The URL can be used to link to this page

09-12-94 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 • SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER I. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 248 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST • 22, 1994; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 1994; AND (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING OF AUGUST 31, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. CONSIDERATION OF MOTION FROM RICHFIELD ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD THE REINSTATEMENT OF DENTAL SCREENINGS IN PRESCHOOL SCREENING PROCESS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 249 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 APPROVING SPECIAL LAW 1993, CHAPTER 230, PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS C.L. 250 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION C.L. 251 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES C.L. 252 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT SEWER AND WATER UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO COUNTY AUDITOR C.L. 253 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR CHURCH OF ST. PETER'S FALL FESTIVAL, SEPTEMBER 17 AND 18, 1994 C.L. 254 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD CATTAIL DAYS EVENTS, SEPTEMBER 17 AND 18, 1994 C.L. 255 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO STANDARD SIDEWALK, INC. FOR 1994 SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT IN AMOUNT OF $37,321.58 C.L. 256 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO STAN POND SERVICE FOR EXCAVATING AND DISPOSING OF LIME SLUDGE AND DIKE MATERIAL FROM WATER PLANT AND REMOVAL OF DREDGING MATERIAL FROM CHRISTIAN POND IN AMOUNT OF $95,000 C.L. 257 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO INFILCO DEGREMONT, INC. FOR SALES TAX RELATED TO TWO UNITS OF LIME SOFTENING REACTOR/CLARIFIER EQUIPMENT FOR CITY PROJECT 703-1592 IN AMOUNT OF $47,164.33 C.L. 258 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ADDITIONAL ROUTING AND SEALING OF ASPHALT STREETS FROM BERGMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $13,994 C.L. 259 K. ESTIMATE #2 PAYMENT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON PARK CP 897; • SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $36,388.48 L. FINAL PAYMENT FOR SUPPLYING TWO UNITS OF LIME SOFTENING REACTOR/CLARIFIER EQUIPMENT AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT; INFILCO- DEGREMENT, INC.; $189,748.83 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT USES FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR COUNCIL LETTER NO. 260 6. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR NEW 1994 NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES LTD, d/b/a HAMPTON INN, 7745 LYNDALE AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 261 RESOLUTIONS 7. CONSIDERATION OF PHASE I 77TH STREET PROJECT AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZATIONS: ? RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENT #1 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 70590 WITH MNDOT ? RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH BRW INC. FOR • CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING FOR LANDSCAPING AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COLFAX AVENUE STORM SEWER ? SUPPLEMENT TO MNDOT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO INSTALL FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATIONS ? REVISE ACCESS AND MAKE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO NEW ORLEANS COURT APARTMENTS ? REVISE ACCESS TO CONOCO SERVICE STATION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 262 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 72237 WITH STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF PHASE II CONSTRUCTION COSTS ON 77TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 263 9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SETTING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ON VOLUNTARY BASIS OF PROPERTY IN 6901 BLOCK OF PENN AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 264 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR YEAR 1995 AND SETTING TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING DATES, AND RESOLUTIONS CANCELLING CERTAIN 1995 BONDED DEBT LEVIES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 265 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 11. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON APPROPRIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS AND ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT BUILDING • COUNCIL LETTER NO. 266 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF LITIGATION IN CHALLENGE OF RUNWAY 4-22 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 267 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 0 ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. / a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.267 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration to authorize litigation in challenge of the Runway 4-22 Extension Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Background: The City Council has previously directed staff to monitor the proposal to extend Runway 4-22. The proposed runway extension would move airport operations one-half mile closer to Richfield residents and increase the number of operations over southeast Richfield. As first proposed, the project would also reduce the number of operations over north Richfield and south Minneapolis. These changes are part of the project's noise redistribution purpose. The other purposes of the extension are to provide a longer runway for international flights and to provide a temporary runway during reconstruction of the existing south parallel runway. Analysis by City staff and consultants has revealed the following: ? The runway extension as proposed would increase the total number of persons in the Ldn 65 or greater noise contour by 7,000. Four thousand people would be removed from the noise contour, for a net increase of three thousand additional people in the noise contour. ? The EIS reveals that as the number of operations at MSP increase, the 4-22 extension will be used less and the parallel runways more. This would indicate that the noise relief in north Richfield and south Minneapolis would be temporary. However, the EIS does not provide any data for how this will impact residents beyond 1996. ? The only noise contour included in the EIS is for 1996. There is no information available regarding what future years' noise impacts might be on Richfield residents. ? The amount of noise mitigation funds stable or declining. The net result is clearly to increase the number of Without additional mitigation funds, inconsistent with the City's previou reduce noise impact upon residents. available appears to be of the proposed extension people impacted by noise. the proposal is s position of attempting to ? The City of Richfield has provided a noise mitigation plan to MAC. MAC apparently did not consider that plan when preparing the mitigation proposal for 4-22. The combined cost to mitigate impacts in Richfield and Bloomington for the 4-22 extension is. estimated to be approximately $80 million. ?-I • Apparently, MAC proposed to fund only $23 million for mitigation. No explanation has been provided how the balance of mitigation will occur. The only possible assumption is that the balance of mitigation required will not take place or will be funded at the expense of continuing mitigation in existing areas including north Richfield. The estimated cost litigating this matter is $257,000 for special attorney fees, an additional $20,000 is estimated to be required for expert witness and local counsel representation. Recommended'Motion: Authorize litigation. C1 Basis of. Recommendation: 1. In the opinion of independent counsel and City staff, the Final Environmental Impact Statement is clearly deficient in a number of areas. It does not properly address the impact upon our community currently and in the future and it does not provide for appropriate mitigation. 2. Funds are available to pay for the litigation within General Fund balance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to pursue litigation. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Council meeting of September 12, 1994. Respe u ly submitted, James D Prosser City ager JDP:ds 0 09!06.94 '18.,56 $ '_1W&E CHICAGO 44 CITY-RICHFIELD 2002 • Privileaed and confidential MCDermott, Will & Emery M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: RE: I. James D. Prosser Steven F. Pflaum and Mercedes A. Laing Revised Litigation Strategy and Estimated Budget Regarding challenge to Extension of Runway 4-22 INTRODUCTION DATE: September 6, 1994 This memorandum updates our February 4, 1994, memorandum regarding considerations bearing upon the City Council's decision whether to file suit with respect to the is extension of Runway 4-22 at MSP (the "Project"). Since our previous memorandum, the FAA and MnDOT have issued the final Environmental Impact Statement (11FEIS11) on the Project. We expect the FAA and MnDOT to complete their environmental review of the Project within the next several weeks, and that MAC will thereafter decide to proceed with the Project. Section II of this memorandum explains the basis of our revised recommendation that, if the City Council decides to file suit, our lawsuit should be filed in state, rather than federal, court. Section III addresses considerations, in light of the particular strengths and weaknesses of our state law claims, regarding the threshold city council decision whether to file suit. Section IV provides a revised litigation budget. II. RECOMMENDED LITIGATION STRATEGY Our February 4th memorandum focused on the factors Richfield should consider regarding whether to file suit under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPAII). As stated in that memorandum, we were exploring at that time the feasibility of an alternative strategy involving claims under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act ("MEPA°) and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (11MERA11). 09/06/94 18:5b $ MIME CHICAGO 444 CITY-RICHFIELD 2003 /p--3 Memo to James D. Prosser September 6, 1994 Page 2 We have now completed our analysis of the MEPA and MERA claims. For the reasons explained below, we recommend that any lawsuit by Richfield challenging the Project be filed in state court under MEPA and MERA. We believe that, in comparison to a NEPA lawsuit, the state statutes would permit Richfield to challenge additional aspects of the project, advance a greater quantum of evidence to mount that challenge, shift the burden of proof, in part, to the project proponents, and obtain more probing judicial review of its claims. A. Elements of aiahfield's MERA and MEPA Claims MERA permits a plaintiff to challenge conduct that is likely to cause the "pollution, impairment or destruction" of natural resources. Under META, the court must prevent such conduct if (1) a "feasible and prudent alternative" exists, or (2) the conduct is inconsistent with, and not reasonably required for promotion of, the public health, safety or welfare, taking into account the state's "paramount concern" for the protection • of the environment. The statute expressly states that projects that would degrade the environment cannot be justified solely on the basis of economic considerations. MEPA is Minnesota's analogue to NEPA. Like NEPA, it requires that certain project proponent, prepare an EIS if the project has "potential for significant environmental effects." MEPA is broader than the federal statute, however. MEPA also bars the issuance of permits or any other state action that significantly harms the environment unless there is no "feasible and prudent" alternative that is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the the public health, safety or welfare and the state's paramount concern for the environment. Both MEPA and MERA define "quietude" as a natural resource and therefore authorize challenges to projects that might result in excessive noise. Should the city Council decide to file suit, we would seek declaratory and injunctive relief against MAC under both MERA and MEPA. We would also sue MnDOT, as the preparer of the `EIS, under MEPA alone. Depending on the type of formal government action MAC takes to approve the Project, it may also be advisable to file a separate petition for a writ of certiorari against MAC that we would seek to have consolidated with the main lawsuit. 09/06/94 18:57 V ME CHICAGO 43-? CITY-RICHFIELD 2004 is-q Memo to James D. Prosser September f, 1994 Page 3 H. Whe Advantages of Pursuing the State Claims under both MEPA and MERA, once a challenger has established a prima facie case by showing that a project will impair a natural resource, the burden of proof shifts to the project proponents. The proponents must either rebut the plaintiff's evidence, or else establish an affirmative defense by proving that (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative less harmful to the environment, and (2) the project is consistent with, and required to promote, public health, safety or welfare, taking into account the state's strong commitment to the environment. We believe that Richfield can easily establish a prima, facie case. The FEIS itself demonstrates that the Project would impair the environment since it would inflict noise levels that are inconsistent with residential use upon approximately 7,009 residents who would not otherwise experience such noise levels. Moreover, according to the FEIS, the Project would subject 3,000 more residents to excessive noise than would experience those noise levels if the runway were not extended. Signifioaantly, no mitigation whatsoever would be offered to many of those residents. The foregoing showing would shift to the Project proponents the burden of proving that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and that the project is required to promote the public health, safety or welfare. On the other hand, in a NEP suit, Richfield alone would hear the burden of proof. In addition to contesting the adequacy of the FEIS, MEPA and MERA would enable Richfield to challenge the Project itself. This would give Richfield a direct opportunity to attempt to end the Project. Under MEPA, however, a successful challenge usually results in a revision to the FEIS, as opposed to termination of the underlying project. The state court claims should also permit Richfield to take discovery, conduct depositions, and have a trial with live witnesses. This would enable Richfield to more effectively challenge the proponents' assertions about the feasibility of both the Project (i.e., how much would the extended runway really be used) and potential alternatives. In contrast, a NEPA case is filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals. Such a suit is often limited to the administrative record--generated by the project proponents--with no opportunity for supplementation. As discussed in our earlier memorandum, obtaining deposition 09/07/94 12:21 $ ?4IW&E CHICAGO iii CITY-RICHFIELD r Memo to James D. Prosser September 6, 1994 Page 4 testimony could be critical in our case because many of the FEIS' conclusions rest on factual assertions that may look plausible on paper but could crumble under cross examination. The state court strategy also has the probable advantage of keeping the FAA out of the lawsuit. Federal courts have traditionally been loathe to second guess decisions made by the FAA. We do not believe the state courts are likely to be as deferential to MAC and MnDOT. Finally, proceeding tinder MEPA and MERA might give Richfield the advantage of surprise. Airport projects are usually challenged under federal law. (Vew states have statutes comparable to MEPA and MERA,) A state court proceeding might catch the Project proponents off-guard. C. Possible Disadvantagesr.of-pursuing the state Claims MEPA and MERA also give rise to some potential disadvantages compared to a federal cause of action. First, unlike NEPA, there are relatively few judicial interpretations of MEPA and MEFtA. This makes it difficult to cite a court to established precedent supporting our position or to predict with certainty how a court would decide our MEPA/MERA claims. Second, a NEPA action would be less costly than a MEPA or MERA Case because the federal court claim would likely be limited to the administrative record, there would probably be no depositions or other pre-trial discovery, and there would not be a trial or evidentiary hearing. Section IV, below, presents an estimate of the attorneys' fees relating to a MEPA/MERA suit. on balance, we believe that the reduced expense and uncertainty associated with a NEPA case are vastly outweighed by the advantages of a MEPA/MERA case. The bottom line is that the likelihood of winning a state court lawsuit is significantly greater than the likelihood of prevailing in federal court. YII. TES DECIUM WHETEER Wo FILE SUIT We believe that Richfield's MEPA/MERA lawsuit could be the most formidable challenge to an airport expansion project that this nation has witnessed in more than a decade. For starters, the lawsuit would challenge a fundamentally flawed FEIS f21002 09/66/94 18:58 a HWU CHICAGO 4-xa CITY-RICHFIELD Z ooh /0-? Msmo to lames D. Prosser 5eptembehr 6, 1994 Page 5 that, among many other failings, refuses to address any noise impacts after 1996. it is unprecedented, in our experience, for an EIS for a new or expanded runway to fail to analyze noise impacts at least five (and, usually, tern to twenty) years into the future. Moreover, the Project itself is problematic from an airport planning and public policy point of view. It is one thing for a project that reflects sound airport planning to be the subject of a poor EIS. It is quite another thing where, as here, the Project itself is flawed. And "flawed" is a gross understatement when it comes to describing a $54 million project that would do a better job of shifting millions of dollars in mitigation monies, rather than flights, from areas northwest of MSP where mitigation is desperately needed to areas southwest of the airport where it is not. Finally, unlike most lawsuits against airport expansion projects, Richfield's potential MEPA/XB A suit would be based on state law causes of action that go directly to the merits of the is proposed project. Combined with the admitted short-tent nature of the noise shifting rationale for the Project, these statutes increase the likelihood that a victory in court could lead the Project proponents to abandon or scale back the Project. Based on the record that currently exists, we strongly believe that Richfield should prevail in its MEPA/MRRA suit. But does that mean that Richfield will win? Not necessarily. Given the vagaries of litigation, trial attorneys always harbor doubts regarding the likelihood of prevailing in court. That goes double for experienced airport law attorneys, who are well acquainted with judges' usual perception that airport challengers are promoting their parochial "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) interests over the public's interest in improved air transportation facilities. This case is no exception to these principles. However, we believe that we can contest the Project proponents' claim to the higher moral ground by effectively portraying the Project a$ wasting tens of millions of dollars in public funds in support of a project that simply will not work as advertised. IV. ESTIMATED COST OF LITIGATION It is difficult to predict the course--or cost--of any lawsuit. The figures set forth below should be viewed as a 09/06; 94 iFc:58 '$` / 0--? Memo to James D. Prosser September 6, 1994 Page 6 ME CHICAGO 444 CITY-RICHFIELD Z007 "ballpark" approximation cf the anticipated legal fees and costs through the conclusion of1trial court proceedings. As with our previous estimate, this estimate does not include expenses associated with local cougel or with consultants such as Bob Collette. 0 9 Prebare complaint Lawyer ours 1994 Rate Fees 7 Steven F. Pflaum 1 5 $270.00 $ 4,050.00 Mercedes A. Laing i 5 215.00 3,225.00 Charles M_ Gering I5 150.00 750.00 Contingency 1 0 215.00 2.150.00 Fees 10,175.00 Costs 1.050.00 TOTAL S 11.225.00 lotion for Preliminary In? i uncticn Okesumes two briefs and or al argument) Lawyer Hou rs Fees Steven F. Pflaum 50 $ 16,200.00 Mercedes A. Laing 60 12,900.00 Charles M. Gering 2 0 3,000.00 Contingency 2 0 4.300.00 ''ass $ 36, 400.00 Costs 3,650.00 i TOTAL $.40,050.00 09/06/94 18:59 V MIV&E CHICAGO 44? CITY-RICHFIELD Id 8 Memo to Jaynes D. Prosser September 6, 1994 Page 7 Discovery, Activities, (Assumes four depositions in Minneapolis, preparation of interrogatories and document requests, and preparation of responses to discovery requests) Lawyer Hours Fees Steven F. Pflaum 65 $ 17,550.00 Mercedes A. Laing 50 10,750.00 Charles M. Gering 35 51250.00 Contingency 40 8.600.00 FO-09 42,150.00 Casts 4.250.00 TOTAL $ 46.400.00 Pre-Trial Motions L1 Lawyer Hours Fees Steven F. Pflaum 25 $ 6,750.00 Mercedes A. Laing 25 5,375.00 Charles M. Gering 15 2,250.00 Contingency 50 10,750.00 Fees $ 25,125.00 Casts 2.550.08 TOTAL S 27.675.00 Trial Preparation (Including Trial Brief) LAwyer Hours Fees Steven F. Pflaum 65 $ 17,550.00 Mercedes A. Laing 65 13,975.00 Charles M. Gering 45 6,750.00 Contingency 50 10,750.00 Fees $ 491025.00 Costs 4,950-00 TOTAL SS 53.975.00 2008 0 09/06/94 18:59 $ Di{V&E CHICAGO CITY-RICHFIELD Z009 j a-9 Memo to James D. Prosser September 6, 1994 Page 8 Trial (Assumes Three-Day Trial) Lawyer Hours Fees Steven F. Pflaum 45 $ 12,150.00 Mercedes A. Laing 45 9,675.00 Charles M. Gering 45 6,750.00 Contingency 45 9,675.00 Fees $ 38,250.00 Costs 3,850.00 TOTAL $ 42,100.00 prep4rgt on of Proposed Findings and Other Post-Trial _Aativiti.es in Trial Court Lawyer Hours Fees Steven F. Pflaum 40 $ 10,800.00 Mercedes A. Laing 40 8,600.00 • Charles M. Gering ti C 20 50 31000.00 10 750 00 on ngency . . Fees $ 33,150.00 Costs 31350.00 TOTAL $ 36, 500.00 SUMMARY 0F 9_8=MATEL LITIGATION EXPENSES Category of Work Estimated E ease Prepare Complaint $ 11,225.00 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 40,050.00 Discovery 46,400.00 Pre-Trial Motions 27,675.00 Trial Preparation 53,975.00 Trial 421,100.00 Post-Trial Activities 36.500.00 • GRAND TOTAL $2? 57-925 09/06"94 19:00 V MIME CHICAGO 444 CITY-RICHFIELD 2010 )0--/D Memo to .'ames D. Prosser September f, 1994 Page 9 V. CtMNCL1178ION Please let us know if you or the City Council need any additional information. We would be pleased to address the City Council or to speak with individual Council members to further explain the matters discussed in this memorandum. • By By \31805\010\MEM\50MEMMAL.001 Respectfully submitted, McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY /I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.266 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Request for a determination on the appropriate zoning classification for commercial antennas and a rooftop equipment building. Background: US West Cellular is proposing to install 15 antennas and a 12 foot by 24 foot equipment building on top of Richfield Tower, 7717 Chicago Avenue. Richfield Tower, a seven story residential building, is located in the MR-3 (high density multi-family) district. The antennas and related rooftop building would be an independent secondary use of the property. Such use is considered a "use not listed" by the ordinance, and must be referred to the City Council for an appropriate classification. Ten of the antennas would be flush-mounted antennas which are fastened to the side of the building near the roof-line. The remaining five antennas would project about five feet above the roof-line. The equipment building would existing utility penthouse on a manner to conceal it to the designed to match the Tower. approximate the height of the the rooftop. It would be placed in extent possible and would be Under the proposal, Richfield Tower would lease the roof space to US West. Recommended Motion: Review the request and determine that the proposed use be classified as a "permitted" secondary use of MR-3 property. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Section 505.11 of the City Code states that the Council shall determine the appropriate classification of uses which do not fall within any existing use classification. 2. The proposal would provide an efficient use of land and would not have adverse impacts on the City or the public. 3. The draft zoning code, which is currently under review by the Planning Commission, classifies the proposed use as a "permitted" secondary use of MR-3 property. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could determine that the proposed use should be classified as a "conditional" secondary use in the MR-3 district, and subject to a conditional use permit. 2. The City Council could determine that the proposed use should be classified as a "prohibited" secondary use in the MR-3 district. 3. The City council may refer the matter to the.Planning Commission for a recommendation. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled for the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting. No publication or notification was required. RespectPUAY) submitted, James D. osser City Mana er JDP:ds • 0 -US WEST PROPOSAL FOR RICHFIELD TOWER • 77TH STREET /-C)- I-] W n z W Q V V ITLA PROJECT G PROPOSED NTENN A ... UTILITY BLDG. 10 FLUSH MOUN EXISTING MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE D N 78TH STREET • J/,3 IF - 1 Ger Typia: Typia< Scale: - Approx. 1/4'=i'-O" GOnst ??S 1! 11 u r e ?I • • • ??/UD Ir?? r` "". A,T. ' ` \ }y General Notes: Typical Antenna (SouthEast t SouthYVest Bldg. Faces) Type: 10ea. "AMERIGELL", Panel Antenna. By: SCAI-A ELECTRONICS CORPORATION Model: AP15-850/090 Height: 101.5" (8'-5 1/2") Width: 10" Depth: 4" Typical Antenna (North Bldg. Face) Type: 5ea. "AMERIGELL",•:Panel Antenna. By: SCAL4 ELECTRONICS CORPORATION Model: AP11-650/105 Height: 51" (4'-5") width: 10" Depth: 4" Construction Notes: All antennas, pipes, brackets, coaxial cables, etc. to existing building. ?`' i`7c?Nt}{IN I ?r';:GL'sa..rfip str.'?.JJMS ?`Ys?f^?u? 41 v L Depth: 4" Typical Antenna (North Bldg. Face) Type: Sea. "AMF..RICELL", Ponel Antenna. By: SCALA FL ECMON/G5 GORPORAT/Or Model: AP11-850/105 Height: 51" (41-5") Width: 10" Depth : 418 Construction Notes: All antennas, pipes, brackets, coaxial cables, etc.' existing building. to ?I G .001 t 9 it-(o LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 0 Minneapolis • Saint Paul • Washington,D.C. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228 (612) 330-3000 Facsimile 371-0653 David W. Larson 330-3009 September 2, 1994 VIA FAX and MAIL Mr. Sean Drill Richfield Planning Department 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Request for Classification of a Cellular • Telephone Substation and Antenna as a Permitted Use Dear Mr. Drill: Thank you for taking the time to work with me on our request for permission to place a cellular telephone site at the Richfield Towers, 7717 Chicago Avenue South. Based on our discussions, US West NewVector is requesting that the City Council review this proposed use and classify it as permitted under the Richfield Zoning Code at its meeting of September 12th. This new cellular telephone site at that location will create additional capacity to serve the increased demands of the area. While some of the residents and guests will, no doubt, be using the service provided by this cell site, the primary service area for this cell will be cellular telephones in use within a mile of the Richfield Towers. Cellular telephone usage is on the increase in Richfield, and particularly in areas of high traffic concentration and business activity, such as along 494, and north and south along Chicago. The cellular telephone usage in the southern Richfield area has reached the point where the system is at its capacity, and calls are being interrupted and lost because of the demand. 0 11-1 Mr. Sean Drill • September 2, 1994 Page 2 1. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SITE The Proposed Use. We propose to install a cellular telephone antenna site on the roof of the Richfield Towers building at 7717 Chicago Avenue South. As part of this construction, fifteen directional panel antennas would be installed, in three groups of five. Two of these groups will be affixed to the side of the building, below the roof line, with the elevation at the top of 71.8 feet. These antenna will be colored to match the building. The third group of 5 antenna face north, and attach to an existing equipment penthouse. They extend 5 feet 3 inches above the top of the penthouse, for an elevation of 78 feet at the top of the antenna. The panels are 8 feet in height. We also propose to locate an equipment structure, 11 feet high, on top of the apartment building of about 288 square feet (12'x24'). The exterior can be made to match the building exterior. The equipment building, being on the top of the apartments, would not be visible from nearby; it would be visible from a distance. I believe you have a preliminary site plan and elevations demonstrating the proposed use. 0 Location and Zoning The proposed site is located immediately north of I-494 and on Chicago Avenue. The site is zoned MR-3. (Multi-residential planned unit development) The area is commercial and residential, and has heavy traffic through it. The proposed use is probably a "minor public utility facility" as identified in the zoning code in such provisions as 515.05 Subd 6. (Accessory Uses- R District) or 515.43 Subd. 7. (Accessory Uses-MR District). No separate permit is required under Section 425 of the City Code because the antenna do not exceed a total height of 10 feet above the highest point of attachment. The Cellular Phone System. Users of cellular telephone service include members of the business community as well as the public sector. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners, and realtors all benefit by using cellular phones. Additionally, cellular telephones are extensively used by fire and police departments. • The system allows police and other emergency response agencies to conduct private communication in the field. This can be important from the scene of a crime. Immediate, direct communication can also be made with other specialized agencies when a relay through a dispatcher would be cumbersome, and cause dangerous delays. //-9 Mr. Sean Drill September 2, 1994 Page 3 Cellular telephones continue to function in areas where telephone wires are down because of tornados or ice storms, also aiding in emergencies. Each cell also has a back-up power source in the equipment building, either a generator, or batteries, or both, that automatically go on-line if outside power fails. The cellular mobile phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies between 835 and 897 megahertz. Formerly these channels were allocated to certain "UHF" television frequencies. US West NewVector is currently operating over 250 cellular antennas around the country with no case of television or radio interference reported. The Cellular Grid. Cellular service provides subscribers with office-quality phone service by developing a grid of antennas arranged in a geographically hexagonal pattern. Each hexagon is a "cell" • created by an antenna which serves as the link between the customer and the system while the customer is within that particular cell. Each cell can only handle a finite number of calls at any one time. As the number of customers increases, the grid must be changed to handle the increasing number of calls. This usually means that more cells need to be created within the same geographical area, resulting in a new grid pattern of smaller cells. US West New Vector currently has another operational cellular telephone sites in the City of Richfield at 1401 East 76th Street. This cell site (and the neighboring cell sites) is no longer adequate to serve the cellular telephone traffic in the area. Another site must be added. A new antenna and equipment housing must be constructed each time a new cell is created. As the grid matures and more cells are added, antennas are made shorter because of each cell's smaller coverage area, and the potential for interference between cells. Many factors go into choosing a location for a cell site. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid size, zoning and land use compatibility, land owner willingness to sell or lease, land forms or topography of the surrounding area, and accessibility. Taken together, all of these factors create a narrow search area for location of the cell site. Sometimes, because of the engineering constraints and the location of the demand for cellular telephone services, a cell site must be located in an area that is not ideal from a zoning perspective. • This site has been selected for several reasons. First, it is within the narrow geographical area that the New Vector engineers have identified as being workable for a new antenna site. Second, the location in Richfield Towers means that a ground mounted antenna does not have to be placed in the area. Most neighbors prefer that antenna be placed on an existing building Mr. Sean Drill September 2, 1994 Page 4 rather than supported by a ground based tower. Finally, the FAA has indicated that they would not permit a freestanding tower any closer to the airport runways. H. DETAILS ABOUT THIS SITE a) How this site was decided upon; the search area criteria Because of increasing demand, US West New Vector has been working to locate an additional antenna site in the I-494 Corridor near Chicago Avenue to solve cellular phone service capacity needs. The need for this site is based upon our customers' use of cellular phones in the Richfield area, and immediately to the south. The area is experiencing rapid growth in cellular usage. At the present time, owners of hand-held portable phones are experiencing lost connections, or "dropped calls." This will become an increasing problem for subscribers in this area as demand for cellular telephone service continues to increase. A primary feature of this site that makes it attractive as a cellular location is its proximity to I-494 and Chicago Avenue. By locating the antenna near the intersection, the cell site more effectively services mobile telephones in use east and west along 494, and north and south along Chicago Avenue. The site is also centrally located between the antennas in adjacent grids. b) The Equipment Installation Each antenna array requires extensive supporting electronic equipment in close proximity. The equipment requires periodic maintenance. Engineers will visit the equipment structure about twice a month to insure that the equipment is working properly. The operation of the antennas and equipment structure will not be an occupied use. Therefore, public facilities for refuse disposal or water and sewer systems will not be required. There will be no measurable impact on traffic or other conditions. The site is electrically powered and produces no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odor. c) The antenna The antenna are installed in groupings of five, are eight feet in height, and mount on a structure affixed to the building. They can be painted any color. d) Safety The cellular telephone equipment is powered with 200 amp, typical household power. In addition, the cell site is operated and monitored remotely. Our personnel in Minneapolis and in Bellevue, Washington, monitor the site around the clock and are alerted by silent smoke, fire /1-/0 Mr. Sean Drill September 2, 1994 Page S and forced entry alarms. The proposed use will not change the need for public services at this site. M. CONCLUSION Effective, modern communication systems are critical to the operation of today's businesses. Cellular telephones are becoming an indispensable tool of business. There is no question that cellular telephones will be a part of the urban environment of the future. Providing - for adequate support for the development of this communications system is necessary for Minneapolis to meet the needs of its business community, and, increasingly, its families. Thank you for your consideration. 0 ncerely, / 'David W. Larson 63186-1 0530200-000600 cc: Mr. Bernie :'Yong n, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 265 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Resolution adopting the proposed budget and property tax levy for the year 1995 and setting Truth-in-Taxation hearing dates, and resolutions cancelling certain 1995 bonded debt levies. Background: As required by the Truth-in-Taxation legislation (M.S. 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 1995 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 1994. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. In addition, each "taxing authority" must certify to their County Auditor the date that has been selected for the Truth-in-Taxation hearing by September 15, 1994. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the County or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth-in-Taxation public hearing must be held between November 29 and December 20, 1994. Pursuant to City Charter, a 1994 Revised/1995 Proposed Budget and tax levy was presented to the City Council at the August 31, 1994 Special City Council meeting. A presentation of the budget and discussion occurred at that meeting as well as at a continuation meeting on September 7, 1994. The proposed tax levy of $7,452,200 is an increase of 2.17% or $158,600 over the previous year's levy. In addition to the 1994 Revised/1995 Proposed Budget and preliminary property tax levy, City staff is also recommending dates for this year's Truth-in-Taxation public hearing. It is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 7, 1994 with a continuation date of 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 14, 1994, if necessary. As Council Members are aware, at that public hearing, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary tax levy, but not increased. In addition, Hennepin County has requested that the City submit resolutions cancelling any 1995 bonded debt levy. Hennepin County has requested the resolutions at this time to reflect the cancellations in the parcel specific property tax notices mailed in November. The total amount of the 1995 bonded debt levy that staff recommends be cancelled is $1,831,514. There are sufficient funds available in the Debt Service Funds to meet 1995 debt service payments. 0 /0-/ Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution certifying a levy and budget for 1995 and setting a pub. p.m., December 7, 1994 with a continuation December 14, 1994, if necessary, and adopt resolutions cancelling certain 1995 bonded proposed property tax Lic hearing for 7:00 date of 7:00 p.m., the attached debt levies. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Truth-in-Taxation timelines establish the process that must be followed to adopt a preliminary property tax levy. September 15 is the deadline for cities to submit a 1995 proposed property tax levy, Proposed 1995 Budget and Truth-in-Taxation hearing dates to the County Auditor. 2. The recommended dates are available according to the. Hennepin County Auditor. 3. The budget and tax levy are ready for consideration. 4. Discussions regarding the budget and tax levy were held on August 31 and September 7, 1994. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could adopt either a greater or lesser 1995 preliminary property tax levy, 1994 Revised/1995 Proposed.Budget or select other allowable Truth-in-Taxation • hearing dates. 2. The City Council could defer the cancellation of 1995 bonded debt levies until a subsequent council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: The September 12, 1994 City Council meeting date is critical in the process. The Proposed 1995 Levy and Truth-in-Taxation must be presented to the County Auditor's office on September 15, 1994. Failure to do so would place the City out of compliance with the Truth-in-Taxation Statute and would, at minimum, forfeit the City's tax levy increase over the previous year's levy. Respectfully submitted, JDP:cak James Prosser City Manager 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1995 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 1994, and then recertified before December 31, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The proposed budget for the City of Richfield year 1995is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations foreach of the departments to follows: GENERAL FUND • Legislative $ 179,740 Executive 422,850 Administrative Services 897,730 Community Development 259,950 Public Safety 6,723,300 Community Services 4,154,570 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 12,638,140 for the be as 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1995, which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $12,638,140 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1994, payable in 1995 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE GENERAL FUND* *Provision has been made in the General Fund of the City's contributory share to Public Retirement Association and Fireman's Relief All authorized levies for debt service will there are sufficient funds available to pay and interest. See separate resolutions for cancellation of the tax levies. AMOUNT $7,452,200 for the payment Employees' Association. be canceled as 1995 principal the 40 /c)-3 4. The proposed budget for the Housing and Redevelopment • Authority of Richfield for the year 1995 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1994, payable in 1995 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $152,160 Relocation Information, Services and Assistance $ 15,100 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. 6. The Truth in Taxation public hearings shall be set for 7:00 p.m. December 7, 1994 with a continuation hearing at 7:00 p.m. December 14, 1994, if necessary. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 0 10-q RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON REDEVELOPMENT BONDS OF 1977 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5752 provided for the sale of $4,700,000 Redevelopment Bonds of 1977 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment from the Project Area exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 5752 in the amount of $782,300 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 9 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON REFUNDING BONDS OF 1978 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5836 provided for the sale of $6,500,000 Refunding Bonds of 1978 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5852 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1994 of $267,900 for payment of principal and interest on the Refunding Bonds of 1978; and ' WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of substantial prepayment of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there is presently funds available in the Refunding Bonds of 1978 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of is Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 5852 in the amount of $267,900 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 10-b RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 provided for the sale of $6,100,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1994 of $490,400 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of substantial prepayment of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there is presently funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1980 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 6310 in the amount of $490,400 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 9 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7100 provided for the sale of $1,940,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment from the Project Area exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 7100 in the amount of $25,806 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 9 /c-8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1977 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5753 provided for the sale of $4,500,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1977 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5753 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 1994 of $230,000 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1977; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to the extent that such reduction is possible by reason of substantial prepayment of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there is presently partial funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1977 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, The ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 5753 in the amount of $230,000 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1983 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6842 provided for the sale of $825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment earnings thereon exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 6842 in the amount of $29,308 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 9 to-lo RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1983 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6756 provided for the sale of $505,000 General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1983 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel or reduce certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 1995, due to funds on hand from tax increments and the investment earnings thereon exceed the amount necessary to pay principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 1994, collectible in 1995, on Resolution No. 6756 in the amount of $5,800 is hereby canceled. 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the • Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk r? ?J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 264. Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution setting just compensation and authorizing the purchase on a voluntary basis of 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 a 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 home voluntarily to the City. Five of the owners responded favorably to the opportunity. Appraisals on three of the five properties have been completed. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution which sets just compensation and authorizes the purchase of the following properties at the values indicated; 6913 Penn Avenue $80,000 6929 Penn Avenue $84,000 6933 Penn Avenue $69,000 • 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 Permanen t Improvement Revolving Fund. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Reject the concept of purchasing the properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: The owners are anxious to receive offers, make a decision and possibly move before winter. Res a ly submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 9-f, RESOLUTION NO. ` THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS 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: 6913 Penn Avenue Lot 20, Block 10, Tingdale Bros', Lincoln Hills Addition 6929 Penn Avenue Lot 16, Block 10, Tingdale Bros', Lincoln Hills Addition 6933 Penn Avenue Lot 15, Block 10, Tingdale Bros', Lincoln Hills Addition WHEREAS, said acquisitions are contingent upon the voluntary sale of the property by owners 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 is the revenue source for the acquisition of the project parcels; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property • to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers 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: 6913 Penn Avenue $80,000 6929 Penn Avenue $84,000 6933 Penn Avenue $69,000 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 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: C7 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.263 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a cooperative agreement between Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield for reimbursement of Phase II construction costs on 77th Street. Background: A cooperative agreement describes the State of Minnesota's funding contribution towards the reconstruction of 77th Street. This is the fourth cooperative agreement proposed for the 77th Street Project. The last one was approved by the City Council on January 10, 1994 to cover the cost of landscaping on Phase I. For the Phase II construction and inspection costs, this cooperative agreement will continue to rely on federal funds for 80% of eligible costs, the State will pay 15% and the City will pay 5% using Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. This 5% MSA portion will be picked up by the State due to credits for past City MSA right of way expenses. There are some costs that have been identified as clearly local costs for storm sewer and water service that must be financed using 100% local funds. The City Council authorized these local costs at their August 8, 1994 meeting. • Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the appropriate City officials to sign the cooperative agreement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The agreement provides the State's share of the costs to complete the 77th Street Phase II construction project. 2. The cooperative agreement is consistent with,previous agreements between MnDOT and the City on financing the 77th Street Project. 3. The local share is an accurate reflection of improvements that are not eligible for state and federal highway funds. Alternative Recommendation: None. The proposed agreement is consistent with the City's request for MnDOT financial participation in the 77th Street Project. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision is needed on this agreement before MnDOT will award the Phase II construction contract for 77th Street. Respe fully submitted, Jame Prosser City ager JDP:ds Attachment -I RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 72237 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE 77th STREET PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into Agreement No. 72237 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to-wit: To provide for payment by the State to the City of Richfield of the State's share of the construction engineering and inspection costs incurred by the City for the grading, paving, storm sewer, city utilities, noise wall and signal systems construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Municipal State Aid Street No. 108 (East 77th Street) from Engineer Station 80+50 (Portland Avenue South) to Engineer Station No. 2785-283 (T.H. 494+393) and No. 157-108-14. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. Adopted this 12th day of September, 1994. 0 Attest: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Richfield CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 12th day of September, 1994, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk Thomas P. Ferber 8-ca CITY OF RICHFIELD Wed Sep 7, 1994 11:10 AM &GET FOR PHASES I, II AND III OF 77TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PHASE I COSTS SOURCE OF FUNDS ------------------------ RIGHT OF WAY INC. RALF --------------- $5,893,847 -------------------- FEDERAL 80% ----------------- $20,840,000 DEMOLITION $176,629 STATE 15$ $5,210,000 CONSTRUCTION $7,709,400 STATE 100% $350,000 OTHER EXPENSES $2,328,800 MSAS 5% $2,344,476 ------------------------ --------------- CITY $535,000 SUB-TOTAL $16,108,676 -------------------- ---------------- TOTAL $29,279,476 PHASE II INCLUDING WOOD LAKE STORM SEWE R ------------------------ RIGHT OF WAY-TOTAL TAKES --------------- $4,479,730 & PARTIAL TAKES CONSTRUCTION-77TH STREET $5,500,000 OTHER EXPENSES $1,200,000 --------------------------------------- SUB-TOTAL $11,179,730 TOTAL FOR PHASES I & II $27,288,406 WOOD LAKE STORM SEWER ------------------------------------- INSTRUCTION-STORM SEWER $3,266,000 OTHER EXPENSES $400,000 SUB-TOTAL $3,666,000 *DEFICIT FOR WOOD LAKE ($1,674,930) STORM SEWER PHASE III COSTS RIGHT OF WAY $4,904,000 CONSTRUCTION $10,000,000 OTHER EXPENSES $1,000,000 --------------------------------------- SUB-TOTAL $15,904,000 TOTAL FOR ALL PHASES $46,858,406 DEFICIT FOR ALL PHASES ($17,578,930) *ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE WOOD LAKE STORM SEWER WILL COME FROM THE 1995 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION SPENDING BILL. NOTE: THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HAS ALREADY SPENT $2,344,475.76 ON THE PROJECT. FEDERAL/STATE/CITY SHARE TO BE SPLIT 80/15/5$ RESPECTIVELY. SO, STATE WILL PICK UP ENTIRE LOCAL SHARE AT LEAST THROUGH PHASE II. 0 -1) • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.262 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of Phase I Agreements and Authorizations: 1. BRW construction engineering agreement for landscaping contract 2. BRW supplemental agreement for construction engineering for the Colfax Avenue storm sewer. 3. Supplement to the MnDOT Cooperative Agreement on Phase I of the 77th Street Project to install fiber optic communications. 4. Authorization to revise access and make landscaping improvements to New Orleans Court Apartments. 5. Authorization to revise access to Conoco Service Station. Background: 1. Landscaping for Phase I of the 77th Street Project was bid as a separate project. The City will need to retain a consultant to inspect the installation of the landscaping • work at a cost of $48,856. Funding for the work will be 80% federal, 15% state highway and 5% City using Municipal State Aid funds. 2. The CSM Redevelopment Project has accelerated the need to complete the Colfax Avenue storm sewer which is a part of the storm sewer network needed to provide an outlet for Wood Lake as part of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. The City needs to supplement its existing construction engineering agreement for Phase I of the 77th Street Project with BRW and OSM to inspect the installation of the storm sewer work at a cost of $50,000. Funding for the work will be 80% federal, 15% state highway and 5% City using Municipal State Aid funds. Also, BRW and OSM are needed to inspect the fiber optic communications system that has been added to the Phase I construction project. Funding for this work will be 100% state funded. 3. A cooperative agreement describes the State of Minnesota's funding contribution towards the reconstruction of 77th Street. This is a supplement to the first cooperative agreement for the 77th Street Phase I construction project approved by the City Council on May 10, 1993. The State of Minnesota has requested the City of Richfield to • include a fiber optic communication system along the 77th Street right of way as a back up communications link in anticipation of the widening of I-494 and other major repairs /? -l • proposed for I-35W. The completion of the new fiber optic link will avoid any disruption in the operations of the Regional Traffic Management Center during major reconstruction of the region's freeway network. The cost of design and construction engineering work is $36,000. Funding for this work will come entirely from state highway funds. 4. Authorization of a purchase in excess of $5,000 is needed to revise access and make landscaping improvements to New Orleans Court Apartments as part of Phase I of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. The owner of New Orleans Court recently approached the City and proposed a redesign of access to the new 77th Street. The redesign would eliminate six driveways that require cars to back out onto 77th Street and replace them with a private alley that would funnel traffic to a central driveway where all cars would be facing forward as they enter onto 77th Street. The design has been mutually agreed to by the owner and City staff. The cost of the work is estimated at $55,000 and includes construction engineering which will be performed by BRW and OSM. Financing may not be federally eligible but City staff will explore this possibility. If not, the cost of the work will be financed using 100% local funds. These local funds have been split 75% MnDOT and 25% City (usually MSA funds) for this type of work. A future MnDOT Cooperative Agreement will determine eligibility. Shafer Contracting and Lino Lakes Nursery are the logical contractors because of the need to match the driveway to remaining work Shafer is required to complete as part of the new 77th Street. The property owner would be paid to move a storage shed as part of the work. Also, most of the line items in the cost estimate are already contained as bid items in the original Phase I construction and landscaping contracts for 77th Street that were competitively bid. 5. Authorization of a purchase in excess of $5,000 is needed to revise access to the Conoco Service Station at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street as part of Phase I of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. The elevation of Lyndale Avenue was lowered to accommodate the new 77th Street. During construction of the new road, it was discovered that the grade change at the Conoco Service Station would be too steep to retain the existing driveway apron. To lessen the driveway slope, alterations are needed that extend construction deeper onto the Conoco property. Shafer Contracting would be hired on a force account based on time and materials to perform the work. Shafer is the logical contractor because of the need to match the driveway • to the new roadway on Lyndale Avenue. Construction engineering will be performed by BRW and OSM. Authorization for this work will include approval to hire BRW and OSM to perform the construction inspection. • Financing of the Conoco work may not be federally eligible but City staff will explore this possibility. If not, the cost of the work will be financed using 100% local funds. These local funds have been split 75% MnDOT and 25% City (usually MSA funds) for this type of work. A future MnDOT Cooperative Agreement will determine eligibility. Recommended Motion: 1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with BRW Inc. for construction engineering for Phase I landscaping and authorizing execution of a supplemental agreement with BRW Inc. for Phase I construction engineering to include inspection work associated with the Colfax Avenue Storm Sewer. 2. Approve the attached resolution authorizing execution of supplement #1, providing for State funds to pay for the design, construction, and construction engineering of a fiber optic communication system to be installed in the 77th Street right of way between I35W to Portland Avenue. 3. Authorize a change order, in the amount of $38,000, for Shafer Contracting to revise access to New Orleans Court Apartments. • 4. Authorize a change order, in the amount of $10,000, for Lino Lakes Nursery to make landscaping improvements to New Orleans Court Apartments. 5. Authorize payment to the owner of New Orleans Court Apartments for moving a storage shed. 6. Authorize a change order, in the amount of $20,000, for Shafer Contracting to revise access to the Conoco Service Station at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street. 7. Authorize BRW and OSM to perform the construction engineering for the revised access and landscape improvements to New Orleans Court Apartments and to perform the construction engineering and construction inspection for the revised access to the Conoco Service Station. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The construction engineering agreement for landscaping in Phase I of 77th Street is needed so that the City may hire BRW and OSM to perform the necessary inspection work. 2. A supplemental agreement to the construction engineering agreement on Phase I of 77th Street Project is needed to hire BRW and OSM to perform the necessary inspection work for the installation of the Colfax Avenue Storm Sewer. "7 -3 3. A supplement to the existing cooperative agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation will provide 100% state highway funding for the design and inspection work needed to install fiber optic communications in the 77th Street right of way. 4. The change orders are needed to provide safe and convenient access to two properties adjacent to the 77th Street right of way. Most of the work items are based on prices obtained through competitive bids for the Phase I construction and landscaping contracts. Every effort will be made to see if these costs can become eligible for state and federal funding. Alternative Recommendation: None. The attached resolutions on the proposed agreements and the requests for authorization are consistent with the City's request for federal and MnDOT financial participation in the 77th Street Project. Discussion/Decision Mode: Decisions are needed on all the that Phase I of the 77th Street completed this fall. agreements and authorizations so Reconstruction Project can be C1 JDP:ds Attachments Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Ma ager 1] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH BRW INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING FOR LANDSCAPING AND A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COLFAX AVENUE STORM SEWER IN PHASE I OF THE 77th STREET PROJECT IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the City of Richfield does not have available necessary and qualified personnel and facilities to conduct the services as described in the agreement for construction engineering for Landscape work and construction of the Colfax Avenue Storm Sewer in Phase I of 77th Street; and WHEREAS, BRW Inc. represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all the services described in the agreement and supplemental agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute the proposed Construction Engineering Agreement for Phase I Landscaping, SP 157-108-21 with BRW Inc., draft of which said Agreement was before the Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute the proposed supplemental agreement for construction engineering for Phase I construction, SP 157-108-17, to include inspection work associated with the construction of the Colfax Avenue Storm Sewer. Adopted this 12th day of September, 1994. Attest: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 11 -7,5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD APPROVING SUPPLEMENT #1 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 70590 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 Cooperative'Agreement No. 70590 on the 77th Street Reconstruction project; WHEREAS, Supplemental Agreement #1 provides State funds for the City to pay for the design, construction and construction engineering of a fiber optic communication system to be installed in the 77th Street right of way between I-35W and Portland Avenue; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield enter into Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. 70590 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: to provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the cost of the design of the fiber optic system and . construction engineering and inspection for its installation along Municipal State Aid Street No. 108 (77th Street) from Engineer Station 1+59.46 (Trunk Highway No. 35W) to Engineer Station 82+87.88 (Portland Avenue) within the corporate City limits in accordance with Supplemental Agreement 6 to the construction project designated as State Projects No. 2785-277 (T.H. 494=393) and No. 157-108-10. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. Adopted this 12th day of September, 1994. Attest: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 7-k CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Richfield I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 12th day of September, 1994, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk Thomas P. Ferber • n U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (4-2 Letter No. 261 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request for a new 1994 non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Richfield Hotel Associates, LTD, d/b/a Hampton Inn, 7745 Lyndale Avenue. Background: On August 8, 1994, the City received the new application and other required documents for the non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Hampton Inn. The applicant has paid the required license fee. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? Mr.-Steven Moore has made application for a non-intoxicating malt liquor license under the name Richfield Hotel Associates, LTD, d/b/a Hampton Inn. Mr. Moore is serving as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mr. Moore has no known criminal record. On February 14, 1994, the City Council approved an increase in the number of non-intoxicating liquor licenses that could be licensed from 9 to 12. The increase makes it possible for Hampton Inn to apply for this license. Recommended Motion: • Approve the issuance of a new 1994 non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Hampton Inn with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to anon-intoxicating malt liquor license. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a non- intoxicating malt liquor license. This would mean that Hampton Inn would be unable to serve non-intoxicating malt liquor. Discussion/Decision Mode: The hearing to consider the request for the issuance of a new non- intoxicating malt liquor license for Richfield Hotel Associates, LTD, d/b/a Hampton Inn has been scheduled for September 12, 1994 and is being presented to Council at this time. Resp ct ly submitted, James Prosser City j JDP:ds ?-J CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKPROTIND STATE MFNT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct • which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and • up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of.$2,00.0 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in • nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline_(or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is 6-jam Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon • on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses:. a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PPrmitt-i ng Onnu nnny i-n FxnPPd i-hP r i mi tG PPrmi ttPd JJndPr the • Unifarm FirP rnr3P 25.114 (nvPrnrnwdjnrr) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. • b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 6--7 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the.City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 260 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance extending the moratorium on development of adult uses for one additional year. Background: On October ?25, 1993 the Council approved a one year moratorium on the development of adult uses within the City. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow the Planning Commission and Council time to study relevant issues including: 1) the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted or conditional uses, 2) the concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods, and 3) the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. Over the past few months, the Planning Commission has reviewed several studies and materials relating to the regulation of adult uses. It is appropriate at this time to extend the moratorium for a period of one additional year in order to provide adequate time to complete the study and make any necessary modifications to the zoning and licensing regulations. Recommended Motion: • Adopt the attached ordinance extending for one year the moratorium on development of adult uses and other similar uses as established in Ordinance No. 1993-16. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The interim ordinance was adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. 2. The extension would allow sufficient time to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning and licensing regulations. 3. Extension of this moratorium ordinance complies with State law. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide not to adopt this ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, September 12, 1994. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current. CJ Jame City JDP:ds ully submitted, Prosser aer 6--t BILL NO. 1994- AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING FOR ONE YEAR THE MORA- TORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT USES AND OTHER SIMILAR USES AS ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE NO. 1993-16 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: Section 1. Extension of Moratorium Period. The moratorium period established in Section 2.03 of Ordinance No. 1993-16 (Transitory Ordinance No. 17.53) is hereby extended for one year. The moratorium period, as hereby extended, shall expire on September 27, 1995 or such earlier date as may be further adopted by ordinance. The moratorium period may be further extended for a reasonable time by ordinance, as may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota • this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk U Z/ J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 259 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for additional routing and sealing of asphalt streets. 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. On August 22, 1994, Council awarded a contract to Bergman Construction Company, Inc. That contract called for routing and sealing of asphalt streets between Nicollet Avenue and Portland Avenue, from the Crosstown to 66th Street. This contract was far below the $30,000 engineer's estimate and the amount budgeted in the Street Maintenance Division. Staff then solicited bids for work south of 66th Street with the following results: Allied Blacktopping Bergman Construction Company Bargen Construction Company $14,710 $13,994 $22,443, Recommended Motion: • Approve a purchase order to Bergman Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $13,994 to expand the amount of routing and crack sealing of asphalt streets. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Bergman Construction Company, Inc. submitted the quote for this work at the same unit cost contained in the bid that was awarded on August 22, 1994. Bergman's quote was the lowest quote received by staff for this additional work. 2. There are sufficient funds in the Street Maintenance budget available for the additional routing and crack sealing. 3. The bid price is very favorable for the City and as much work as is feasible should be performed. Alternative Recommendation: Council may decide that this additional work should not be performed at this time, and staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the September 12, 1994 Council meeting. Respe ly submitted, • James D rosser City Man ger JDP:ds q . T • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.258 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Approval of Change Order No. 2 for Infilco Degremont, Inc. for City Project 703-1592. 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. When the contract was awarded to Infilco Degremont, Inc. for the furnishing of two units of lime softening reactor/clarifier equipment, the contract amount did not include sales tax. It has now been determined that the City must pay the sales tax, a change order in the amount of $47,164.33; however, the City will later be refunded the sales tax because it is related to a utility. Recommended Motion: Approve a change order to Infilco Degremont, Inc. for sales tax related to two units of lime softening reactor/clarifier equipment in the sum of $47,164.33. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The equipment has been provided by Infilco Degremont, Inc. 2. The City must pay the sales tax which was not included in the contract award. 3. It has been determined the City will be reimbursed for the sales tax payment. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the consent calendar of the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting. Respect lly submitted, James Prosser City ager JDP:ds 0 q14 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 257 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Award of contract for excavation and removal of lime sludge and dike material from the Water Plant; and removal of dredging material from Christian Pond. Background: The combination of the sludge dewatering building built in 1987 and the sludge storage provided in the Water Plant renovation allows for removal of the last of the lime sludge pits from behind the Water Plant. This pit has been used as backup storage for sludge. The contract up for Council consideration is for dredging of the spent lime in the pit and for removal of the dikes which form the pit. Both items were bid on a per-cubic- yard basis. The pit is now full with approximately 6,000 cubic yards of lime sludge. There is an additional 2,500 yards of dike material. In addition, routine maintenance of the Christian Park pond is included in this contract. This work will consist of removing approximately 1,000 yards of dredge material (sand from streets, and cattails and weeds) from the storm water pond located at 70th Street and Bloomington Avenue. A formal bid opening for the excavation, removal and disposal of lime sludge; dredging material; and loading of dike material was held on Wednesday August 24, 1994 with the following results: Stan Pond Service $ 95,000 Rehbein, Inc. 119,900 Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract in the amount of $95,000 to Stan Pond Service for excavating and disposing of lime sludge and dredging material, along with the loading and removing dike material. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lime sludge pit is full and needs to be excavated and removed. 2. The storm pond cleaning is required due to siltation growth of cattails and weeds. 3. Stan Pond Service was the lowest responsible bidder and met all requirements. 4. There are sufficient funds available in the 1994 Water • Maintenance budget; $60,000 budgeted for cleaning the lime pit, and an additional $14,000 from the postponement of the 1994 well pump replacement. The adopted 1994 Storm Water 4H-( • Maintenance budget includes $21,000 for the dredging of the storm water pond.- Alternative Recommendation: Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise; however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval is requested at the September 12, 1994 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City 4mager JDP:ds Attachment • • Y /4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 24, 1994 11:00 A.M. Lime Sludge Excavation & Removal & Appurtenant Work Bid No. 94-11 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 lime sludge excavation and removal and appurtenant work, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 10, 1994. Present: Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ; SECURITY ; Stan Pond Service Richfield ; 5% Bid Bond ; $ 95,000.00 ; Rehbein, Inc. Hugo ; 5% Bid Bond ; $119,900.00 ; The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 12, 1994 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk .7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 256 Agenda September 12, 1994 6- Issue Statement: Award of contract for the 1994 sidewalk, curb, and gutter repair project. Background: Repair of concrete sidewalks, and concrete curb and gutter work is performed each year as a safety precaution. The maintenance program consists of removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete sidewalk sections, and curb and gutter in various areas of the City. No bids were received at an opening held August 5, 1994. The project was again advertised. Bids from four contractors were opened on August 31, 1994 with the following results: Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $37,321.58 Thomas and Sons 46,359.50 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 59,089.00 Advanced Concrete, Inc. 62,933.86 The storm water utility operating budget is paying $13,770 for work around catch basins. The remainder of the project is funded through the street maintenance budget. Recommended Motion: • Approve the bid tabulation and curb and gutter repair contract sum of $37,321.58. award the 1994 concrete sidewalk, to Standard Sidewalk, Inc. in the Basis of Recommendation: 1. Standard Sidewalk, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. 2. This work is funded through the Street Maintenance Division and the Storm Water Maintenance Division. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the bids received are in line with the amount of work which needs to be completed and staff does not believe we could obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely completion of this project. lly submitted, Resp lProsser JameCity Manager JDP:cak q 6--f • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 31, 1994 11:15 A.M. Construction of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, and Appurtenant Work Bid No. 94-13 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, and appurtenant work, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 17, 1994. Present: Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL SECURITY ; • ? i i Progressive Contractors Osseo; 5% Bid Bond ; $59,089.00 ; Standard Sidewalk,Inc. Lindstrom; 5% Bid Bond ; $37,321.58 ; Thomas & Sons Rogers; 5% Bid Bond ; $46,359.50 ; Advanced Concrete,Inc. Burnsville; 5% Bid Bond ; $62,933.86 ; The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 12, 1994 City Council Meeting. Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No. 255 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Application for a community.celebration event license with a request for a fee waiver for Richfield Cattail Days events scheduled to take place on September 17 and 18, 1994. Background: This year, •Visions 2004 has applied for a celebration event license and requests that the fee be waived for the activities that take place in Veterans Memorial Park on September 17 and 18, 1994. 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 for the Richfield Cattail Days to be held on September 17 and 18, 1994. Basis for Recommendation: . 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets requirements for the fee to be 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 September 17 and 18, 1994. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a community celebration event license for September 17 and 18, 1994 for the Richfield Cattail Days is presented at this time. Resp c lly submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 254 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Request by the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, for an itinerant place of amusement license for the 1994 Fall Festival to be held September 17 and 18, 1994. Background: In July, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement license for September 17 and 18, 1994. They are requesting that the fee be waived. Recommended Motion: Approve the license fee waived for September 17 and 18, 1994 for St. Peter's 1994 Fall Festival. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City Codes pertaining to this license. 2. The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for this license has been placed on the consent calendar for September 12, 1994. Respectf y submitted, James D Prosser City Manger JDP:ds 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Vb Council Letter No. 253 Agenda September 12, 1994 • Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. Background: Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges my be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also authorizes a $25.00 certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 1993, the City Council certified $129,557.24 of delinquent charges for 439 properties, an average of $295.00 per account. The 1994 certification currently under consideration totals $116,190.84 for 434 properties, an average of $268.00 per account. Property owners owing water and sewer charges are notified on their summer quarter water bill that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners' taxes, on said properties. • Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties. Basis for Recommendation: 1. State Statute and City Ordinance provide that delinquent utility charges may be collected in this manner. 2. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent charges. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the September 12, 1994 City Council agenda to allow sufficient time for the charges to be certified to the County Auditor. Res e f lly submitted, Jame . Prosser City pager JDP:cak VD-) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of $105,340.84. 2. That a $25.00 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totalling $10,850.00. 3. That the above described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1994. 0 ATTEST: Martin Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 252 Agenda September 12, 1994 • Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution levying a,special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees. Background: There is a.resolution on September 12, 1994 City Council agenda certifying a special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees to Hennepin County. This assessment is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain properties in the City which are not properly maintained by their owners, and for uncollected false alarm fees. For the nuisance abatement, the owner of the subject property was notified by the City to correct the nuisance and failed to do so within a timely limit. The property owner was notified that if the nuisance was not abated within the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. For false alarm fees, the fees were billed to the property owners on a monthly basis. In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid charges may be assessed against the property for 1995. The attached resolution provides for these assessments against three properties in the total amount of $933.13. • Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement and false alarm fees against the listed property owners in the total amount of $933.13. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The nuisance property was not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. 2. Two properties incurred false alarm fees which remain unpaid. 3. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 12, 1994 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Resp c lly submitted, • James Prosser City Manager JDP:cak qc-/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT is NUISANCE ABATEMENT: 35-028-24-43-0008 44835 1200 E 78th St $ 133.13 FALSE ALARM FEES: 35-028-24-22-0009 44834 7144 Chicago Ave 750.00 27-028-24-41-0084 45810 6625 3rd Ave 50.00 Total -$-933. 13 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 9 YB • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 251 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction. Background: Each year the City of Richfield hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not properly maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and bills the property owner for the service. If the cost of the weed destruction is not paid by the property owner, it may be assessed against the property for a one year period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against four properties in the total amount of $1,789.19. In addition, the resolution provides for an 8% penalty. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction against the listed property owners in the total amount of $1,789.19. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the weed nuisance. 2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 12, 1994 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Regpqptfully submitted, Ja Prosser Cit anaaer 0 JDP:cak q6-1 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID 35-028-24-43-0008 33-028-24-14-0106 27-028-24-23-0059 26-028-24-14-0081 ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT 44835 1200 E 78th St $1,022.39 45990 7321 Sheridan Ave 239.62 45725 515 W 64th St 399.38 45942 6428 16th Ave 127.80 Total $ 789.19 2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. • 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Mayor LIA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 250 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution approving Special Law 1993, Chapter 230, providing for authorization of transportation demand management programs. Background: The cities ?of Bloomington, Edina, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Maple Grove and Plymouth, in consultation with the Metropolitan Council, have sought special legislation to adopt transportation demand management plans. Such plans would provide for incentives and disincentives to reduce the number of vehicle trips on I-494 at times of congestion. A transportation demand management plan would also allow cities to charge fees to employers or owners of nonresidential buildings up to a maximum of $500 annually per employer and to impose penalties for violations of the ordinance. The special law also requires the City of St. Paul with the Department of Administration, Metropolitan Council, Regional Transit Board and Capital Area Architectural Board to develop a transportation demand management plan for the State Capitol • complex by February 1, 1994. Recommended Motion: Adoption of the resolution approving Special Law 1993, Chapter 230, providing for authorization of transportation demand management programs. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield along with other cities along the I-494 corridor have sought special legislation to allow for the establishment of the transportation demand management programs. 2. A transportation demand management program would be beneficial to the City of Richfield in terms of assisting in eliminating traffic congestion. 3. The Special Law, Chapter 230, provides authorization for such a transportation demand management program for Richfield. 4. According to state law, if the City of Richfield wishes to take advantage of this special legislation, it must ratify the special law and certify such action to the Secretary of State before the start of the next legislative session (January 3, 1995). . 5. Accepting this legislation permits the City to adopt an ordinance establishing transportation demand management. It does not authorize a specific transportation demand management program at this time. 4A 1 • Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to approve the special law failing to take action before the next legislative session. However, the transportation demand management program would become effective. by not Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this matter must be taken before January 1995. However, in order to allow ample time for processing the necessary documentation and submitting it to the State of Minnesota it is suggested that this matter be considered during the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City ager JDP:ds 40 qA-D- RESOLUTION NO. 0 RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LAW 1993, CHAPTER 230 CONCERNING TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and certain other municipalities have mutually sought to attain a transportation demand management plan; and WHEREAS, the transportation demand management plan would provide the use of incentives and disincentives to reduce the number of vehicle trips at time of congestion and permit cities to charge fees to employers or owners of nonresidential buildings up to a maximum of $500 annually per employer; and WHEREAS, the transportation demand management plan would also impose penalties on violations of plan; and WHEREAS, the said provisions of the transportation demand management plan were authorized in 1993 State Legislature by Special Law 1993, Chapter 230; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield must formally approve said Special Law in order for such law to become effective. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that Special Law 1993, Chapter 230 is hereby approved. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk a- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 249 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Motion from the Richfield Advisory Board of Health to consider recommending to the Richfield School Board the reinstatement of dental screenings in the preschool screening process. Background: The Advisory Board of Health is under the impression that dental screening was conducted years ago in the preschool screening process but apparently was discontinued due to lack of funding. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health is aware of individuals who are currently licensed dental hygienists who would volunteer to provide this service to the schools at no charge. Board Members believe it is important to provide this dental screening as part of the preschool screening in an effort to identify and correct dental problems in the early stages. Recommended Motion: The Richfield Advisory Board of Health requests that the City Council support their recommendation to the Richfield Public School District to reinstate dental screening in the preschool screening process using volunteers. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Dental problems can be more easily identified and corrected in the early stages. 2. Licensed dental hygienists have volunteered to provide this service to the school district at no charge. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to support the recommendation to the Richfield Public School District made by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health to the Richfield City Council to support this recommendation is present to Council for their consideration at this time. Respe ully submitted, Jam Prosser City anager 9 JDP:ds. a-/ RICHFIELD ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH MOTION MADE ON JUNE 20, 1994 REGARDING PRESCHOOL DENTAL SCREENING: Mary Jane Markkula made a motion that: "The Richfield Advisory Board of Health ask the City Council to recommend to the Richfield Public School District that dental screening be reinstated in the preschool screening process." • 0 a-"I r1 U September 13, 1994 Lowell Larson, Superintendent Richfield Public School District 7001 Harriet Avenue South Richfield, MN. 55423 Dear Supt. Larson: At the September 12, 1994 City Council meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health made a recommendation to the City Council to support the reinstatement of dental screenings to preschoolers. • Advisory Board of Health members are under the impression that dental screening was conducted years ago but apparently was discontinued at some time due to funding limitations. The Advisory Board of Health is aware of individuals who are currently licensed dental hygienists who would volunteer to provide this service to the schools at no charge. The City Council agrees also with the board that dental problems could be more easily identified and corrected in the early stages. For those reasons, the Richfield City Council supports their recommendation to reinstate dental screening for preschoolers. Sincerely, Martin J. Kirsch Mayor MJK:cak Copy: City Council Members Advisory Board of Health Chair n U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 248 Agenda September 12, 1994 Issue Statement: Meeting with the Community Services Commission. Background: The Special City Council meeting with the Community Services Commission is one of a series of meetings between the City's Boards and Commissions and the City Council. The purpose of this special meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for Commission Members to inform the City Council of recent and current issues. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue between the City Council and the Commission. The Commission has requested an opportunity to discuss the Capital Improvement Program and requests for improvement projects. Recommended Motion: There is no action recommended. Basis of Recommendation: The Council has provided an opportunity for the Community Services Commission to meet jointly with the Council to discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Any discussion which might ultimately lead to an action would have to be considered • for specific action at a regular Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This special meeting has been scheduled for September 12, 1994. Respecyfullly submitted, Jame Prosser City ager JDP:ds Copy: Matt Stokes, Community Services Commission Chair 0