7-12-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1993
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 STUDY SESSION OF
JUNE 28, 1993 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1993
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED
ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING VALERIE, HUBERT AND ANTOINE
DUMONT HONORARY CITIZENS OF RICHFIELD
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED
UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS
BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO
BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY
COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT.NO. PW 26-19-23 WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF ESTIMATED $5,289.35 OF
RICHFIELD'S STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND MONIES TO OFFSET CERTAIN
EXPENSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH RESURFACING OF PENN AVENUE, 73RD
STREET TO 75TH STREET C.L. 198
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PERSONNEL POLICY PERTAINING TO AIRLINE
TRAVEL CREDITS C.L. 199
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF LEGAL DEFENSE FEES TOTALING
$6,460.48 FOR WILLIAMS LAWSUIT C.L. 200
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
PERSONAL COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE FOR SECTION & PROGRAM FROM
PORTICO COMPUTERS IN AMOUNT OF $13,142.10 C.L. 201
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 TO REROOF
WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER'S SHOP AND GARAGE FROM COTY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF $5,785 C.L. 202
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING
MALT LIQUOR, ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT AND ITINERANT FOOD
LICENSES WITH FEE WAIVER FOR CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION FUNFEST ON
AUGUST 14 AND 15, 1993 C.L. 203
G. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR NICOLLET PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT; HOFFMAN &
MCNAMARA CO.; $91,504.72
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCES
REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY AT 6310 15TH AND 7112 FIRST AVENUES TO
HRA AND AUTHORIZING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HRA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 204
6. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RECONFIGURATION OF COMMERCIAL
SPACE AT MARKET PLAZA, 700 WEST 66TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 205
7. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENING OF BALCONIES AT
• WOODLAKE POINT CONDOMINIUMS, 6500 WOODLAKE DRIVE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 206
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
8. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE
CERTAIN PARCELS EAST OF XERXES AVENUE BETWEEN 62ND STREET AND 64TH
STREET FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 207
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
9. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT SERVICES WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 1993 TO JULY 31, 1997
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 208
AIRPORT BUSINESS
10. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
0 11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
0 12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL CHOICE
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.
r1
U
U
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 208
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Approval of an agreement for assessment services with Hennepin
County.
Background:
In 1981, the City of Richfield entered into the first of a series
of four year contracts with Hennepin County for assessment
services. Prior to that time, assessment services were performed
by City assessing staff consisting of a City Assessor and three
Property Appraisers. The current four year contract with
Hennepin County will expire on July 31, 1993. The City must take
action to renew a contractual agreement with Hennepin County for
the next four year period or hire a City Assessor and property
appraising staff.
In determining the most appropriate course of action in this
matter, several issues must be considered:
1. Service. It is the conclusion of both the Administrative
Services Director and the City Manager that the service to the
public provided by Hennepin County staff is extremely responsive
and professional. Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser
• Larry Miller has been assigned to supervise the Richfield
assessment for the past ten years. He has been very cooperative
with both City staff and residents and has a genuine commitment
to quality customer service. In addition to Mr. Miller, two
additional residential property appraisers as well as periodic
commercial appraisers have been assigned to Richfield.
The day to day requests for information for items such as
processing homestead applications are handled by City assessment
clerk staff. The Hennepin County staff and the City assessment
clerk personnel have an excellent working relationship and have
blended into a well coordinated staff.
2. Local Control. Minnesota Statute 273.061 states that the
County Assessor has the authority to override evaluations
established by any local assessor and finalize evaluations.
Thus, the City has no less local control under the assessment
contract with Hennepin County than it would have if the
assessment was done by City staff. Richfield's assessment ratio
for the past several years has been within the 92.5% to 93%
range, which is precisely on target when compared county-wide.
If a local assessor were to set an assessment ratio considerably
less than the 92.5% target, the County Assessor could make an
aggregate adjustment to the assessed values of an entire class of
property in a community.
3. Costs. A number of cities in Hennepin County continue to
operate with an in-house assessing staff. However, several
-1
cities such as Golden Valley, New Hope, St. Anthony and Crystal
. contract with Hennepin County.
For Richfield, a cost estimate of providing an in-house City
Assessor and property appraising staff would be as follows:
Position Salary* Benefits** Total Cost
City Assessor $53,870 $17,777 $ 71,646
Senior Property Appraiser . $40,234 $13,277 $ 53,511
Property Appraiser $34,814 $11,489 $ 46,303
TOTAL COSTS $171,460
*Average salaries based on Stanton Group V Salary Data.
**Benefit cost calculation based on 33% of salary base.
The cost estimate above is based
appraiser less than the pre-1980
Assessing Division in Richfield
clerks when the City did its own
employs one full-time assessment
approximately 18 hours per week,
City Clerk Division.
upon a staff level that is one
local staff. In addition, the
Bmployed two full-time assessment
assessment. Currently, the City
clerk, one part-time clerk at
and some shared help from the
The cost of the 1994 assessment services from Hennepin County is
$145,000. Of that total, roughly $20,000 is reimbursement to the
County for time processing tax court petitions, and $15,300 is
• paid for assessment of new construction. Either of those
categories may vary from year to year and may decrease in the
next assessment year. This is especially true of the costs of
tax court appeals. The cost of the base assessment services from
the County has increased by 2h% from the previous year.
In all, it is very unlikely that the City could duplicate the
service provided by Hennepin County for $145,000. Instead, the
cost would likely be 15-20% more than the current cost.
4. Consolidated Services. During the past few years, there has
been considerable discussion regarding the consolidation of
services by various levels of government to provide a savings to
the taxpayer. Well ahead of its time, the shared service by
Hennepin County and the City of Richfield generates the type of
savings that proponents of consolidated services advocate.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City
Manager to execute a renewal contract (#A07183) between the City
of-Richfield and Hennepin County for.assessment services for the
period August 1, 1993 to July 31, 1997.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The new contract provides only minor language amendments to
the agreement that has been in place since 1981.
q_'?
2. The service provided by Hennepin County for the past 12 years
• has been very effective and customer oriented. Hennepin
County staff responds to Richfield staff requests very
promptly and treats Richfield residents with the same
consideration.
3. The cost of continuing to contract a service with Hennepin
County is cost effective for the City as compared to
reestablishing an in-house assessing staff.
4. While the City contracts the service with Hennepin County,
Richfield still maintains excellent local control and
effective interaction with its residents.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could request further information and defer
this item to the second meeting in July.
2. The City Council could decide to terminate the agreement with
Hennepin County and restructure an in-house City
Assessor/Property Appraiser staff. The process would be very
challenging and require more funding than is currently
projected in the Assessing budget.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council take action on this item
• on July 12, 1993 in order to execute the contract prior to the
July 31, 1993 expiration date on the current agreement.
Respe fully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:cak
0
Contract No. A07183
•
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between the
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the.State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and the CITY
OF RICHFIELD, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY";
WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN and constitutes a separate assessment district; and
WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes,
Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to provide for the
assessment of property; and
9 WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain
assessments on behalf of said CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said
CITY by completing the assessment in a proper manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall perform the 1994, 1995, 1996 and
1997 property assessment for the CITY of RICHFIELD in accordance
with property assessment procedures and practices established and
observed by the COUNTY, the validity and reasonableness of which
are hereby acknowledged and approved by the CITY. Any such
practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the
COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment
CJ
?- 7
procedures so require. The property assessment by the COUNTY
0 shall be composed of those assessment services which are set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by
this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein
shall be considered to be approximate only.
2. All information, records, data, reports, etc.
necessary to allow the COUNTY to carry out its herein
responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY without charge
by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate with the COUNTY in
carrying out the work under this Agreement.
3. The CITY agrees to furnish office space needed by
the COUNTY, without charge, at appropriate places in the CITY's
offices. The keys thereto shall be provided to the COUNTY. The
CITY assures that such areas shall not be unattended, during or
• after work of any kind by or on behalf of the CITY, in any area
occupied by the COUNTY as provided herein, or if unattended, the
CITY shall make certain that such areas are locked and secured.
Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate
reasonably three (3) appraisers and any furniture placed therein.
The office space shall be available for the COUNTY's use at any
and all times during the CITY's business hours, and during all
such hours-the County shall be provided with levels of heat, air
conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons.
4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk
and office furniture as necessary, clerical and secretarial
support necessary and reasonable for the carrying out of the work
herein, necessary office supplies and equipment, copying machines
•
(2)
?- 5
and supplies, and telephone service to the COUNTY, without
• charge.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have
available at the CITY's offices each CITY working day a person
who has such knowledge and skill to be able to answer routine
questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment
matters and to receive, evaluate and organize homestead
applications. It shall also be the responsibility of the CITY to
refer any homestead application which needs investigation to the
COUNTY.
6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' policies against
discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in or the benefits of any program,
• service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed,
religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex-
offender status or national origin; and no person who is
protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and
regulations against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected
to discrimination.
7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is
intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or
establishing the relationship of joint venturers or co-partners
between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the
agent, representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose
or in any manner whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or
•
(3)
other persons, while engaged in the performance of any activity
0 under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with
the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY
and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said
personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all
claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel
arising out of employment or alleged employment including,
without limitation, claims of discrimination against the CITY,
its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify
and hold the COUNTY, its commissioners, officers, agents and
employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any
determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board,
commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not
require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits
of any kind whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without
limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation,
disability, severance pay and P.E.R.A.
8. CITY agrees that it will defend and hold the
COUNTY, its commissioners, officers and employees harmless from
any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits,
damages, judgments, interest, costs or expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and disbursements
incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by any
act or omission of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors or
(4)
-
employees in the performance of the responsibilities provided by
• this Agreement.
9. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services
called for herein in an efficient manner. The sole and exclusive
remedies for any breach of this Agreement by the COUNTY and for
COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not
limited to liability for negligence with respect to the services
hereunder, shall be limited to correcting diligently any
deficiency in said services as is reasonably possible under the
pertinent circumstances. In no event shall the COUNTY be liable
for special, incidental, or consequential damages or for any
business or financial loss whatsoever.
10. Neither party hereto shall be deemed,to be in
default of any provision of this Agreement, or for delay or
• failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the
reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but
are not limited to, acts of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or
military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in laws,
ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions
hereof, or any other causes beyond the parties' reasonable
control.
11. This Agreement shall co:
and shall terminate on July 31, 1997.
extended for a term of four (4) years
other written notice of its intent to
days prior to the termination of this
who receives said notice of intent to
unence on August 1, 1993,
This Agreement may be
by either party giving the
so extend no less than 150
Agreement. If the party
extend gives written notice
(5)
to the other party of its desire not to renew within 110 days
prior to termination of this Agreement, this Agreement shall
terminate on July 31, 1997.
Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to
the end of this Agreement, from agreeing to extend this contract
for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be
on the same terms and conditions set forth herein. Either party
may terminate this Agreement for."just cause" as determined by
the Commissioner of Revenue after hearing for such a
determination is held by the Commissioner of Revenue and which
has been attended by representatives of COUNTY and CITY or which
said representatives had a reasonable opportunity to attend,
provided that after such determination, any part desiring to
cancel this Agreement may do so by giving the other party no less
• than 120 days' written notice. If the CITY should cancel this
Agreement, as above provided, before the completion of the then
current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY agrees to
defend and hold the COUNTY, its commissioners, officers, agents
and employees harmless from any liability that might ensue as a
result of the non-completion of a property tax assessment.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just
cause" shall mean the failure of any party hereto reasonably to
perform a material responsibility arising hereunder.
12. In consideration of said assessment services, the
CITY agrees to pay the COUNTY the sum of One Hundred Forty-five
Thousand ($145,000.00) Dollars for each assessment, provided that
any payment due in July of any year (as below provided) may be
(6)
increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less
than the COUNTY's estimated cost of appraising new construction
and new parcels for relevant assessment. Regarding each
assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in the
above manner, said assessment cost of $145,000.00 may also be
increased by the COUNTY if:
a. The COUNTY determines that any cost to
the COUNTY in carrying out any aspect of
this Agreement has increased, including
but not limited to the following types of
costs: new construction and new parcel
appraisals, gasoline, postage, supplies,
labor (including fringe benefits) and
other types of costs, whether similar or
dissimilar; and/or
b. The COUNTY reasonably determines that
other costs should be included in the
costs of assessment work.
The COUNTY shall give written notice of any price change
•
0
by June 15 of any year and such increase shall apply to the
assessment for the calendar year next following the current
calendar year. Any such notification shall specifically set
forth the amount of any new construction and new parcel appraisal
charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary,
if any such increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated
costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, exceeds ten
(10%) percent of the amount charged for the assessment for the
then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the
-estimated costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals,
the CITY may cancel this Agreement by giving to the COUNTY
written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice
must-be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then
(7)
?-/D
current calendar year and said cancellation shall be effective no
earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by
the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said current calendar
year. Supportive records of the cost increase will be open to
: inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed upon
by the COUNTY and CITY.
Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change
z
notice by June 15 shall not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY
such notice after said date but prior to September 1 of any year,
provided that if such.price increase exceeds said ten (10%) all
as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the
COUNTY receives notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39)
days from the date of receipt by the CITY of any said late price-
change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall
be effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's
receipt of said cancellation notice and not later than forty-six
(46) days after the CITY's receipt of ay said price-increase
notice.
Payment for each assessment shall be made in the
following manner: Approximately one-half (1/2) of the cost of an
assessment (the amount payable being set forth in a bill sent by
the COUNTY to the CITY shall be paid by the CITY no latter than
the fifteenth (15th) day of the December which precedes the
pertinent assessment year; and the remaining portion of said cost
(the amount payable being set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY
to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later than July 15 of
the pertinent assessment year.
(8)
1 //
The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates
0 and in each such case, the CITY shall pay such bill within
fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. In the event the CITY
receives a bill less than fifteen (15) days before said December
15 or said July 15, such bill shall be paid not more than fifteen
(15) days after its receipt.
13. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or
made by a party hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any
statute or ordinance, shall be in writing and shall be sent
registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as
follows:
TO CITY: Mayor, City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator
• 2300A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
copies to: Director of Assessments
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Assistant County Assessor
Hennepin County
2103A Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Any party may designate a different addressee or address
at any time by giving written notice thereof as above provided.
Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed, postage prepaid,
'registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the
registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and
shall be deemed received within the second business day
. thereafter or when it is actually received, whichever is sooner.
(9)
/'
Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon actual
9 delivery.
14. It is expressly understood that the obligations of
the CITY under Paragraphs 7, 8, 11, and 12 hereof and the
obligations of the CITY which, by their sense and context are
intended to survive the performance thereof by the CITY, shall so
survive the completion of performance, termination or
cancellation of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and
delivered on its behalf, this day of
Upon proper execution, this
agreement will be legally
valid and binding.
'--A-s's an unt At? orney
Date : -"
C?.x 1
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
1993.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY:
Chairman of the County Board
And:
Deputy/Assoc. Co. Administrator
ATTEST:
Clerk of the County Board
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
The above Agreement No. A07183 is hereby approved by the
Commissioner of Revenue this day of - , 1993.
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
.7
(10)
/3
•
Contract No. A07183
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF RICHFIELD
1. Physically inspect.and revalue 25% of the real property, as
required by law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions
and renovation.
3. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review -
approximate dates: March through May 15.
4. Attend Board of Review. Per Board request, make all
necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 -
May 31 .
5. Keep updated field card file - current values, homestead and
classification data.
Is
6. Print, mail and post valuation notices and homestead cards,
postage at expense of the CITY.
7. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal
problems or inquiries periodically during contract term.
8. Make divisions and combinations periodically during contract
term.
9. Initiate, for the taxpayer, abatement applications
periodically during contract term, as requested.
10. Make appraisals for, testify or negotiate all District Court
or Tax Court filings during the contract term.
11. Post values from appraisal cards to assessment rolls.
+12. As needed, per sales analysis, adjust estimated market
values on those properties not physically inspected.
• ::CIVIL$:(CONTRACT]AGREE.BQ4;15
(11)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 207
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to rezone
certain parcels east of Xerxes Avenue between 62nd Street and
64th Street from MR (multiple residence) to MR-1 (two family
residential) and R (single family residential).
Background:
Over the past year, staff has been analyzing the zoning ordinance
and districts in order to bring them up to date with current land
use practices and the comprehensive plan. Planning staff found
that the MR (multiple residence) zone is no longer effective
because the provisions are incomplete, too generalized, outdated
and ambiguous. As a result, staff is proposing to eliminate the
MR classification by rezoning all such properties to a
classification which is better suited to the existing land use,
and which is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.
The MR district was the original and only multi-family district
when Richfield's growth occurred. The MR district has no density
limitation and incorporates the single family uses of the R
district as well as two family, multiple and group housing
developments. Later, the MR-1 (two family), MR-2 (multi-family)
• and MR-3 (high density multi-family) districts were created to
provide more precise controls for the expanding variety of multi-
family housing. When the MR-1, MR-2 and MR-3 districts were
added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to fit into that
classification system. The intention was for all MR zoned land
to be rezoned but approximately 90 parcels of land in about 25
areas of the City are still zoned MR.
The proposed zoning district designations for the Xerxes parcels
are consistent with the existing land use and, therefore, will be
conforming uses. The redesignation of the remaining MR parcels
will be presented to the Council over the next several months.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment rezoning certain parcels on
the east side of Xerxes Avenue between 62nd Street and 64th
Street from MR to MR-1 and R, and set a second reading and public
hearing for August 9, 1993.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date
with current land use practices and the comprehensive plan.
None of the parcels will become nonconforming as a result of
the rezoning.
• 2. The draft zoning ordinance (which is approximately 2/3
completed) does not contemplate an MR zone. It will
facilitate the transition to a revised zoning ordinance by
redesignating those MR parcels.
Y-/
3. The proposed MR-1 zoning is most appropriate for the existing
duplex uses in this area, and would ensure that higher
density development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does
not occur.
4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing
church use on the south end of this area, while offering
proper regulatory control for future land uses.
5. On June 22, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny this rezoning at first reading.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is set for July 12, 1993. If approved, a public
hearing and second reading will be held on August 9, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:cak
40
Bill No. 1993 -
• AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE CITY ZONING CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of the various
zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following
respect:
Section 5, Paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows:
(1) Lots 19 through 34, except lvo Cs 23, 24 and the south
10.16 feet 6 feet of Let 2??, Bleek 2 Leeins's Richfield-Seeend
t-
Addition-w- [Deleted].
Section 11, Paragraph (1) is amended to read as follows:
(1) Lots 23-24-34 nd -t-hesout-h 10.16 feet of Lot 25, Block
2, Lein's Richfield Second Addition.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of Lots 25-34, Block
2, Lein's Richfield Second Addition from MR (multiple residence)
to MR-1 (two family residential) and a rezoning of Lots 19-22,
. Block 2, Lein's Richfield Second Addition from MR (multiple
residence) to R (single family residence).
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this th day of , 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
?3
rCROSSTOWN HWY.
i
Q
Z
C
w
w
O
U
(62).-..
LLi
a
z
cc
m
co
3
Existing Land Use
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
CHURCH
?? r?Aw,x?aarwca9
PLANNING
mulmlilu
ZONING
N(l)
Dqm~nt
64TH ST.
EXISTING ZONING
Q
Z
0
W
U.
O
}
U
d -
cc
0]
I
N
3
a.
Z
C
W
U.
O
}
H
U
PROPOSED ZONING
r-CROSSTOWN HWY.
I
(62).-..
W
a
Z
m
D
m
S
N
i
?J
Rezoning Plan
MR
MR-I N
-CROSSTOWN HWY. (62)•-•-
I
i
i
1
1
I
i i
u
a
64TH ST.
64TH ST.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-206
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Request for an amended final development plan/conditional use
permit to allow screening of balconies at Woodlake Point
Condominiums, 6500 Woodlake Drive.
Background:
About 20 Woodlake Point condominium owners are seeking approval
to enclose their balconies with a screen. They believe screening
will make their balconies more functional and enjoyable,
eliminating pigeon and insect problems.
In October 1992, the Council approved a screen for the balcony of
Unit #1104. As a result of the success of the initial
application, blanket approval is being requested to give owners
the option to screen their balcony if they wish, conditioned on
specific criteria which are met. This spring, the Homeowners
Association conducted a survey which indicated strong support to
pursue the screening.
The Homeowners Association has established strict installation .
and maintenance criteria to ensure the screens do not clutter the
appearance of the building. Staff has reviewed and approved
these criteria.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the amended final development plan/conditional use permit
for Woodlake Point to allow installation of balcony screening
enclosures for those owners who want them, with a stipulation
that all screens be installed and maintained according to the
established criteria, as outlined in the application.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The screening enclosures would help to solve pigeon and
insect problems, making the balconies more functional and
enjoyable.
2. The screening enclosures are designed so they do not
compromise the visual appearance of the building. The
screening and frame would be mounted inside the balcony
railing to maintain the rhythm of the exterior.facade.
3. The frame for the screening enclosure would be constructed of
dark anodized aluminum to match the existing window frames.
4. The frame would be rigidly attached to the balcony floor and
would provide drain holes to dispose of trapped water.
• 5. The screens would not be operable, however, they would be
removable with special tools.
7-/
6. The screening material would be tightly knit to prevent as
much snow sift as possible.
7. Blanket approval would allow units to be screened in the
future without further City review, however, all individual
screening enclosures would require a building permit from the
City prior to installation.
8. On June 22, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the amended final development
plan/conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an
adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12,
1993. 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 and mailed to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
•
JDP:cak
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
0
•
WOODLAKE POINT
6500 Woodlake Drive • Richfield, Minnesota 55423 • 612/866-4757
Ate,
May 27, 1993
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN. 55423
RE: Rules Regarding Spotted Screen Installation at Woodlake Point
• On May 19, 1993, the Board of Directors of Woodlake Point approved
the application for the spotted screens permit for spotted
identical looking high quality structures by a recognized
contractor. In addition, specific rules were set up regarding the
screened in balconies. Rules are as follows:
1. THAT Resident may not remove or replace these
screens for any reason. This must be done by
maintenance or the contractor.
2. THAT items such as blinds, drapes, shades may not
be hung inside the screens.
3. THAT prior to installation the paint on the
railings must be in good condition at the time of
installation.
4. THAT an inspection be made of the deck for cracks
prior to installation of screens. Upon
completion and installation, the deck must be
inspected to check for cracks or damage.
5. THAT resident is responsible for keeping screens
clean and in good repair.
0
{ 7,3
WOODLAKE * POINT
• 6500 Woodlake Drive • Richfield, Minnesota 55423 • 612/866-4757
koc
May 27, 1993
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN. 55423
ISSUES - relating to Scattered Balcony Screening at Woodlake Point:
Woodlake Point is applying for a permit to allow scattered balcony
screening throughout the building. The enclosure would eliminate
a pigeon excrement problem, and insect annoyance, making use of the
balcony more enjoyable for the owner. The application states that
the enclosure would visually improve the appearance of the balcony
by removing the need to hang deterrents (such as plastic owls) to
scare the pigeons away. Such deterrents create a visually unpleasing,
cluttered appearance.
FAST FACTS:
1) The proposed screening enclosure would be designed to
compliment the building.
2) The proposed screening enclosure would be constructed
with a tempered aluminum painted bronze in color frame
which would match the existing window frames.
3) The screening material would be tightly knit to prevent
as much snow sift as possible.
4) The enclosure would be mounted inside the balcony railing
in order to maintain the rhythm of the exterior facade.
5) The screen would not be operable, however, would be
removable with special tools.
6) The frame would be rigidly attached to the balcony floor,
and would provide drain holes to dispose of trapped
water.
0
(D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Council Letter No. 205
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Request for an amended final development plan/conditional use
permit to allow a reconfiguration of commercial space at Market
Plaza, 700 West 66th Street.
Background:
Market Plaza Commercial Center is proposing to reconfigure the
lease space northeast of Drug Emporium to improve the
marketability and appearance of the Center. The proposal would
eliminate the interior mall corridor and extend the lease spaces.
Each lease space would have its own storefront with direct access
to the exterior. The 15 existing lease spaces in this area would
be replaced by 11 new lease spaces, resulting in a decrease of
about 4,000 square feet of space devoted to retail use.
The use of the rear area (behind the commercial) has not been
determined, however, applicants are asking for approval to
develop this space as either an amenities area for the
condominiums above or as office space.
Other changes would include a new facade/canopy treatment and
more windows along the 65th Street wall. Improvements would
• conform to LHN design guidelines.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the amended final development plan/conditional use permit
as requested with a stipulation that if the rear area is to be
developed as office space, the owners must demonstrate to staff
that adequate on-site parking will be available.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The reconfiguration may help to improve the marketability of
the Center.
2. The new facade/canopy treatment would improve the appearance
of the building.
3. Parking has always been an issue at Market Plaza. Although
the reconfiguration reduces the retail space available, if
further office space is developed, owners must demonstrate to
staff that adequate parking will be available.
4. Sign criteria have been approved by staff (see attached).
5. On June 22, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval of this request.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the amended final development plan/conditional use permit
with a finding that it would have an adverse impact on adjacent
properties or the City as a whole.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12,
1993. 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 and mailed to property owners within
350 feet of the subject property.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
0
0
4 ,2
u o w O v x -,
d
W
Y
•
5. + W •r
y... "? Z 1 x
F)y , V
" S [t I M? t ?" I t •J
? •• " "c Z I? J
N
Y Si
7 r I w
r O " I e
I;
i O
O
N < Co
O_ y V _c' I
"• ¢ , I
CO j
yap ? ??? ?Jil_=_-.zs.r V ?.,.? ?....:. .??,?? icy I •?
`
?
? W r ¢ - r ??
?` • I
4
CL
d 0,
cc
!? \ N O
r
Y ? n ? ...1 '!
r I
LL
1 \
10
'
4
?
t•.?r i .T 100 ?
:_?
w?
II III II'I 1 ?? _
1
r
I
6
_ , LL
F
W y
Jw
ou
6
?,PQ 2 J
W S
Market Plaza Commercial
Interior floor plan
PLANNING
(center section) ZONING
ComnuMry Dmvk*mnt t?pnr6nont
b--3
V p W a C
r•17• i :m Y ?1? •?•jf
? ?Li S -
j'?•11 ,
' Z
J
6
W
Y
I
'
'
N
I r°
I
I
I
N
a
Y ?
Y
I N
I 7
L N
I _ N
:t
as.
Sii
a ?
I
Y
.
R
}I'
_ - i? ?
,+y
_ X
4~4
I N
? O
?':___
____!_: to
? a - ?f I I r?
__ a• ?-_____f__ _. __?
8tr;2 i '1
? I ? Y?
1
' I
I
S.
3•
S
k ?%' S 33,
';£ ?
?
ti <
i shy
"??
3
J[ I
r F. 7 ?_?
•¢ Q -
_ ` 'r_ _ •
I i I M ?l
~
I I
C
Bey
y{z f F
l ?: ri,.il ?b o.,;.
¢ U
0 ¢
.?
¢
.4•
Lam'`.
l i
c
4
;
LL. U I I•
i
g? z3 ¢ ¢ U ' l i o
99
U ?
1 1 r -a
$ 5
1 1 < J
* _?• y • i LLD
Market Plaza Commercial
Interior floor plan
(northeast section) PLANNING
ZONING
1n-4
N I.
F.I
?yrY??
I'r
f II
I
?i 1 I I
il.
I, ' li
I'
I i? III
_ R 5 'I I'I ?
•
? 7
' a51 lil'
11II'?
'f ?
rL ?yV
I
: ° 14 ?
?I ?? 3
u
r N I• v,?
?
'? I } ? r s
w r wy
_ ??. ,? Z L IFI O ? r 4
III
;, s w
? ?
9 d •.'I
, .
:
I
!
p"?I s J
? N Z p
C ti
..I d
-
i f N £ ?
''ll •W
?
°i 1 ? ? ?'
? 111
1
w p
i! N
I''M
+
Z ?? I I r
r? .I z
_
y
1! '
9
I?
i IH7
.
Ii
I tll ; ;
? .
a
I,?'" : 7 Qw r I,YA' S r
? I'
u ?: ? ? r lll'
' I i
'
I
a i
+
Fi4
? bl, • I
s
•
N X1.4
' a°
Y.. .
o
?f`F
1 a O
?? i Z
i
v 14 a 4 O ?.
vnl
G ll
? _ ?.
i Q IL
? ;
? ? II'I
? r
Q
W
? 1
= r = U J 4
Market Plaza Commercial.
in -AW
Facade plan for PLANNING
reconfigured area ZONING
/®-,5
CL
2 z
U W
Q
W
2W i
uj cc
6 1 1
F` W
?n <_ O 1 w W 1
U Y o i
W~1 LL
.
lt i
o
I §?? Y IF <I
i
? 3v
J 4 ? JE
9
i <I
W
?. o?• W" 1 S - G 1 'sc
? p <
•• It
k \ \ / T
I `
Z'f
0 i
\
/ ~ \ \
+ ,
. ? u
a
o # .
IL +
0
Market Plaz a ' Commercial
Facade plan for other
PLANNING
commercial areas ZONING
(may be phased in) Canvwn '°"""mnt°eparWOM
-!p
EXHIBIT E
SIGN CRITERIA FOR
MARKET PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
Section 1
General
1.1 Each Tenant is required to identify its Leased Premises
with an exterior sign which shall be limited to individual,
internally illuminated letters per details and specifications in
conformance with this Exhibit E. Tenant shall also install an
interior sign above the entrance of the Leased Premises.
1.2 Approval of store design drawings for Tenant's Leased
Premises does not constitute approval of any sign work.
Landlord's written approval of Tenant's sign drawings is
required.
1.3 The costs incurred for the furnishing and installation
of a sign shall be the responsibility of Tenant. The sign
construction is to be completed in compliance with the criteria
set forth herein.
1.4 Tenant is responsible for obtaining any required
• municipal approval of signs.
Section 2
Exterior Signage (Excluding Kiosk Tenants
2.1 Tenant's sign shall be store-identity signs only.
Tenants will be restricted to copy which will designate Tenant's
proper name, product and/or service.
2.2 Tenants will be allocated an area on the exterior of
the Shopping Center for their signs. This area will be part of
the continuous fascia band 36" in height.
2.3 Tenant's sign shall be restricted to an area on the
exterior fascia band, which shall not be higher than 6" from the
top edge of the fascia band and not lower than 6" from the bottom
edge of the fascia band. If all caps are used, letters shall not
exceed 24" in height. If upper and lower case letters are used,
capitals may be 26" and the body of the lower case letters may
not exceed 18". Ascenders and descenders of lower case letters
may not exceed a total of 26".
2.4 The maximum length of Tenant's sign copy shall not be
nearer than 12" to the edge of Tenant's allocated signage area.
9 E-1
?_7
The length of Tenant's allocated signage area shall be determined
• by Landlord.
2.5 Tenants' signs shall be illuminated letters which shall
be fabricated of aluminum returns (painted to match red
plexiglass 2415) with 5" maximum depth, translucent plastic faces
(red 2415) and 1" trim cap (to match plexiglass red 2415).
Internal illumination shall consist of neon tubing (white) and
concealed transformers (60 M.A.). Illuminated letters must be
installed with concealed fasteners and not have exposed neon,
lamps, light fixtures or wiring.
Section 3
Exterior Signage (Kiosk Spaces)
3.1 Tenant's sign shall be store-identity signs only.
Tenant will be restricted to copy which will designate Tenant's
proper name, product and/or service.
3.2 Tenants will be allocated an area on the exterior of
the Shopping Center for their signs. This area will be
designated by Landlord.
3.3 Tenant's sign shall be no more
placed no closer than 7" from the top or
. or other signs above or below.
3.4 The maximum length of Tenant's
nearer than 6" to the edge of Tenant's a
The length of Tenant's allocated signage
by Landlord.
than 16" in height and
bottom of the sign area
sign copy shall not be
)located signage area.
area shall be determined
3.5 Tenant's signs shall be illuminated letters which shall
be fabricated of aluminum returns (painted to match red
plexiglass 2415) with 5" maximum, depth, translucent plastic
faces (red 2415, and 1" trim cap (to match plexiglass red2415 i•
Internal illumination shall consist of neon tubing (white) and
concealed transformers (60 M.A.). Illuminated letters must be
installed with concealed fasteners and not have exposed neon,
lamps, light fixtures or wiring.
3.6 Kiosk Tenants shall also be allowed decorative neon
signage/application to be located behind the exterior glass of
the premises, subject to Landlord's written approval.
0 E-2
4 4
Section 4
Interior Signage
4.1 Interior signage shall consist of 1" non-illuminated
letters constructed of 1" edge cap with plexiglass faces, and be
mounted flush on Tenant's store front.
4.2 The maximum length of Tenant's sign copy shall not be
nearer than 12" to the edge of Tenant's allocated signage area.
The length of Tenant's allocated signage area shall be determined
by Landlord.
Section 5
Procedures for obtaining Approvals for Sign Drawings
5.1 Tenant shall submit three sets of drawings and
specifications for all of its proposed sign work. The drawings
shall clearly show the location of the sign on the fascia,
graphics, construction, and attachment details. Full information
regarding electrical load requirements is to be included.
5.2 Landlord shall return one set of drawings as soon as
possible to Tenant. The drawings will be marked "approved" or
"disapproved" accompanied by a letter of explanation. Drawings
that have been approved shall be installed at the earliest
• convenience of Tenant. Drawings that have been disapproved are
to be redesigned and resubmitted to Landlord for approval with
all changes noted.
Section 6
Prohibited Signs
6.1 The following types of signs or sign components are
prohibited:
1. Cabinet signs.
2. Moving or rotating signs.
3. Signs employing moving or flashing lights.
4. Signs, letters, symbols or identification of any
nature painted directly on surfaces exterior to
the Leased Premises.
5. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers,
decals or painted signs on or about the exterior
surfaces (including, without limitation, doors '
and/or windows) of the Leased Premises or Shopping
E-3
j -9
Center building.
6. Signs employing noise-making devices or
components.
7. Free--standing signs.
8. Rooftop signs.
9. Signs exhibiting names, stamps or decals of sign
manufacturer or installer, unless displayed on an
edge of the sign or return, and is not larger than
3" x 6".
40
6.2 Any sign on the Leased Premises which does not have
Landlord's written approval is a prohibited sign. Prohibited
signs shall be removed from the Leased Premises by Tenant within
five working days of written notice by Landlord. Should the sign
not be removed within five working days of written notice,
Landlord or its agent shall remove the sign and all costs for
removal shall be paid by Tenant..
0 E-4
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearings and second reading of ordinances regarding sale
of property at 6310 15th and 7112 First Avenues to the HRA, and
authorization to enter into a license agreement with the HRA.
Background:
At the June 28, 1993 meeting, the City Council authorized the
acquisition of 6310 15th and 7112 First Avenues and held the
first reading of the ordinances authorizing sale of the property
to the HRA.
The City will use federal CDBG funds to acquire the property.
Upon sale to the HRA, the property would be developed through the
New Home Program. HUD rules require that the City purchase the
property and subsequently, transfer it to the HRA to re-sell at
the appropriate time. The site at 6310 15th Avenue would be used
by the HRA to initiate a new construction project with Twin
Cities Habitat for Humanity. Vo-Tech would construct a new home
at 7112 First Avenue in cooperation with the HRA.
It is anticipated that the City will acquire the properties in
late July. Sale of the properties to the HRA could occur as soon
• as August 16, 1993 if the second reading of the transitory
ordinances is approved at the July 12, 1993 meeting.
The lot at 7112 First Avenue has a lot area of approximately
5,880 sq. ft. City ordinance requires a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft.
The Hearing Examiner is being requested to consider a variance
for development. Purchase of the property by the City and
subsequent sale to the HRA is contingent on a favorable finding.
The Hearing Examiner has supported similar situations in the
past.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following
actions:
1. Conduct the public hearing and approve the second reading of
a transitory ordinance for each property with the 7112 First
Avenue property being subject to the granting of a lot area
variance.
2. Enter into a license agreement with the HRA to allow property
maintenance and site preparation work prior to transfer of
the properties to the HRA.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has identified these properties for new home projects
and authorized staff to acquire the properties.
,6'-/
2. The City Council has authorized the acquisition of 6310 15th
. and 7112 First Avenues and sale of these properties to the
HRA with a first reading of the ordinance.
3. The HRA will finalize a development contract with Habitat for
Humanity (6310 15th) and Vo-Tech (7112 First) in August 1993
which coincides with the effective date of the ordinance.
4. A finding has been made by the Planning Commission that
acquisition and disposition of the property is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The adoption of a transitory ordinance is necessary to
effectuate a sale of City owned property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not give second reading of transitory ordinance.
2. The City can choose not to enter into a license agreement
with the HRA for site work.
These actions would negatively impact the proposed development of
the sites.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Timely sale of the property from the City to the HRA requires
publication of a transitory ordinance following the July 12, 1993
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
Jamejaager
City JDP:cak
9
is TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
(6310 15TH AVENUE)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1.
The following described real property located in the City of
Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby
authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and
conveyed by the City as herein provided:
6310 15th Avenue
Lot 3, Block 2, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 Girard Parkview Addition
Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
• action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section
1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the
execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of
conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale,
transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this 12th day of July, 1993 by the Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
5-3
9 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
(7112 FIRST AVENUE)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1.
The following described real property located in the City of
Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby
authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and
conveyed by the City as herein provided:
7112 First Avenue
Lot 4, Block 2, Sheldon Blair's Wooddale Fourth Addition
Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
• and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section
1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the
execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of
conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale,
transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this 12th day of July, 1993 by the Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
-114
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-203
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Request by Church of the Assumption for an on-sale non-
intoxicating malt liquor license, itinerant place of amusement
license and an itinerant food license for the 1993 Fun Fest to be
held August 14 and 15, 1993.
Background:
On June 28, 1993, Church of the Assumption submitted a request
for a temporary license to serve non-intoxicating malt liquor
(3.2 beer), an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food
license for August 14 from 7 a.m. to midnight and August 15 from
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. They are requesting that any fee be waived.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the licenses fee waived for August 14 and 15, 1993 for
Assumption's 1993 Fun Fest.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to
these licenses.
2. The applicant has supplied liquor liability insurance
is coverage.
3. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction
with the Assumption Fun Fest.
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 these licenses
in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for these licenses has been placed on the consent
calendar for July 12, 1993.
Resp f ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 202
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Consideration of purchase in excess of $5,000 to reroof Wood Lake
Nature Center's shop and garage.
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.
The cedar shake roofs of both the shop and garage at Wood Lake
are leaking. Before this creates any more serious damage,
replacement of the cedar shakes with a fiberglass shingle is
needed. Because these roofs are shaded, they are prone to moss
build-up which eventually deteriorates the wooden shake. A 30-
year Timberline fiberglass shingle which resembles the cedar
shake roof is a more practical alternative.
Included in the quotes is a price
side of the.garage. This was sug!
after it was determined accidents
gutter properly drained away from
. were received as follows:
Vendor
Coty Construction Company
C&J Roofing, Inc.
Sela Roofing and Remodeling
to add a gutter to the driveway
jested by the Safety Committee
could be prevented if the
the trail. Three quotations
Quotation
$5,785
$5,790
$5,950
Recommended Motion:
Authorize a purchase order to Coty Construction Company for the
amount of $5,785.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Coty Construction Company had the lowest quote of three
roofing companies who.came out to give their estimates.
2. Coty Constuction Company has a good reputation and has been
very easy to deal with thus far.
3. Coty Construction Company does not use outside contractors.
They use all of their own employees and have successfully
worked with the City before.
4. The work needs to be done before a more costly repair is
needed.
0 5. The money for the repair is in the revised budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The work could be delayed. This would result in ceiling
damage and be a more costly repair at a time when it is not
budgeted.
2. Replace the roof with the same materials. However, replacing
the roofs with cedar shake would be much more expensive.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item in on the consent calendar for July 26. Council is
asked to take action at this time so that the work may take place
in July.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
, ?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Approve a purchase in excess of $5,000 for personal computers and
software.
Background
For the past four years, the City has administered its own
Section 8 program. At the time that the program was brought in-
house, a personal computer network and public housing authority
(PHA) software were purchased to assist with the management and
administration of the program. This equipment is now out-of-date
and has become unreliable. Staff is experiencing significant
down time on a regular basis. To rectify the service problems
and to bring the equipment and software up to date, staff
proposes that some of the equipment be upgraded and some be
replaced.
Section 8 staff currently have four personal computers (PCs), one
network file server, Novell network software, a laser printer,
Word Perfect and Plan Perfect office software, and Nan McKay PHA
software. Staff recommends that the four PCs be replaced with
three new PCs and that the old file server be upgraded and used
to replace the fourth PC and a new file server purchased. Staff
further recommends that the Novell and office software be
upgraded to current releases. The laser printer and PHA software
do not need to be replaced or upgraded at this time.
The computer networking components of this proposed replacement
and upgrade are of sufficient capacity to service the entire
Community Development Department rather than just the Section 8
staff. This additional capacity can be acquired now at very
little additional cost. PCs currently used by Community
Development staff, as well as those planned for acquisition in
the future, can be linked to this network. The networking of PCs
allows printers, programs and data to be efficiently shared among
many users.
Staff requested written quotes from three vendors: PC Express,
Portico Computers and PC Tailors. The quotes were very
competitive with some items identically priced or with only a few
dollars difference. The warranties offered, however, do have
significant differences and are the determining factor in staff's
recommendation that all of the equipment be purchased from
Portico Computers. Portico quoted the lowest price on most items
and agreed to match the lowest price on the remainder. Their
warranty coverage surpassed those of the other two vendors.
0
0-/
Staff recommends the following purchase from Portico Computers:
• c
Equipment Qty h
Cost Ea Ext.Amt
486DX Personal Computer 3 $ 1,637 $4,911.00
486DX File Server 1 2,645 2,1645.00
Network Card 5 130 650.00
Uninterruptible Power Supply 1 345 345.00
Novell Software Upgrade 1 2,455 2,455.00
Windows for Workgroups Software 4 155 620.00
Word & Excel for Windows Software Upgrade 3 238 714.00
Sales Tax 802.10
TOTAL $13,142.10
The parts necessary to upgrade the current file server for use as
a PC will be purchased from the City's current parts supplier at
an estimated cost of $800. Central Services staff will install
the new components.
These purchases will be made from the Central Services Fund from
monies budgeted for the replacement of out-of-date equipment and
upgrading of the City's computer capabilities.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to purchase computer equipment and
• software for the Section 8 program in the amount of $13,142.10
from Portico Computers.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The equipment and software currently
staff is out-of-date and unreliable.
upgrading it will bring it up to the
and software used at the City. This
Services staff to provide day-to-day
support for the network and PCs.
used by the Section 8
Replacing and
level of the other PCs
will allow Central
administration and
2. Portico Computers quoted the lowest prices for most items and
agreed to match the lowest price on the remainder.
3. Portico's warranty is the best offered by the three vendors
considered. It covers almost all parts and 100% of the
labor for five years. This service is provided at City
Hall.
4. The quotes were very competitive and the City is benefiting
by getting the equipment and software for very low prices.
5. The City purchased similar computer equipment from Portico
earlier this year and staff have been satisfied with the
quality of the equipment and service. jo;
10
7V ??
Alternative Recommendation:
. 1. Council could direct staff to seek quotes for the equipment
and software needed to replace or upgrade only the items
which are causing the down time. Staff has not recommended
this option because it is not a long term solution.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council action to authorize this purchase is requested at the
July 12 meeting. If action is delayed beyond the end of July,
staff will need to seek new price quotes.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
0
0
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda July 12, 1993
• Issue Statement:
Authorization of payment of legal defense fees totaling $6,460.48
for the Williams lawsuit.
Background:
In 1990, the City of Richfield received a claim from Mr. Gerard
Williams. Mr. Williams was in an automobile accident and claimed
that he did not see a stop sign because it was obscured by
foliage, which the City should have trimmed. Mr. Williams
ultimately brought a lawsuit against the City in this matter.
GAB Business Services Inc. successfully defended the claim on
behalf of the City; the Fourth Judicial District Court has
ordered a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Mr. Williams
cannot again bring an action against the City for this accident.
However, the City is responsible for the cost of defending itself
in this matter. The defense costs in this case equal $6,460.48
and are now due and payable to GAB Business Services. GAB is the
claims administrator of this claim for the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) through which the City is insured.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the $6,460.48 payment to GAB for the defense costs in the
Williams lawsuit.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City was named as a defendant in a lawsuit and took
action to provide legal defense in the matter.
2. Legal defense was provided through GAB, the claims
administration arm of the LMCIT. The fees for those
services total $6,460.48.
3. The amount is below the City's deductible level and, as such,
must be paid directly by the City.
4. Adequate funds are available for this payment in the City's
self-insurance fund.
Alternative Recommendation:
None. The service has been provided and the City now has an
obligation to reimburse the LMCIT through GAB.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is included on the July 12, 1993 City Council agenda to
ensure prompt payment to GAB and the LMCIT.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City alter
JDP:cak
July 6, 1993
Melanie Ault, Personnel Officer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
GAB Business Services Inc
9531 West 78th Street Suite 320
Eden Prairie Minnesota 55344
Telephone 612-942-9818
FAX 612-943-2383
Claims Control Branch
RECEIVED J u L 7 199
GAB FILE: 56527-19220
G?ffl INSURED: City of Richfield
CLAIMANT: Gerard Williams
D/A: 9-30-89
Dear Ms. Ault:
•
11
We have been successful in defending this claim. The
plaintiff, Mr. Williams, has agreed to a Stipulation of
Dismissal With Prejudice (copy attached). This means that
he cannot again bring an action against the City for this
accident.
We did incur legal defense costs of $6,460.48. Attached
is our computer printout reflecting the payments.
The claim was handled under your Covenant #CMC 11072,
effective 7-1-90/91, provided by the LMCIT. Under this
covenant, there is an all lines deductible of $50,000 per
occurrence which includes legal defense costs.
In satisfaction of the deductible, please issue a check
for $6,460.48 payable to GAB Business Services Inc. and
forward it to this office. Indicate our file number of
56527-19220 on the check.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
ark Rossow
Branch Supervisor
Z&-/
I/V
ur (S
CIB ... "Where quality really matters."
DATE 07/06/93
*** PAYMENT DETAIL EXPANSION ***
? T/FILE
^ NO 5652719220A CLAIMANT NAME
WILLIAMS
RPSTOMER CODE 261028 CUSTOMER NAME LMCIT
CHECK NO CHK-DT ENT-DT PAYEE NAME BNK
0005879204 070693 070693 CHADWICK, JOHNSON & 613
0005878843 052593 052593 CHADWICK, JOHNSON & 613
0005877670 010593 010593 CHADWICK, JOHNSON & 613
0005877634 122992 122992 SEARCH ENGINEERING 613
0005021251 120392 120392 CHADWICK, JOHNSON & 613
0005021078 111092 111092 SEARCH ENGINEERING 613
0005020995 110392 110392 SEARCH ENGINEERING 613
0005020904 102792 102792 DEBRA S. DIKKEN 613
0005020501 091792 091792 RAMSEY CLINIC ASSOCIATIO 613
0005019768 062392 062392 SEARCH ENGINEERING 613
0005019422 051492 051492 K LINTON 613
0003753556 031992 031992 DAVIDSON REPORTING 613
********** ****** ****** ************************ ***
PAGE FORWARD=PF1 PAGE BACK=PF2
ENTER CODE, PRESS PF12
4B A
U
7G -')
SIC9370
STATUS R
PC PC PC CHECK AMOUNT TP
02 $460.54 P
02 $349.50 .P
01 $986.84 P
02 $70.00 P
01 $1,667.80 P
05 $301.00 P
05 $534.00 P
02 $95.00 P
03 $575.00 P
05 $507.50 P
02 $128.00 P
02 $785.30 P
** ** ** ************** *
VIEW ANOTHER FILE=PF3 SELECTION SCREEN=PF4
LINE 24 COL 2
40
ced: (,, 15-'?-6
0
LOMMEN, NELSON, COLE &
STAGEBERG, P.A.
By: __dr? ?J e c.?
Angela W. Allen ID
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
1800 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 339-8131
ORDER _
Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal, the
Complaint in the above matter may be and hereby is dismissed with
prejudice and without costs to any party and the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice herein.
Dated, / /CX?
•
Judge of District Court
0
•
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
.::FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
------------------------------------ -!- i- - --------------------
:! is
Gerald E. Williams, Court File No.: 91-7317
Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
VS.
City of Richfield, et al,
Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties hereto,
through their respective undersigned attorneys, that said action
may be and it hereby is dismissed with prejudice and without costs
to the parties hereto; and the clerk of said court, upon the filing
of this Stipulation of Dismissal, is hereby authorized and directed
to dismiss said action of record.
Dated:
RATH & TRUE, P.A.
. R th, #8976X.
Attorne or Plaintiff
3300 Edinborough Way #400
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 896-0056
Dated: - 7 ? / CHADWICK, JOHNSON & CONDON
Mark J. Condon, 8296
Attorneys for Defe ants
7235 Ohms Lane
Minneapolis, MN 55 -2152
(612) 831-6544
y?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda July 12, 1993
Issue Statement:
Approval of construction cooperative agreement with Hennepin
County for new roadway surface on Penn Avenue, 73rd Street to
75th Street.
Background:
The Hennepin County Department of Transportation is proposing to
apply a new surface on County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn
Avenue) between 75th Street and 73rd Street. The County requires
a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City manager to sign the
agreement: Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW 26-19-93,
CSAH 32 between 75th Street and 73rd Street, County Project 9261.
This proposed cooperative agreement is similar to the agreements
for the Nicollet overlay in 1992 and the Portland overlay in
1991. The County policy which requires that the City participate
in certain costs associated with this project are a part of the
cooperative agreement. Those costs are:
1. Fifty percent of the replacement cost for sidewalk, curb and
gutter and driveway apron when the existing concrete must be
replaced only because of its condition. If the replacement
is to facilitate the County's work, the County pays 100% of
• the cost. Richfield's cost, based on the 50% replacement, is
estimated at $1,642.50.
2. The cost of adjusting rings needed to raise manholes and
water valves to the height of the new paving surface,
including the installation of rings in the manholes, is
estimated at $2,840.
3. A share of the preliminary engineering costs for the project.
The City's share of preliminary engineering costs is equal to
eight percent of the construction cost using the successful
bidder's unit prices and the estimated quantities contained
in the contract at the time of award. Based on engineer's
estimates, the City's share is estimated to be $358.60.
4. A share of the construction engineering costs for the
project. The City's share of construction engineering costs
is equal to ten percent of the final amount of the City's
share of the contract construction cost. Based on engineer's
estimates, the City's share is estimated to be $448.25.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a cost sharing construction cooperative
agreement.
0
V_/
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Overlaying Penn Avenue is necessary to maintain the road in
good order.
2. The cost to Richfield is small and will be paid by the storm
sewer utility fund. No general fund monies will be required.
3. Council approval is necessary for the County to proceed with
the work.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to not participate in this project; however,
funding is available now and non-participation could delay or
halt a much-needed improvement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item appears on the July 12, 1993 Council agenda. Staff is
requesting approval at this time in order to allow Hennepin
County to complete the work in a timely manner.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City a ager
• JDP:cak
#-I)-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF AN ESTIMATED $5,289.35
OF RICHFIELD'S STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND MONIES
TO OFFSET CERTAIN EXPENSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE RESURFACING OF PENN AVENUE, 73RD STREET TO 75TH STREET
WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the
City of Richfield to participate in the cost of the applying of a
new driving surface on CSAH 32 (Penn Avenue) from 75th Street to
73rd Street; and
WHEREAS, County policy requires that the City participate in
certain costs associated with this project; and
WHEREAS, the cost of such improvement is estimated to be
approximately $5,289.35; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the City Council is needed when the
,purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
exceeds the amount of $5,000; and
WHEREAS, approval of the City Council is needed to enter
into a Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield
. does hereby authorize expenditure from the storm sewer utility to
apply toward the said improvement and hereby authorizes the Mayor
and City Manager to execute Construction Cooperative Agreement
No. PW 26-19-93 with Hennepin County for the purpose of
constructing said improvement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 12th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
n
L_ J
?Ib
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
City Council adoption of Personnel Policy pertaining to Airline
Travel Credits.
Background:
During the•1992 session of the Legislature, a bill addressing the
"Frequent Flyer" type of credits attained through public funded
airline travel was passed and signed into law. Section 20,
Chapter 592, 1992 session laws state:
"When ever public funds are used to pay for airline travel
by an elected official or public employee, any credits for
other benefits issued by any airline must accrue to the
benefit of the public body providing the funding.
C?
•
The section states further that an individual traveling under
public funds must report within 90 days to the public body if
credits or benefits have been credited to the individual instead
of the public body which paid for the travel.
Attached to this Council Letter is a policy which conforms to the
statute and requires any individual traveling under public funded
air travel to sign a form stated that any credits earned be
credited to the public body which paid the airfare. The policy
would apply to all employees, elected and appointed officials,
and any other individual traveling by public funded travel.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached Personnel Policy establishing procedures for
airline travel credits.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Statutes require that cities adopt a policy that
establishes procedures for airline travel credits.
2. The attached Personnel Policy conforms to the statute.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could modify the policy making it either
more or less restrictive.
Discussion/Decision Mode: la.
The airline travel policy should be considered at the July "'K,
1993 City Council meeting so it may be distributed as soon as
possible. Although airline travel has not been used during the
past several years, with the exception of the Fire Relief
Association, some limited City and/or HRA air travel may occur in
1993. The policy should be distributed before that travel
occurs.
Respect ully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City anager
21-le Airline Travel Credits
• City of Richfield
PERSONNEL POLICY
DATE: July 1, 1993
SUBJECT: Airline Travel Credits and Benefits for City or HRA Paid Travel'
Introduction
The purpose of this policy is to establish a procedure, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, for ensuring that travel credits resulting from public funded travel
accrue to the benefit of the City, or its Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA). This policy applies to all airline travel paid for by public
funds for City or HRA employees, elected and appointed officials, or others.
However, this policy is not applicable to airline travel paid for by public
funds which are reimbursed.
Policy
Whenever public funds are expended to pay for airline travel, all
is arrangements must be made through a travel agency approved by the City
Manager. The person for whom the ticket is purchased must complete a
form provided by the City authorizing the airline or travel agency to assign to
the City or HRA (whichever is applicable) any credits or benefits resulting
from that travel. Failure to complete such a form will be cause for
cancellation of the City or HRA paid travel, with the individual responsible
for any resulting penalties.
In the event the issuing airline will not honor a transfer or assignment of any
credit or benefit, the individual passenger shall report in writing, the receipt
of the credit or benefit to the City Manager within 90 days of receipt.
Approved:
City Manager
0