Avenue.
Background:
There are seven single family residences on the east side of Penn
Avenue between 69th and 70th Streets. At the July 25 City
Council meeting, there was discussion of a Storm Water Capital
Improvement Program. An outgrowth of that discussion was to
offer the owners of the seven residences an opportunity to sell
their homes voluntarily to the City. Five of the owners
responded favorably to the opportunity. At the September 12,
1994 meeting, the City Council set just compensation on three of
the five properties. The appraisal of the fourth property has
now been completed.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution which sets just compensation and
authorizes the purchase of the following property at the value
indicated;
6925 Penn Avenue $73,000
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Funds are available from the Storm Water Utility Fund.
2. The owners have been advised that the purchases would be
voluntary without payment of relocation benefits.
3. The appraisal reports were completed by a professional real
estate appraiser and reviewed by a review appraiser.
4. These properties are impacted by storm water.
5. The purchase would be funded from the Storm Water Utility
Fund, with a loan from the Permanent Improvement Revolving
Fund.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay action.
2. Reject the concept of purchasing the properties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The owner is anxious to receive offers, make a decision and
possibly move before winter.
Resp u ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City` ager
JDP:cak
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY
ACQUISITION IN THE 69TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to
purchase certain real property impacted by storm water said real
property being described as follows:
6925 Penn Avenue South Lot 17, Block 10, Tingdale Bros',
Lincoln Hills Addition
WHEREAS, said acquisition is contingent upon the voluntary
sale of the property by the owner who would waive any and all
potential relocation benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to
acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City's storm water utility fund with a loan
from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund is the revenue
source for the acquisition of the project parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused an appraisal of the subject
. property to be made by a qualified independent professional real
estate appraiser to determine fair market value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That just compensation is determined as follows:
6925 Penn Avenue South $73,000
2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to commence
negotiations for the purchase of said real property.
3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute
appropriate agreements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 26th day of September, 1994.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 268
September 26, 1994
Issue Statement:
Proclamation designating September 25-October 2, 1994, as
Minnesota Cities Week in Richfield, Minnesota.
Background:
The League ?of Minnesota Cities is sponsoring Cities Week
throughout the State of Minnesota. The theme of Cities Week is
"Cities: Where you come home." The objective of Cities Week is
to enhance citizen understanding of local government's role in
their daily lives. Creating good citizens begins during the
school year, so the City of Richfield is promoting an essay and
poster contest for students of all schools in Richfield. The
best posters and essays will be recognized at a future City
Council meeting. The proclamation recognizes the importance of
city government and active public participation.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the proclamation supporting Cities Week.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City of Richfield actively supports the League of Minnesota
• Cities and often participates in League sponsored activities to
heighten awareness of city government.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not accept the proclamation or participate in Cities Week.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This proclamation is an agenda item for the regular City Council
meeting scheduled for September 26, 1994.
Res lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
u4
El
0
_0 C6
N I---
t0a) L:
(D
0
U
" c
co > ` ++ E
U)
c -
U)
O a L ?
a)
O a)
Q
0 U c
-a Y O U- >O a)
CA
O c
4.1
N CU ca
Q _0
? O N O
cu
c
a c o Q VE
a)
Q i O
a o
4-
a)
o
Ua
Q Y
O a) a)Q
+- c ?U) ?
a)L?
3
a) o
?Q
a tea)
Q
c
.aa)C
QO CV
U)
O a
O CO -°
te o c-
ca E
Z rn E a a) -0 a) N E o m o
Z a) a) O c _0
_ a) 0
U
T C0
OCn
E w
a) 0
c C
'-
N
o c
Z 0
J ,? cn
c O
c w
O
O 00
0 N *'
f-
N w cu
a) a) U)
a) CL O_ ,
> O
- U O
L
Z?LL
W E 2
a U
c?
Q)Q a
?•? O Q
YO o
CA
=
U ? L
a) )
Q
CU
o
+.
n. .-
G u 0
- U a)
a)
a) a) - N 0 OC
zOZ 0
co E aa))a) o ? ?? o
p
LnW
~ ocu
o O
cn cnw
o- O Q
E E`''
>.?? '
U
? W
?
? a C
N o U) a)
co is
c a)
CO
U Q. (u
p «.
a)
4-
W
g? W Q) ?,
L +.
a)V a)
0 a)
N U
t > O
O 4-
Q
UWH -C -
> a) ?
?o N
J
OYa?
OF--
OC d V
co ??
c6 N
ca c
O?
Q L
as V? W cn?N?
= > c
IL LLJ
U) U)
V) -Fz
U) U)
U)
U)
OLS
3
0>
o
cn
W U
m U
co o U
cu U •?
cis U
m U c
w o W +-
fn O
U
Z O
a) 0-&-l -0
a) O O n O O? w+-0E
co cu a)
Z a
) a
) U N a) a) a` ) a) cc -
0 cu A
E ?a) E c°-' c C: _r_ Ov?N0
?? 2a ?0 ?C?Q W
cn cn a) fn N a C6-0 fn 0) W M .C c 2
Q
' <.? Q Qa) Qc Q'- _ ?t
a
W W O W W? W m W? F-a U
W? W Q W W O W•c`-= W 2 ?) O
=c =:E _ _o) _? 3: Q. p.?a+, OC
?? ?•? ?c ?.? Zoc?? a
c?
a) O ? 0 U ?
U c o 0)
m 3 T ate) UUm m
`o
i
c
0