07-26-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 26, 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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 12, 1993
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED
ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF DONATION FROM FRED BABCOCK VFW POST 5555 IN AMOUNT
• OF $7,631.08 FOR PURCHASE, LICENSES AND FEES, PAINTING AND GRAPHIC
APPLICATION OF SHOWMOBILE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 209
3. PRESENTATION OF 1993 INNOVATIVE CITY AWARD FROM ASSOCIATION OF
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 210
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED
UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS
BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO
BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY
COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
40 APPROVAL.
5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF ARBITRAGE REBATE FOR
GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT BONDS OF 1988 IN AMOUNT OF $71,500
C.L. 211
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AMENDING 1993 GENERAL
. SERVICES PAY PLAN TO ACHIEVE COMPARABLE WORTH COMPLIANCE AND
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT PAY EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT C.L. 212
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF
CONTRACT FOR 1993 JOINT CLEANING,AND RESEALING PROJECT TO ARCON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $49,397.00 C.L. 213
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF
CONTRACT FOR 1993 SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR TO ARCON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF $17,946.00 C.L. 214
E. FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF MINIATURE GOLF
COURSE; OLYMPIC POOLS INC.; $53,448.80
F. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR SHELTER CONSTRUCTION AT NICOLLET PARK;
EBERT INC.; $23,085.00
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL
LICENSE; 7315 THOMAS AVENUE; FOUR CATS (DEFERRED FROM JUNE 28,
1993)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 215
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON CITY PROJECT NO. 872, ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
• COUNCIL LETTER NO. 216
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON CITY PROJECT NO. 873, LHN MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 217
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON CITY PROJECT NO. 874, ILN MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 218
10. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PERIOD
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1992
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 219
11. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING
OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY
1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994, CITY PROJECT 893
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 220
12. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING
OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994, CITY PROJECT 891
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 221
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
13. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO BRW,
INC./ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 77TH
STREET PROJECT IN AMOUNT OF 5230,000
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 222
14. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION, REJECTION OF
ALL BIDS RECEIVED JULY 19 FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION AS PART OF
WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO READVERTISE
FOR BIDS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 223
AIRPORT BUSINESS
15. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
16. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
18. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon
request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the
Administrative Services Director at 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Council Letter No. 223
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Consideration of the reject of bids for electrical installation
contract at the Water Treatment Plant.
Background:
The Water Plant project requires the electrical equipment be
installed by an electrical contractor. Specifications for this
work included installing the electrical switch gear equipment
purchased under procurement package number 2 which was approved
at an earlier date, installing the necessary conduit and wire to
connect all the new equipment, and reconnection of the existing
equipment that is not being replaced.
There were seven plan holders of record. Four bids were
submitted and opened July 19, 1993. The lowest bid was $276,000.
The engineer's estimate for the work was $150,000. This proposed
contract was labor intensive but did include some minor equipment
such as conduit and wire. The major hardware compenents have
been purchased under separate contracts. The original cost
estimate, including labor and all hardware and equipment, was
$650,000. Purchasing the major hardware separately was deemed
necessary to allow sufficient time for manufacture.
• It does not appear there was any one reason why the bids exceeded
estimate. Possible explanations include: 1) potential bidders
not contacting the consultant nor staff and/or not attending the
pre-bid meeting to obtain information and asking pertinent
questions about the project, 2) large and small electrical firms
questioning their ability to have the time to do the work, 3)
small electrical firms questioning their ability to have
sufficient staff to do the work, and 4) bidders including what
staff.and the consultant deem excessive estimates for labor time
to assure profit for the vendor.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation, reject all bids received July
19, 1993 for electrical installation as part of the Water Plant
improvement project and authorize readvertisment for bids.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The work is necessary as part of the Water Plant improvement
project.
2. The bids received July 19, 1993 exceeded the engineer's
estimate which was for labor only.
3. Readvertisement will allow for some modification of the
• specifications and an opportunity to encourage additional
vendors to submit bids.
Iq-1
4. A slight delay in award of contract for electrical
installation will not cause problems in terms of the
industrial construction portion of the project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Award a contract to the low bidder. However, the project
budget.would be exceeded and additional funding would need to
be authorized.
2. Reject bids but do not readvertise. However, the project
cannot be completed unless the electrical work is done.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item; however, to
provide minimum disruption of actual construction it is necessary
to provide a timely decision. A decision on July 26, 1993 will
allow sufficient time to readvertise and still have an electrical
contractor available within the timeframe necessary to complete
the project.
lly submitted,
Ja e§D. Prosser
Ci v anaaer
JDP:ds
Attachment
/3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.222
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Consideration of additional funds for the Supplemental Agreement
to the BRW, Inc./Orr-Schelen-Mayeron contract for engineering
services for the 77th Street Project.
Background:
In April 1993, the City Council approved supplements to the
BRW/OSM contract, bringing the total to $1,679,173 for
engineering design services for Phases I and II of the 77th
Street Project. Further work identified by MnDOT's most recent
project review requires an additional $230,000 to continue the
77th Street Project. This adjustment must be made through an
additional supplement to the BRW, Inc./Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
contract. MnDOT prefers that the consultant work be segmented
through supplemental agreements with separate approvals. The
work being added to the contract includes:
? A survey and right of way plan for the Wood Lake storm sewer.
? Additional signal and traffic control work in Phase II. The
signal systems throughout the systems must be designed to be
compatible with a centralized traffic control system being
planned for the I-494 corridor.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the supplemental agreement to the BRW, Inc./Orr-Schelen-
Mayeron contract for additional engineering services in the
amount of $230,000 for the 77th Street Project and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to sign said agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
Funds for the increased contract amount will follow the accepted
cost split of 80% federal, 15% state and 5% local.
Alternative Recommendation:
No alternative is recommended. BRW, Inc./Orr-Schelen-Mayeron has
provided good timely service and the increased work cannot be
easily separated form the original contract work.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
City Council approval on July 26 will allow work to continue on
the storm sewer work in particular.
L?
RWeD. ully submitted,
JProsser
Caaer
JDP:ds
?a
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 221
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing the
Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) area for current maintenance services
for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1994-City
Project No. 891.
Background:
The•City Council has scheduled a public hearing for July 26, 1993
to consider the establishment of a special assessment district.
for current maintenance service costs in the LHN redevelopment
area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of
commercial property in the area and published in the official
newspaper as required by law.
The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the
area includes the trimming and watering of trees and plants,
operation of a special street lighting system, removal of snow
and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized
maintenance functions.
The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through
December 31, 1994 is $45,115. All commercial properties would be
• assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of
assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs
incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street
,islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. There is an agreement
between the City and the businesses that the business shall
maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City
must perform this maintenance, the particular business is
assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of
direct benefit to the given property.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to the
LHN maintenance special assessments for current services:
Year Estimated Actual
1985 $35,726.00
1986 $52,900 $40,110.00
1987 $49,936 $45,694.16
1988 $50,142 $44,405.24
1989 $40,614 $43,151.19
1990 $44,560 $43,539.10
1991 $44,153 $43,825.22
1992 $46,484 $47,005.26
1993 $45,050
1994 $45,115
• Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution
ordering the LHN maintenance work for the period January 1, 1994
through December 31, 1994 (City Project No. 891) to be done and
the costs to be specially assessed.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of proposed assessment has been published in the
official newspaper.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
proposed assessment.
3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is
recommended in order to sustain the current standards for
landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over
the past years.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 26 ,1993 City
Council meeting.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
40 JDP:ds
Attachment
/c) -C)-
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994
CITY PROJECT NO. 891
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City
of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did
propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City
in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be
specially assessed against benefited property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also
by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the
undertaking of such current service project and the levying of
special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and
WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held
on July 26, 1993 at which time all interested parties desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
• City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following examples of current services of the
City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment
Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment
district with the exception of single family, two family and
multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such
services to be specially assessed against the benefited property
within the district:
a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal;
b. Weed elimination;
c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety
hazards from private property, excluding and structure
included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Section 463.15 to 463.26;
d. Installation and repair of water service lines;
e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets;
f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound
trees;
g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian
walkways;
h. Operation of the street lighting system;
i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public
amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way;
j. Maintenance of civic plaza;
.
k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets;
1. Painting and repair of wood furniture; and
M. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement.
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City
force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
3. The designated period of the project shall be from
January 1 through December 31, 1994. Costs of the project shall
be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance
Code.
Passed by the City Council of the?City of.Richfield, Minnesota,
this 26th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
is
a
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA a?
Council Letter No.CL:CG94ALLEYMTCE
Agenda: July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing current
maintenance services for city alleys for the period of January 1
through December 31, 1994, City Project No. 893.
Background:
On June 14, 1993, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for
July 26, 1993 concerning the 1994 alley maintenance project.
In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously
passed by the City Council, it is necessary for the Council to
initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The
maintenance functions to be financed through special assessments
include such work as rough grading, cleaning and sweeping, cold
patching and snow plowing. Because the vast majority of alleys
have now been paved, the primary maintenance function is
anticipated to be snow plowing. Some of the alleys resurfaced in
the early 1980's have also reached the time when concrete joint
sealing needs to be done.
Community Services Department personnel estimate the cost of this
project for the period January 1 through December 31, 1994 to be
$20,000. The amount of special assessment could vary according
to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The
costs for the repair of an alley will be charged to the property
owners abutting the alley. $7.50 per average fifty foot lot is
the estimate for sweeping and a normal winter of snow plowing.
$3.25 per average fifty foot lot is an estimate of the costs to
continue a concrete joint sealing maintenance program on a paved
alley as a part of routine maintenance. Estimates of additional
costs on those alleys not of concrete has been about $23 per
average fifty foot lot. Costs have varied depending on the
amount of patching required in a particular alley.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to
alley maintenance special assessment for current services:
1985 Actual $15,141.97
1986 Estimated $23,600
1986 Actual $11,834.29
1987 Estimated $ 7,000
1987 Actual $ 9,977.18
1988 Estimated $17,000
1988 Actual $ 8,453.93
1989 Estimated $20,000
1989 Actual $17,725.98
1990 Estimated $20,000
• 1990 Actual $17,213.95
1991 Estimated $20,000
• .Council Letter No. 94 ALLEYMTCE
July 26, 1993
Page 2
1991 Actual $21,426.94
1992 Estimated $20,000
1992 Actual $19,752.06
1993 Estimated $20,000
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the attached
resolution ordering City Project No. 893, 1994 Alley Maintenance
project and.special assessment of current services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the proposed assessment was published in the
official city newspaper.
2. Each property owner within the area proposed to be assessed
was mailed a notice as required by State law.
3. It has been the Council policy for twelve years to assess for
alley maintenance.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• The current alley maintenance project will lapse at the end of
the year. A new project should be established by January 1, 1994
so the Council may defer the decision to a future meeting before
the end of the year if desired.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:rb
Attachment
n
U
•
r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1994 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994
CITY PROJECT NO. 893
11
•
. WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 14th
day of June, 1993, fixed a date for a public hearing on the
proposed maintenance of the following alleys:
Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets.
1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th
1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th
1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th
1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th
1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th
1006 Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th
1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th
1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th
1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th
1010 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th
1011 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th
1012 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th
1013 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th
1014 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th
1015 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th
1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th
1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th
1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th
1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th
1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th
1024 Russell -.Queen 66th - 67th
1025 Russell -.Queen 67th - 68th
1026 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th
1027 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th
1028 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th
1029 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th
1030 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th
1031 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th
2001 Penn - O liver 63rd - 64th
2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th
2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th
2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th
2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th
2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th
2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th
2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th
A.
• 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2019
2020
2021
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3018
3020
3021
• 3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
30,40
4001
4002
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4012
Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th
Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th
Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th
Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred
Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred
Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred
Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr
Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th
Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th
Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th
Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71st
Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd
Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd ,
Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th
Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd
Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd
Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th
Harriet -.Grand 67th - 68th
Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th
Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd
Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th
Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th
Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd
Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th
Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd
Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th
Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th
Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th
Nicollet - 1st Avenue 68th - 69th
Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st
Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd
1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd
1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd
Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd
Stevens - 2nd Avenue- 72nd - 73rd
2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th
2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd
2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th
3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th
Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th
Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th
4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th
4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th
13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th
14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd
15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th
Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th
Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th
Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th
Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
22nd - Standish 65th - 66th
e ? s
4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th
WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed
to be assessed for the current maintenance services described in
said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and at least two weeks
advance publication of the required notice was given as required
by law, and
WHEREAS, the.public hearing was held on this 26th day of
July, 1993, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were
given an opportunity to be heard. I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed by
resolution adopted June 14, 1993.
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City
force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 26th day of July, 1993.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 220
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider specially assessing current
maintenance services for City alleys for the period of January 1
through December 31, 1994, City Project No. 893.
Background:
On the City Council scheduled a public hearing for
July 26, 1993 concerning the 1994 alley maintenance project.
In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously
passed by the City Council, it is necessary for the Council to
initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The
maintenance functions to be financed through special assessments
include rough grading, cleaning and sweeping, cold patching and
snow plowing. Because the vast majority of alleys have now been
paved, the primary maintenance function is anticipated to be snow
plowing. Some of the alleys resurfaced in the early 1980's have
also reached the time when concrete joint sealing needs to be
done.
.Community Services Department staff estimate the cost of this
project for the period January 1 through December 31, 1994 to be
• $20,000. The amount of special assessment could vary according
to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The
costs for the repair of an alley will be charged to the property
owners abutting the alley. $7.50 per average 50 foot lot is the
estimate for sweeping and a normal winter of snow plowing. $3.25
per average 50 foot lot is an estimate of the costs to continue a
concrete joint sealing maintenance program on a paved alley as a
part of routine maintenance. Estimates of additional costs on
those alleys not of concrete have been about $23 per average 50
foot lot. Costs have varied depending on the amount of patching
required in a particular alley.
For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to
alley maintenance special assessment for current services:
Year Estimated Actual
1985 $15,141.97
1986 $23,600 $11,834.29
1987 $ 7,000 $ 9,977.18
1988 $17,000 $ 8,453.93
1989 $20,000 $17,725.98
1990 $20,000 $17,213.95
1991 $20,000 $21,426.94
.1992 $20,000 $19,752.06
1993 $20,000
1994 $20,000
Recommended Motion:
Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the attached
resolution ordering City Project No. 893, 1994 alley maintenance
project and special assessment of current services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the proposed assessment was published in the
official City newspaper.
2. Each property owner within the area proposed to be assessed
was mailed a notice as required by State law.
3. It has been the Council policy for twelve years to assess for
alley maintenance.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The current alley maintenance project will lapse at the end of
the year. A new project should be established by January 1, 1994
so the Council may defer the decision to a future meeting before
the end of the year if desired.
n
U
JDP:ds
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
Jam g Prosser
Cit ager
0
//-;L
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF
CURRENT SERVICES PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE
JANUARY 1, 1994 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1994
CITY PROJECT NO. 893
I
4
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted h
the, ,
day of June, 1993, fixed a date for a public hearing on the
proposed maintenance of the following alleys :
Number Surrounding Avenues Surroundin g Streets
.1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th
1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th
1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th
1004 Xerxes -'Washburn 69th - 70th
1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th
1006, Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th
1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th
1008 Washburn- Vincent 69th - 70th
1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th
1010 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th
1011 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th
1012 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th
1013 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th
• 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th
1015 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th
1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th
1020 Sheridan- Russell 66th - 67th
1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th
1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th
1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th
1024 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th
1025 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th
1026 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th
1027 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th
1028 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th
1029 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th
1030 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th
1031 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th
2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th
2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th
2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th
2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th
2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th
2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th
2010
2011 Girard - Fremont (35W)
Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -
64th - 64th
65th
2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th
11-3
0
•
2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th
2014 Fremont ,(35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th
2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred
2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred
2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred
2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr
2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th
2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th
3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th
3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71st
3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd
3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd
3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th
3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd
3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd
3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th
3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th
3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th
3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd
3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th
3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th
3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd
3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th
3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd
3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th
3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th
3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th
3024 Nicollet - lst Avenue 68th - 69th
3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st
3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3028 1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd
3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd
3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th
3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3035 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th
3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th
3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th
3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th
3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th
3040 4th -.5th Avenue 73rd - 74th
4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th "
4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd
4005 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th
4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th
4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th
4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th
4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th
4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th
M WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed
to be assessed for the current maintenance services described in
said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and at least two weeks
advance publication of the required notice was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on this 26th day of
July, 1993, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were
given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed by
resolution adopted June 7, 1993.
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City
force, by contract or by any combination thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 26th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
/D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 219
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on adoption of the assessment roll for removal of
diseased trees from private property for the period January 1,
1992 through December 31, 1992.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday,
July 26, 1993, for the assessment of the cost for removal of
diseased trees from private property during the period of January
1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. City staff has calculated the
proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece
or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment
was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was duly published
and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in
the assessment roll.
The cost of diseased tree removal from private property for this
period totaled $37,994.70. City ordinance provides that special
assessments for current services may be certified to the County
Auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may
provide that the assessment be completely paid in the first year
• or in annual installments. It is the staff recommendation that
such payments be due and payable over a three year period.
The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992 would be certified with the County
Auditor by October 10, 1993. The City has the right to charge
interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the
funds for the initial expense. It is the staff recommendation
that the interest rate be established at eight percent, the
maximum allowed by State law. Payment may be made by the
assessed owner before November 15, 1993 in order to avoid
interest payments. Payments made after that date would include
the interest payment.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions
about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior
to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for
all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
Recommendation:
Following the public hearing, approve the attached resolution
adopting the assessment for removal of diseased trees from
private property for the period January 1, 1992 through December
31, 1992 with such payments due and payable over a three-year
period.
to
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
proposed assessment as required by law.
2. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
Alternate Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may make any changes deemed necessary in the assessment
roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase, "and has
amended such proposed assessment as it deems just."
Respectf 7, ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
40
ID-o.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES.FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1992 TO DECEMBER 31, 1992
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council has met and passes upon all objections to
the proposed assessment for current services related to removal
of diseased trees from the following private property in the City
of Richfield:
Prop erty Address Property Identification Number
7432 Upton Avenue 32-02824-42-0038
7116 Lyndale Avenue 33-02824-11-0020
7123 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0092
6528 Girard Avenue 28-02824-13-0040
6405 Humboldt Avenue 28-02824-13-0021
7200 Chicago Avenue 35-02824-23-0113
400 West 64th Street 27-02824-22-0075
6606 Oliver Avenue 28-02824-32-0055
7128 Stevens Avenue 34-02824-12-0076
6633 Lynwood Boulevard 28-02824-41-0032
6629 Lynwood Boulevard 28-02824-41-0031
7109 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-11-0021
6900 -18th Avenue 26-02824-44-0081
7033 -Fourth Avenue 34-02824-11-0099
• 6511 Knox Avenue 28-02824-24-0109
6904 Upton Avenue 29-02824-43-0143
500 East 67th Street 27-02824-41-0013
7433 Washburn Avenue 32-02824-42-0059
1407 West 68th Street 28-02824-43-0012
7108 Lyndale Avenue 33-02824-11-0019
7039 Oliver Avenue 33-02824-22-0046
6638-11th Avenue 26-02824-31-0022
7600 Clinton Avenue 34-02824-44-0019
6732-16th Avenue 26-02824-41-0042
7141 Oak Grove Boulevard 33-02824-14-0090
6500-22nd Avenue 25-02824-24-0014
6439-13th Avenue 26-02824-13-0125
6612 Oakland Avenue 27-02824-32-0035
7005 Penn Avenue 33-02824-22-0064
6812 Emerson Lane 28-02824-42-0090
7509 Fremont Avenue 33-02824-42-0114
6341 Longfellow Avenue 25-02824-22-0017
7233 Russell Avenue 32-02824-14-0032
6529-19th Avenue 25-02824-23-0035
6525-20th Avenue 25-02824-23-0050
7037 Oakland Avenue 35-02824-22-0042
6229 Garfield Avenue 27-02824-22-0067
6725 Penn Avenue 28-02824-32-0076
6625 Stevens Avenue 27-02824-42-0095
6501-14th Avenue
6700-16th Avenue 26-02824-13-0094
26-02824-41-0037
6520-23rd Avenue 25-02824-24-0117
6916 Thomas Avenue 29-02824-43-0170
/0 -3
7033 Garfield Avenue
6608 Second Avenue
7235 Bloomington Avenue
6629 Knox Avenue
6635 Knox Avenue
7250 Oak Grove Boulevard
2720 West 66th Street
6835 Longfellow Avenue
7312 Wentworth Avenue
7424 Fifth Avenue
7208 Knox Avenue
6600 Second Avenue
6236 Bloomington Avenue
34-02824-22-0014
27-02824-42-0067
35-02824-14-0035
28-02824-31-0034
28-02824-31-0035
33-02824-14-0117
29-02824-13-0030
25-02824-33-0048
34-02824-24-0075
34-02824-41-0038
33-02824-24-0013
27-02824-42-0116
26-02824-12-0049
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of
$37,994.70, is hereby accepted and shall,constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
current services in the amount of the assessment levied against
it.
. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than three
annual installments and shall bear interest at the rate of eight
percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
• 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's
Assessing Division, and he may at any time thereafter, pay to the
City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made
before November 15 or interest will be charged through December
31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the property tax lists of the county and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner
as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of July, 1993.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
41 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 218
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City
Project No. 874, ILN maintenance for the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held
Monday, July 26,. 1993 on the assessment for the cost of current
maintenance services performed in the ILN Redevelopment Area for
the period January 1 through December 31, 1992. City staff has
calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every
assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The
proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk,
notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner
of each parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled
$7,031.70. The 1991 total for this work was $8,555.46.
Estimated 1993 costs for the current maintenance services is
$9,200.
The current maintenance services for this period included, but
• were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following,
including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscape maintenance of common properties, including
mowing, fertilizing, edging;
2. Irrigation maintenance;
3. Trash removal and general maintenance.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with taxes. It is the staff recommendation that such
payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in
installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January
1 through December 31, 1992 would be certified with the County
Auditor by October 10, 1993. The City has the right to charge
interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the
funds initially for the current services. It is the
recommendation of the City staff that the interest rate be
established at eight percent. Payment may be made by the
assessed owner before November 15, 1993, in order to avoid
interest payments. Payments made after that date would include
the interest payment.
Recommended Motion:
Upon close of the public hearing, approve the attached resolution
adopting the assessment on City Project No. 874, ILN maintenance
for the period January 1 through December 31, 1992.
q-i
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just." The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1993 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
Respect ly submitted,
rosser
JameJdager
City, a JDP:ds
• Attachment
RESOLUTION NO.
9,)-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 874
ILN MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1992
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance
of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area,
which is approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street,
the railroad tracks and 77th Street including that property known
as Hennepin County Property Identification No. 34-028-24-33-0073
in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Citv of Richfield. Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of
$7,031.70, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land therein included is hereby -found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1993
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
• 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's
Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the
City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such
assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
9 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
8
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 217
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City
Project No. 873, LHN maintenance for the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held
Monday, July 26, 1993 on the assessment for the cost of current
maintenance services performed in the LHN Redevelopment Area for
the period January l'through December 31, 1992. City staff has
calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every
assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The
proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk,
notice was duly published, and notices were mailed to the owner
of each parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services for this period totaled
$47,005.26. The 1991 total for this work was $43,825.22.
Estimated 1993 costs for the current maintenance services is
$45,050.
• The current maintenance services for this period included, but
were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following,
including labor, equipment and materials:
1. Landscaping, including tree trimming;
2. Sidewalk sweeping in the summer;
3. Snow removal in the winter;
4. Sidewalk deicing;
5. Painting and repair of wood furniture;
6. Trash removal;
7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; and
8. Irrigation maintenance.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with taxes. It is the staff recommendation that such
payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in
installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January
1 through December 31, 1992 would be certified with the County
Auditor by October 10, 1993. The City has the right to charge
interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the
funds initially for the current services. It is the
recommendation,of the City staff that the interest rate be
established at eight percent. Payment may be made by the
assessed owner before November 15, 1993, in order to avoid
is interest payments. Payments made after that date would include
the interest payment.
Recommended Motion:
Upon close of the public hearing, approve the attached resolution
adopting the assessment on City Project No. 873, LHN maintenance
for the period January 1 through December 31, 1992.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just." The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1993 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
Respeea4lly submitted,
Jame 7V. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
Attachment
3 -C?
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 873
LHN MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1-DECEMBER 31, 1992
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance
of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, which is
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of
$47,005.26, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1993
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
• 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's
Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the
City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment
remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the proper tax lists of the County and such
assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as
other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 216
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to adopt the special assessment roll for City
Project No. 872, 1992 alley maintenance for the period January 1,
1992 through December 31, 1992.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held
Monday, July 26, 1993 on the assessment for the cost of current
maintenance services on alleys for the period January l through
December 31, 1992. City staff has calculated the proper amounts
to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of
land specially benefited.
The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk,
notice was duly published and notices were mailed to the owner of
each parcel described in the assessment roll.
The cost of current maintenance services January 1 through
December 31, 1992 totaled $19,752.06 and included labor, material
and equipment related to alley patching, snowplowing and joint
cleaning. Due to the length of the list, the assessment roll is
not included in the Council packet, but a copy of the assessment
roll for alley maintenance January 1 through December 31, 1992
will be available for Council reference and review at the Monday
July 26, 1993 City Council public hearing.
The cost of maintenance services in 1991 totaled $21,426.94. The
estimated cost of maintenance services for 1994 is $20,000.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions
about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior
to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for
all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to
such proposed assessment.
The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current
services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection
along with current taxes. It is recommended that the
certification adopted by the City Council provide that payments
be due and payable within the first year, rather than in
installments. The City has the right to charge interest on the
amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially for
the current services. It is the recommendation of staff that the
interest rate be established at eight percent, the maximum
permitted by law. A property owner may make payment before
November 15, 1993 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments
made after that date, up to December 31, 1993 would include the
interest charges.
?, I
. Recommended Motion:
Following the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution,
adopting the assessment roll of City Project No. 872, alley
maintenance for the period January 1, 1992 through December 31,
1992.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the
assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the
phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems
just." The assessment.roll must be submitted to Hennepin County
by October 10, 1993 so the Council can defer the decision one
meeting if it deems necessary.
lly submitted,
•
Jame n. Prosser
City M nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
,?-62-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 872
ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1992
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance
of the following alleys in the City of Richfield:
Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets
1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th
1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th
1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th - 69th
1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th
1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th
1006 Washburn- Vincent 67th - 68th
1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th
1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th
1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th
1010 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th
1011 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th
1012 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th
1013 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th
1014 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th
1015 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th
1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th
1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th
1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th
1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th
1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th
1024 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th
1025 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th
1026 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th
1027 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th
1028 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th
1029 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th
1030 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th
1031 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th
2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th
2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th
2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th
2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th
2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th
2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th
2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th
2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th
.
2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th
2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th
7-3
2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th
2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred
2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred
2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred
2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr
2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th
2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th
3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th
3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71st
3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd
3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd
3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th
3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd
3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd
3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th
3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th
3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th
3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd
3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th
3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th
3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd
3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th
3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd
3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th
3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th
3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th
3024 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 68th - 69th
3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st
3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd
3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3028 lst - Stevens 71st - 72nd
3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd
3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th
3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd
3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd
3035 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th
3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th
3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th
3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th
3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th
3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th
4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th
4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd
4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd
4005 15th -Bloomington 65th - 66th
4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th
4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th
4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th
4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th
. 4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th
4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th
?I
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the total amount of
$19,752.06 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of
land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied
against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1994
and shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent from the
date of adoption of this assessment resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor,
pay the whole or part of the assessment on such property to the
City's Assessing Division, except that no interest shall be
charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days of the
adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter,
pay to the City's Assessing Division the entire amount of the
assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31
of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be
made before November 15 or interest will be charged through
December 31 of the succeeding year.
. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the property tax lists of the county, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner
as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of July, 1993.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 215
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Public hearing for consideration of an application for a new
residential kennel license for Philip Mortenson, 7315 Thomas
Avenue. (Deferred from June 28, 1993)
Background:
On"May 5, 1993, Philip Mortenson submitted an application for a
residential kennel license. He owns four cats (all are Domestic
Short Hairs). Mr. Mortenson's application had all contiguous
property owner's signatures on it with the exception of the
resident living behind them at 7314 Sheridan Avenue.
In April 1993, an inspection of the property was conducted by a
Community Service Officer. The Community Service Officer did
note that one of the abutting property owners had not signed the
petition. A kennel inspection of the property found no apparent
problems at that time.
Staff has received letters from five of Mr. Mortenson's neighbors
who do not support the issuance of a kennel license. They have
had problems with feces in their yards and do not feel the cats
should be allowed to run free. Staff also received a call from a
• neighbor who is considering moving out of Richfield. She has one
small child and would like to have more. However, because cats
are a safety hazard to pregnant women, she feels no young couple
would want to live in this type of environment. The cats in
question are always running free and she doesn't feel this should
be happening in a residential area.
Mr. Mortenson's kennel license was denied on June 10, 1991.
After the denial of his application he had to reduce the number
of cats he had from ten to two. At this time staff received
three complaints from people who went to his home to see about
adopting a cat. The complaints consisted of the number of cats
in the home, urine smells and feces.
On June 28, 1993, the City Council suggested Mr. Mortenson, along
with his neighbors, meet with West Suburban Mediation Center.
The meeting was on Tuesday, July 20. Only Mr. Mortenson and one
neighbor attended. The mediator and the neighbor discontinued
the mediation because of the unwillingness of the one party to
participate.
Mr. Mortenson was recently refunded $60 for his 1992 residential
kennel license. Due to a clerical error, his application was not
presented to the City Council in 1992.
• Although this application is for four cats, it does not exceed
the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the
Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
At this time, Mr. Mortenson would like to re-apply for his
residential kennel license.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel
license be denied.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping
of more than two cats does not have an adverse effect
on the neighborhood. The City has been contacted by
neighbors who have concerns that staff believes have caused
an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
2. Mediation at this point was unsuccessful.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to approve Mr. Mortenson's
residential kennel license. This would mean that he would be
able to keep his four cats.
2. The Council could ask West Suburban to reschedule mediation
for an evening session to see if more neighbors would attend
and attempt to resolve this dispute. Council action would
be deferred to a future meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to deny the application for a residential kennel
license for Philip Mortenson, 7315 Thomas Avenue, is presented
for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja Prosser
Cit ager
JDP:cak
E
5b
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.214
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the 1993 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 sidewalks sections and curb and gutter in various areas
of the City.
Bids from six contractors were opened on July 2, 1993 with the
following results:
Arcon Construction Company $17,946.00
Landmark Concrete, Inc. 29,423.97
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 32,908.50
Gunderson Bros. 33,614.00
Advanced Concrete, Inc. 41,363.30*
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 42,521.95
*Corrected amount; original $41,371.30 calculation was in error.
• The adopted 1993 street maintenance budget includes $21,502 for
the contractual share of the sidewalk, curb and gutter repair
project. This contract is based upon estimated quantities and
payment made on actual work performed. Construction of 22
pedestrian ramps, funded by Municipal State Aid (MSA) monies, has
been added to this contract. Council authorized expenditure of
MSA funds for this purpose by resolution on February 22, 1993.
The total.amount paid to the contractor for this work in 1992 was
$24,250.58.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract for the
1993 sidewalk, curb and gutter repair project to Arcon
Construction Company in the sum of $17,946.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Arcon Construction Company submitted the lowest responsible
bid.
2. Funding for this project is available through the 1993 Street
Division operating budget; as well as MSA money.
3. This repair work includes steps toward meeting the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted July 26, 1990, which
requires that public entities which employ 50 or more persons
must develop an implementation plan mandating that all
existing crosswalks be provided with curb cuts or ramps by
January 26, 1995.
5 D-I
• 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 a
better price could be obtained from a reputable contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the July 26, 1993 City Council
meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
facilitate timely completion of this project.
ully submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit anaaer
JDP:ds
Attachment
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA t:0a
Bid Opening
July 2, 1993
11:00 A.M.
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repair
Bid No. 93-5
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 sidewalk, curb & gutter repair,
bid no. 93-5, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 16,
1993.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Byron Wallace, Community Development Director
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
i
TOTAL ;
$17,946.00 ;
Arcon Construction
Landmark Concrete
i
Mora ; 5%
Ham Lake ; 5%
$29,423.97 ;
Progressive Contractors Osseo ; 5% ; $32,908.50 ;
Thomas & Sons Rogers ; 5% ; $42,521.95 ;
Gunderson Brothers Mpls. ; 5% ; $33,614.00 ;
Advanced Concrete Burnsville; 5% ; $41,363.30 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the July 26, 1993 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
5c.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for joint cleaning and resealing.
Background:
Cleaning debris from joints in concrete streets and alleys
removes inflexible material that can cause the joint to erupt.
during times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are
resealed with material that expands and contracts with the
pavement surface. This also will reduce water intrusion into the
pavement base, which weakens the street surface.
76th Street between 11th and 12th Avenues and nine alleys are
scheduled for work.
Bids were opened July 2, 1993 from four contractors for the 1993
joint cleaning and resealing project with the following results:
Arcon Construction Co., Inc.. $49,397.00
Forby Contracting 49,756.50
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 58,392.75
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 88,056.40*
0 *Corrected amount; original $87,976.40 calculation was in error.
The street maintenance budget contains $45,335 for concrete joint
cleaning and resealing. In addition, $10,000 is the estimate for
alley joint cleaning and resealing in 1993.
The contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will
be made on actual work performed. Council would be authorizing
contracts at the stated amounts, with the stipulation that the
contract documents allow variances.
In 1990, $54,389.43 was spent on this type of work. In 1991,
$51,562.35 was spent; and in 1992, $43,342.85 was spent.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the
1993 joint cleaning and resealing project to Arcon Construction
Company, Inc. in the sum of $49,397.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from Arcon Construction Company, Inc. is the lowest
responsible bid.
2. Arcon Construction Company, Inc. is a well-known and
reputable company that has previously worked for the City.
0 3. The work is included in the 1993 budget.
'5C-1
Alternative Recommendation:
• The City'Council may choose to reject all the bids and direct
staff to obtain new quotations. However, the bids obtained are
reasonable, and staff does not believe a better price from a
reputable contractor could be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay award of this contract. However, the
contract documents allow the bidders to withdraw their bids after
60 days of the bid opening and an extended delay could result in
the loss of construction season. Therefore, staff is asking for
approval at the July 26, 1993 Council meeting.
ly submitted,
Jam s Prosser
Cit M naaer
JDP:ds
Attachment
0
LI
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 5 a
Bid Opening
July 2, 1993
11:00 A.M.
Concrete Joint Cleaning & Repair
Bid No. 93-11
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 concrete joint cleaning & repair,
bid no. 93-11, as advertised in the official newspaper on June
16, 1993.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Byron Wallace, Community Development Director
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID
SECURITY
i i
Arcon Construction Mora ;
1
I 1
Progressive Contractors Osseo ;
I I
Thomas & Sons Rogers
5%
1
TOTAL
1
1
1
1.
' $49,397.00
1
I
1
5% ; $58,392.75
1
5% ; $88,056.40
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
I I I 1
Forby Construction Hinckley ; 5% ; $49,756.50
I I 1 1
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the July 26, 1993 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 212
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Pay plan adjustments to achieve comparable worth compliance.
Background:
The Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act requires all local
governments to achieve pay equity through comparable worth. The
Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) which
administers the Act gave the City of Richfield a noncompliance
ruling on April 2, 1993. DOER has given the City an opportunity
to make adjustments and submit a new report by August 31, 1993.
Failure to comply by August 31 will result in penalties being
assessed back to December 31, 1991.
Compliance can be achieved with a number of minor adjustments to
the City's compensation system. The most significant reasons for
the City's noncompliance ruling concern technical reporting
format issues, especially involving seasonal and intermittent
employment. Beyond making reporting format changes, a pay
structure change in the City's General Services Pay Plan will be
necessary. However, the change will directly benefit a number of
female dominated clerical positions, which is what the Comparable
Worth Act intended to accomplish.
• Compliance may be achieved by making the following adjustments:
? Create a Fifth Step in General Services Grade 1
This change would allow employees who are classified in this
female dominated pay grade to progress to a fifth pay step
based upon satisfactory performance. Currently, those
employees may progress to a fourth pay step and be eligible
for additional merit increases only upon above satisfactory
or outstanding performance ratings. The merit range at the
top of Grade 1 would not be increased since the fifth step
would replace a portion of the merit range. The fundamental
difference achieved by this change is that all employees of
Grade 1 are assured 6f attaining step 5 as long as
performance is satisfactory. Unfortunately, the method used
by DOER to measure compliance does not-give credit for merit
ranges such as are used in the City's General Services Pay
Plan because the City cannot guarantee that all employees
could attain the top of merit pay.
The present and future cost of this adjustment is minimal
since the top end of the entire pay grade has not been
increased. However, any increase in personnel cost would be
targeted toward a group of female employees at the entry
level of the pay plan, which is desirable under the
Comparable Worth Act.
'56--1
• e Streamline Position Classifications
The Personnel Division has carefully reviewed all of the
position classifications and titles included in the City's
.various pay plans. In some instances it was found that a
number of related positions with the same point value and
within the same pay grade could be combined into one job
classification title. These changes reflect a more accurate
description of the City's classification system, eliminate
unneeded job classification titles and more closely resemble
the classification structures used by many other metropolitan
communities. Using many different job titles for similar
positions can make it much more difficult for cities to
conform to the Act under the current system of compliance
analysis used by DOER.
? Seasonal and Intermittent Reporting
For the current reporting period, many seasonal and
intermittent job classifications are not required to be
reported. This is due to the positions not working enough
hours or days to come under the provisions of the Act. The
City also modified the methodology used to credit the value
of seasonal and intermittent positions in relation to full
time positions. This change recognizes the brief or limited
employment period for most of these employees. For example,
many seasonal positions are for a period of less than three
months.
• The changes described above are included in the data that will be
submitted in the City's Pay Equity Implementation Report which
must be filed by August 31, 1993. Adopting and submitting a City
Council approved pay equity implementation report before the
August 31 deadline allows DOER time to run a preliminary review
and notify the City of any changes which still need to be made
prior'to the deadline. However, it is not anticipated that
additional adjustments will be necessary by August 31.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolution amending the 1993 General Services Pay Plan
and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to submit the pay equity
implementation report.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The present and future costs to the General Services Pay Plan
for the Grade 1, step are minimal, and directly benefit a
group of employees the Act intended to help.
2. The streamlining of the City's pay classifications will
decrease the number of single incumbent positions and reflect
a more consolidated version of the City's classification
structure.
0 3. Early adoption and submittal of the report allows time for
preliminary renewal and revision, if needed.
4. The modifications included here will place the City into
compliance and will avoid a potential penalty of up to
$159,000.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City may choose to not adopt some or any adjustments.
However, the City will remain in noncompliance, be assessed
penalties back to December 31, 1991, and still be required to
come into compliance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow DOER time to conduct a preliminary review and
the City time to make any further adjustments, it is recommended
that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, pay plan and
implementation report on the July 26, 1993 City Council meeting.
Respectf y submitted,
rosser
Jamefaager
City JDP:cak
41
5.8-3
RESOLUTION NO. 7947
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1993 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the
adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time,
and
. WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1993 pay plan for
position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager
is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of
positions in each pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby
does establish for the year 1993 the following pay plan, which is to be
effective August 1, 1993, and subject to all applicable provisions of the
City Code
GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
Step 1 2 3 4 5 MERIT RANGE
Range
GS1 YR 18,366.40 19,260.80 20,259.20 21,278.40 22,776.00 23,462.40
MO 1,530.53 1,605.07 1,688.27 1,773.20 1,897.00 1,955.20
BW 706.40 740.80 779.20 818.40 876.00 902.40
HR 8.83 9.26 9.74 10.23 10.95 11.28
• GS2 YR 20,259.20 21,278.40 22,318.40 23,462.40 25,875.20
MO 1,688.27 1,773.20 1,859.87 1,955.20 2,156.27
BW 779.20 818.40 858.40 902.40 995.20
HR 9.74 10.23 10.73 11.28 12.44
GS3 YR 22,318.40 23,462.40 24,668.80 25,875.20 28,579.20
MO 1,859.87 1,955.20 2,055.73 2,156.27 2,381.60
BW 858.40 902.40 948.80 995.20 1,099.20
HR 10.73 11.28 11.86 12.44 13.74
GS4 YR 24,668.80 25,875.20 27,206.40 28,579.20 31,553.60
MO 2,055.73 2,156.27 2,267.20 2,381.60 2,629.47
BW 948.80 995.20 1,046.40 1,099.20 1,213.60
HR 11.86 12.44 13.08 13.74 15.17
GS4E YR 26,499.20 27,830.40 29,244.80 30,721.60 33,904.00
MO 2,208.27 2,319.20 2,437.07 2,560.13 2,825.33
BW 1,019.20 1,070.40 1,124.80 1,181.60 1,304.00
HR 12.74 13.38 14.06 14.77 16.30
GS5 YR 27,206.40 28,579.20 29,993.60 31,553.60 34,798.40
MO 2,267.20 2,381.60 2,499.47 2,629.47 2,899.87
BW 1,046.40 1,099.20 1,153.60 1,213.60 1,338.40
HR 13.08 13.74 14.42 15.17 16.73
GS5E YR 29,244.80 30,721.60 32,240.00 33,904.00 37,398.40
MO 2,437.07 2,560.13 2,686.67 2,825.33 3,116.53
BW 1,124.80 1,181.60 1,240.00 1,304.00 1,438.40
HR 14.06 14.77 15.50 16.30 17.98
56.L/
GS6 YR 29,993.60 31,553.60 33,155.20 34,798.40 40,331.20
MO 2,499.47 2,629.47 2,762.93 2,899.87 3,360.93
BW 1,153.60 1,213.60 1,275.20 1,338.40 1,551.20
HR 14.42 15.17 15.94 16.73 19.39
GS6E YR 32,240.00 33,904.00 35,630.40 37,398.40 43,368.00
MO 2,686.67 2,825.33 2,969.20 3,116.53 3,614.00
BW 1,240.00 1,304.00 1,370.40 1,438.40 1,668.00
HR 15.50 16.30 17.13 . 17.98 20.85
Normal Progression Throuah General Services Compensation Plan
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee
may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated
Satisfactory or higher.
d. Step 4 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee
may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated
Satisfactory or higher.
e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above
Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory and Needs Improvement
performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary
. increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor
and may range between 2% - 5%.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at least at an
Above Satisfactory level will receive a percentage salary adjustment
equal to the percentage of the overall range adjustment. An employee
within the Merit Range who is performing at a Satisfactory level will
receive a percentage salary increase equal to one-half (h) of the
overall percentage adjustment.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Needs
Improvement level will not receive a salary adjustment, provided
however, that such employee's salary would not remain at an amount
less than the new rate for.Step 4 of such employee's current salary
grade.
f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated
Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their
performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
26th day of July, 1993.
0TTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch
Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0 GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Data Entry.Operator Non-Exempt
Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt
Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt
2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt
Community Service Officer Non-Exempt
Custodian Non-Exempt
Finance Clerk Non-Exempt
Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt
Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Liquor Clerk/Cashier Non-Exempt
Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt
Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt
Dispatcher Non-Exempt
Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt
Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt
Secretary Non-Exempt
•
4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt
Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
Central Services Technician Non-Exempt
Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt
Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Social Services Supervisor Non-Exempt
4E Administrative Aide Exempt
Associate Planner Exempt
Media Assistant Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Project Assistant Exempt
Zoning Administrator Exempt
5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector Non-Exempt
5E Administrative Assistant Exempt
Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt
Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt
Community Center Programmer Exempt
Community Development Assistant Exempt
Leased Housing Specialist Exempt
Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
. Planning and Research Specialist Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Redevelopment Specialist Exempt
Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt
Youth Resource Specialist Exempt
6 Electrical/Building Inspector Non-Exempt
Programmer/Analyst Non-Exempt
Senior Housing Inspector Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
Housing Supervisor Exempt
Administrative Assistant Exempt
(Rev. 7/93)
40
.sr?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 211
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Payment of arbitrage rebate for General Obligation Redevelopment
Bonds of 1988 in the amount of $71,500.
Background:
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 extended arbitrage rebate rules to all
tax-exempt bonds. The basic requirement is that earnings on any
investment of gross bond proceeds which are in excess of what
could have been earned if they were invested at that rate carried
by the bonds, must be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The
arbitrage rebate must be remitted to the U.S. Treasury within 60
days of the five-year anniversary date from when the bonds were
issued. The rebate calculation must be performed every five
years until the bonds are retired.
The $1,900,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1988 are
subject to the arbitrage rebate requirements. The bonds were
issued to provide funds for the permanent financing of public
redevelopment costs in the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) tax
increment district. When the bonds were issued in May 1988, the
bonds were not subject to the arbitrage regulations under the
small issuer exemption (less than $5,000,000 issued in one year.)
In October 1988, the City issued $7,830,000 of crossover
refunding bonds and the small issuer exemption was no longer
applicable.
Deloitte & Touche performed the rebate calculation based on the
daily cash flow of the bond proceeds and the interest earned
thereon. The arbitrage rebate calculated was $71,500. Due to
the extensive detail of the calculation and the due date of
July 15, 1993, the rebate amount was not available until the week
of the due date, and thus was not presented to the City Council
until this time.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the payment of the arbitrage rebate for the General
Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1988 in the amount of $71,500.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The arbitrage rebate regulations require payment of the
rebate within 60 days of the five-year anniversary date of
the bond issuance. Payment subsequent to July 15, 1993
would have included penalties.
2. Deloitte & Touche calculated the rebate to be $71,500.
3. City staff reviewed the supporting calculations and
agrees with the rebate amount.
5M-1
4. The extensive detail required to make this calculation which
must be processed by both the Finance Division and the
accounting firm did not allow adequate time to present a
specific rebate payment amount at the July 12, 1993
Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
None. The City must make the arbitrage rebate payment according
to Federal law.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
An interim check was issued to cover the City's rebate obligation
on July 14, 1993. The payment should now be considered for City
Council approval at the next City Council meeting which is
July 26, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:cak
A
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 210
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Presentation of 1993 Innovative City Award from the Association of.
Metropolitan Municipalities.
Background:
The City of Richfield has been recognized by the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities for program innovation. The 1993
Innovative City Award recognizes the Richfield Rediscovered
programs as a model for first ring suburbs in dealing with the
housing issues outlined by the Metropolitan Council in their
report, "Trouble at the Core: The Twin Cities Under Stress." The
package of programs recognized includes:
? The Richfield Rediscovered New Home Program;
? The Home Remodeling Fair;
? The Fix-Up Street;
? The Community Development Tours;
? Continuing Education Program;
? Residential Design Excellence Grant Competition; and
? The Design Studio.
Several of the programs were co-sponsored by Visions 2004, the
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board and the Chamber of Commerce in
addition to the City and the HRA. Recognition should also be given
the Richfield School District, architects, building trades
representatives and the financial institutions that participated.
In addition many residents volunteered, participated and benefited
from the programs.
Recommended Motion:
Formally accept the award and recognize the sponsoring
organizations and individuals.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. These housing program initiatives set a standard for successful
responses to community challenges with innovation and
creativity.
2. The programs demonstrate an efficient public/private
partnership.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer a formal recognition to another time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The plaque will be presented to the City Council at the July 26,
1993 Council meeting.
y submitted,
66 Resp TDProsser
JameCity r
JDP:ds
C91
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-209
Agenda July 26, 1993
Issue Statement:
Accept donation from the Fred Babcock VFW Post 5555 in the amount
of $7,631.08 for the purchase, licenses and fees, painting and
graphic application of a showmobile.
Background:
The University of Minnesota held a closed bid sale of equipment
including a showmobile recently. The City submitted a successful
bid of $4,672.50 for the purchase of the vehicle. Licenses and
transfer fees totaled $315.71. The Central Garage received
quotes for painting and graphic applications in the amount of
$2,117.87 and $525.00 respectively. The Fred Babcock VFW Post
5555 has agreed to donate $7,631.08 to cover the costs of
purchase, licenses and fees, and restoration. The showmobile has
been used by the VFW for their Fourth of July street dance. It
has also been rented to the Minneapolis Downtown Council, and
will be used for concerts in the parks, the Fourth of July
Celebration, and Cattail Days. Staff will be putting together a
rental plan for outside groups to rent the showmobile.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the donation of $7,631.08 from the Fred Babcock VFW Post
5555 for the purchase, licenses and transfer fees, painting and
graphics of the University of Minnesota showmobile.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City has purchased the vehicle and is going to have it
painted and graphics applied. Accepting the donation would cover
all costs associated with the acquisition.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not accept the donation and cover the costs from another
source.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Members of the Fred Babcock VFW Post 5555 will be on hand to
present the donation at the meeting tonight, July 26, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Ci
JDP:ds
. Prosser
W