11-23-92 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1992
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE
SESSION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1992 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF NOVEMBER 9, 1992
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 5, 1992
CLIFF PETERSON DAY IN RICHFIELD
3. PRESENTATION OF SILVER SERVICE AWARD TO MS. BETH HERMAN,
STAFFING AND COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR AT RICHFIELD BANK
AND TRUST CO.; AND HONORABLE MENTION AWARD TO MR. JAMES
MILLER, OWNER OF TWIN CITY TIRE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 258
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 APPROVAL.
5A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST
COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 7646 LYNDALE AVENUE
AND CERTAIN S00 LINE RAILROAD PROPERTY; 77TH STREET PROJECT
C.L. 259
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR RENEWAL OF WINE LICENSES C.L. 260
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES C.L. 261
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR RENEWAL OF PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS LICENSES
C.L. 262
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE OF $123,848 FOR
INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES UNDERGROUND FOR 77TH STREET
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT C.L. 263
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF ARBITRAGE REBATE FOR
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 IN AMOUNT OF
$5,200 C.L. 264
G. FIRST AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR OVERLAY PROJECT OF 64TH-67TH
LYNDALE AND 76TH STREET BETWEEN I-35W BRIDGE; MIDWEST
ASPHALT CORP.; $164,712.44
H. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR SITE CONSTRUCTION AT JEFFERSON PARK;
VEIT & COMPANY, INC.; $27,129.81
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSIDERATION OF OFF-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGN
PERMIT AT 100 WEST 78TH STREET FOR MOTEL 6 (DEFERRED FROM
OCTOBER 26)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 265
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR
PURPOSE OF PROTECTING PLANNING PROCESS AND HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING
DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDHAND GOODS STORES, PAWN SHOPS AND
SIMILAR USES WITHIN CITY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 266
RESOLUTION
8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF 6636
SHERIDAN AVENUE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE PURPOSES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 267
0
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION. OF 6634
FOURTH AVENUE TO ALLOW HRA TO PROCEED WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION
VO-TECH PROJECT; AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING
SALE OF 6634 FOURTH AVENUE'TO HRA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 268
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
10. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF AUDITING FIRM FOR CITY AND HRA
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING WITH
1992 FINANCIALS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 269
AIRPORT BUSINESS
11. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
12. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL CHOICE
13. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
14. 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.
•
ID
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.269
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Selection of auditing firm for City and HRA financial statements
for a five year period commencing with the 1992 financials.
Background:
For the past seven years, the City of Richfield has used the
auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte, Haskins & Sells) to
perform the annual City audit and the HRA audit. The selection
of that firm was the result of a process which was performed in
1985 and resulted in a five year contract. In addition, the
Deloitte firm was also used for two single year contracts at the
conclusion of the five year agreement.
Selection Process
It has been the practice of the City to periodically seek
proposals from a number of auditing firms to ensure that the City
retains quality auditing services at a competitive price. At
Council direction, City staff initiated an auditor proposal
process during the fall of 1992 to select an auditor for the next
five year period.
On September 11, 1992, requests for proposal were sent to 13
• auditing firms that either expressed an interest or are known for
their municipal practice. A preproposal conference was held on
September 30 with a final deadline for submission of proposals
set for October 16, 1992.
Proposals were received from 10 firms including the City's
current auditor. The proposals were reviewed separately by the
Administrative Services Director and the Finance Manager, based
upon an evaluation instrument recommended by the GFOA. This
review concentrated on bid price as well as past experience
auditing municipal accounts, especially those which have received
the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting.
Based on this review, four firms were invited to participate in
an interview process. Each of the firms submitted a similar time
schedule for completion of the audit and presentation to the City
Council in June or early July. This time frame allows the City
to receive a "discounted" price since the schedule does not
conflict with the prime audit months for tax and private firms.
An interview panel consisting of Mayor Kirsch, Council Member
Sandahl, the City Manager, Administrative Services Director and
Finance Manager conducted interviews on Monday, November 9, 1992.
The four firms interviewed were: Peat Marwick; Eide Helmeke &
Co.; Tautges, Redpath & Co.; and Deloitte & Touche.
Selection Analysis
Based on the results of the selection process, it was the
consensus of the panel that the firm of Deloitte & Touche be
selected as the City's Auditor for the next five year period.
It) ---
issue presented by the Deloitte firm during the course of the
• interview was the specific audit.partner assigned to the
Richfield audit. In accordance with standard Deloitte & Touche
policy, Cliff Hoffman would be reassigned from Richfield. Mr.
Hoffman has served on the Richfield audit in the past and would
be replaced by another partner, Jeffrey Radunz. This would
ensure that the account would receive a new perspective, similar
to rotating audit firms.
However, it is most important to note that the selection of an
auditing firm is exclusively within the purview of the City
Council. The function of any auditor is to audit work performed
by staff and report directly to the City Council with the
results. The role of the staff in this selection process is to
assist the City Council in identifying the qualifications,
abilities and cost of selecting any audit firm.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council appoint the firm of
Deloitte & Touche as the City's Auditor for the financial
reporting of the fiscal years 1992-96, and authorize the City
Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement for such services.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Based on a comprehensive selection process, it was the
consensus recommendation that the firm of Deloitte & Touche
40 be appointed as the City's Auditor for the years 1992-96.
2. The price submitted by Deloitte & Touche for the audit of the
City's 1992 financial report is the same as the price for the
previous year and price increases for the ensuing four years
are increased by 3.5%.
3. The Deloitte & Touche firm audits more municipalities in the
Twin Cities' area and audits more municipalities that
consistently receive the GFOA Certificate than any other
audit firm in the area.
4. Deloitte & Touche has provided the City of Richfield with
quality auditing services and technical expertise in a
variety of specialty areas over the past several years.
5. The agreement with the auditing firm will provide that the
City may cancel the services of the auditor in any audit year
with appropriate notice.
Alternative Recommendation:
If the City Council is not comfortable with selecting the same
auditing firm that has audited the City for the past several
years, even with the rotation of audit staff, another selection.
could be made. In that event, the selection panel would
recommend the selection of Tautges, Redpath & Co. Ltd. as the
City's Auditor.
lb-a
The Tautges firm would also be well qualified to perform the City
audit, although the panel felt that this firm did not have the
same breadth of experience as Deloitte and the cost would be
$2,038 or 8.2% higher than Deloitte & Touche.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It would be desirable to select an audit firm at the November 23,
1992 City Council meeting to ensure adequate time for the
preaudit activities to begin in order to complete the audit on a
normal time schedule.
Resp?tlf*lly submitted,
Ja s R. Prosser
Cit naaer
JDP:ds
1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 268
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Authorization to acquire 6634 Fourth Avenue to allow the HRA to
proceed with a new construction Vo-Tech project, and first reading of
an ordinance authorizing sale of the property to the HRA.
Background:
The HRA has utilized the Voluntary Acquisition Program to acquire
substandard residential properties for redevelopment since 1980. The
Vo-Tech has developed these sites with new housing units for moderate
income families. HUD rules require that the City purchase the
property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to re-sell at the
appropriate time. The City would acquire the property using the
remainder of federal CDBG YR XVII funds and a portion of YR XVIII
funds. Funds are reserved in the HRA's New Home budget for this
acquisition. City revenues would.not be used for this purchase. A
similar acquisition process was followed by the City Council in March
1992. The Council authorization and property transfer to the HRA
resulted in the project now underway at 6501 15th Avenue.
The Fourth Avenue structure is substandard as to size, room
arrangement and physical condition. The owner, through participation
in the Voluntary Acquisition Program, has stated an interest in
selling the property to the HRA. An independent appraiser valued the
• property at $48,000.
$48,000. The HRA, at
at this price pending
City would enter into
the property with CDB1
to the HRA for $1.00.
Staff has negotiated a purchase price of
their November meeting, authorized acquisition
City Council approval. Upon authorization, the
a purchase agreement with the owner to acquire
3 funds. The City would then sell the property
It is anticipated that the City could acquire the property as soon as
December 1992. Sale of the property to the HRA could occur February
22, 1993 if the second reading of the Transitory Ordinance is
approved at the January 11, 1993 meeting. The seller is currently on
a waiting list for senior housing. Staff wishes to be flexible on
the closing date to allow the seller time to arrange a new residence.
Acquisition should occur no later than April 1, 1993.
The HRA would be responsible for any holding or maintenance costs
incurred at the property after acquisition by the City. Site
clearance and construction would not begin on the site until the
property is transferred to the HRA.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the City Manager
and Mayor to:
A. Enter into a purchase agreement and take other actions
necessary to acquire the property at 6634 Fourth Avenue from
the owner, Edna Bjorstrom, for $48,000.
B. Enter into a sale agreement with the HRA and take other
actions necessary to transfer the property to the HRA for
$1.00.
2. Give first reading to the attached transitory ordinance. Schedule
a public hearing and a second reading of the transitory ordinance
to accomplish the sale to the HRA for January 11, 1993.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has identified this property for a new home project and
authorized staff to acquire the property.
2. The property owner is interested in selling the property through
the Voluntary Acquisition Program.
3. The property is substandard and qualifies for acquisition in
accordance with the Voluntary Acquisition Program Guidelines.
4. Funds have been budgeted for acquisition, clearance, and
maintenance from federal YR XVII and XVIII CDBG. The funds must
be utilized for this purpose and to provide a new home for a
moderate income, first time buying family.
5. Staff is finalizing the preliminary work which would commit this
site to a Vo-Tech construction project in 1993.
6. A finding has been made by the Planning Commission that
• acquisition and disposition of the property is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. HUD rules require a process in which the City acquires the
property and transfers it to the HRA..
8. The HRA would like to finalize development contracts with Vo-Tech
to initiate the project during spring 1993.
9. City owned property requires the adoption of a transitory
ordinance to effectuate a sale.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City can choose not to acquire the property. However, the HRA
would not be able to proceed with a Vo-Tech project in a timely
manner. No better property acquisition site has been identified for
the HRA first time buyer project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The sale from the City to the HRA will require a public hearing and
second reading of a transitory ordinance scheduled for January 11,
1993.
Res lly submitted,
i Ja a Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
9-a
0 RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CALLING FOR ACQUISITION AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN LAND
WHEREAS, the City has considered the purchase of 6634 Fourth
Avenue with federal CDBG funds on behalf of the Richfield HRA for
$48,000. The property is further described as:
Address: 6634 Fourth Avenue South
PID #: 27-028-24-41-0052
Legal Description:
Lot 9, Block 3
"McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park",
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City")
proposes to sell the real property to the HRA for $1.00 in
furtherance of HRA housing programs.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the
City is authorized to sell its Property following a public
hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance for which
notice was published not less than ten days before such hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those
actions necessary to purchase 6634 Fourth Avenue for $48,000.
2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of
the ordinance regarding the sale of the land to the HRA for
$1.00 on Monday, January 11, 1993.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing
in the official newspaper of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd
day of November, 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
q,,,3
• 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 (6634 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH)
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:
Lot 9, Block 3
"McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park"
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having a street
address of 6634 Fourth Avenue South
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 day of 1992 by the Richfield City
Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 267
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Authorization to acquire 6636 Sheridan Avenue for redevelopment
and continued single family residence purposes.
Background:
A representative for Richard Cash, 6636 Sheridan, has proposed
the voluntary sale of his property to the City. Staff has
evaluated the property for either new construction or
rehabilitation. The redevelopment options are summarized further
on the attached.
Although, both options have merit, the improvement to the
neighborhood is greater if the existing house structure is
demolished and a new home built. A program approach similar to
Richfield Rediscovered is envisioned where a market rate sale to
a builder/buyer team could be initiated after City purchase. A
new two, three or four bedroom home that complements the site and
neighborhood could be provided. A purchase by the City should
occur as soon as possible and, in.any case, prior to the end of
February 1993. The Planning Commission must consider whether
acquisition and disposition by the City is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. This finding will be considered on November,
24, 1992.
. Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which accomplishes the following:
1. Authorizes staff to negotiate and purchase the property for
approximately $65,000 and initiate a new construction
redevelopment project at the site.
2. Authorizes the City Manager and Mayor to execute a purchase
agreement and other documents as necessary to effectuate the
purchase. Sale to a builder would be considered by the City
Council at an appropriate future time.
Basis of Recommendation :
1. The property has been voluntarily offered for sale.
2. A purchase price of approximately $65,000 is being negotiated
and should be finalized in the next 10 days. (The 1992
estimated market value for tax purposes is $71,300.)
3. An opportunity to purchase and greatly improve the
residential quality of use of the property has been
presented. This property was originally purchased by Mr.
Cash in 1975 as a "handyman special". Rehabilitation
initiatives of the owner, unsightly storage of materials,
general property maintenance, and health and safety issues
have been continuing concerns of the neighborhood and City.
The need for continuous monitoring and actions in a court of
law have become the rule rather than the exception.
t -1
4. The property is close to foreclosure which is scheduled for
February 1993. By allowing the foreclosure to proceed,
creditors will likely not be adequately reimbursed. The
increasingly deteriorating conditions are unlikely to be
resolved by Mr. Cash or creditors given this financial
circumstance. The future investment is likely to be
insufficient to elevate the quality of improvements to match
those in the neighborhood.
5. Delaying the purchase prolongs the existing conditions.
6. Redevelopment options exist. The purchase/new construction
option provides the opportunity for value added improvements
to a neighborhood of $80,000 to $90,000 homes. A property
valued at $110,000 or more is envisioned. The rehabilitation
option resolves deteriorating conditions. However,
rehabilitation, unless even more significant than proposed,
does not overcome the economic obsolescence that has
occurred. There may be hidden costs due to unforeseen
circumstances during rehabilitation. Approximately $41,960
in rehabilitation only yields a property valued at $75,000 to
$80,000.
0
7. New construction is more cost effective over time than
rehabilitation because of the substantially higher real
estate taxes generated. In addition, the rehabilitation
could be substantially higher in cost than estimated due to
hidden damage.
8. A funding source for acquisition and demolition is available.
Staff resources are available to redevelop the site, identify
a builder/buyer team, enter into a development agreement, and
develop a new home. r
9. City Council authorization is contingent on a finding by the
Planning Commission that acquisition and disposition for
residential purposes is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan. That finding will be considered November 24, 1992.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not authorize acquisition. Alternately, authorize acquisition
with a different project scope.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Authorization provides a
an
end of February 1993. A
summer 1993.
opportunity to acquire/demolish by the
new home could be provided as soon as
ly submitted,
• Jam s Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
?-a
RESOLUTION NO.
• THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, desires to
purchase certain real property being described as:
6636 Sheridan Avenue South; Lot 12, Block 4,
"Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills" Hennepin County
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to
acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City has authorized a program which buys
residential property for the development of new homes; and
WHEREAS, the property has been voluntarily offered for sale
for $64,814; and
WHEREAS, the City would acquire the property to correct
blighting housing and public nuisance conditions and provide
housing in decent and safe condition; and
WHEREAS, a funding source has been identified.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Staff is authorized to purchase 6636 Sheridan Avenue for
$64,814.
2. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute a
purchase agreement and other documents as necessary to
effectuate the purchase.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
n
U
a-3
. New Construction Proposal
6636 Sheridan
Summary of Improvements
The existing single family home would be removed. A
builder/buyer team would be identified to develop a new single
family home with: 2, 3, or 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, maintenance
free exterior, a house design complimentary to the neighborhood,
and a finished landscape.
Activity
•
Demolition of structure (garage
would be retained and renovated
by builder)
Informal bidding, identification
of demolition contractor, identification
of builder, monitoring of demolition,
construction, and builder sale to buyer.
Holding costs prior to sale to builder
Closing and marketing expenses with builder
Cost
$5,000
in-kind
(housing staff)
$ 200
500
Total Estimated New Construction Cost: $5,700
Outcome: A new single family property valued at or above
$110,000. New construction, after a builder/buyer is identified
requires 3 to 4 months and provides a home ready to occupy after
May, 1993. Homestead property taxes would approximate $1,800
annually after sale to an owner occupant. Approximately $850 is
presently received annually.
Summary of Transaction: Purchase by City: $64,814
Project Cost: $ 5,700
Total Cost: $70,514
Proceeds of Sale (lot and garage): $32,500
Estimated Net Cost:
$38,014
Additional Comments: The Richfield Rediscovered program is
presently underway and this site could be added to existing work
assignments with little difficulty. Project cost estimates have
minimal unknowns. Builder/buyer interest in sites such as 6636
Sheridan has been high.
n
U
•
Rehabilitation Proposal
6636 Sheridan
Summary of Improvements
Inspections have noted a strong and penetrating pet odor and
deteriorating conditions. Rehabilitation has two components.
One resolves building, health and safety concerns. A second
component makes repairs to systems and conditions. These repairs
and improvements would provide a home that more closely matches
conditions in the neighborhood. The objective is to provide a
house product that will not have recurring problems one to five
years into the future.
Activity
Repair blight conditions (electric,
plumbing, heating, walls, doors, windows,
floors, bathroom, insulation, grade,
siding, trim)
Make repairs and improvements which
return home to quality of neighborhood
and ready home for sale. (Complete
partially finished construction, remodel
kitchen, remodel bath, install maintenance
free siding and trim, roof repair, new
electric fixtures, replace windows and
doors as necessary, install landscape
materials).
Detailed inspection, preparation of scope
of work, formal competitive bidding,
awarding of bid, monitoring of construction
to completion, marketing and sale of
home upon completion.
Holding costs during rehabilitation.
Closing and marketing expenses.
Total Estimated Rehabilitation Cost (plus?)
Cost
$18,931
$20,229
in-kind
(housing staff)
$ 1,300
$ 1,500
$41,960
Outcome: A 2 bedroom single family home valued between $75,000
and $80,000. Rehabilitation after competitive bidding, would
require 3 to 4 months. A home might be ready to market after
May, 1993. Homestead property taxes would approximate $1,000
annually after sale to an owner occupant. Approximately $850 is
presently received annually.
(continued, next page)
n
?-5
Summary of Transaction: Purchase by City: $64,814
Project Cost: $41,960
Total Cost (plus?) $106,774
Proceeds of Sale: $77,500
Estimated Net Cost: $29,274
Additional Comments: Estimates are considered the minimum scope
of work. The basis for these estimates is ongoing similar
rehabilitation work performed on homes by the Richfield HRA. The
in-kind staff commitment is more time intensive than new
construction. Staff is assuming a new project of considerable
scope which was not previously planned. The most significant
cost unknowns that can't be entirely planned for are:
1. The extent to which flooring, subflooring, walls and
cabinetry must be removed and replaced to rid the home of
penetrating odors and stains of pets.
2. The extent to which two existing layers of siding and
underlayment must be removed to repair visible exterior
moisture problems and rot.
E
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 266
Agenda November 23, 1992
• Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of an interim ordinance for the
purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety
and welfare of City residents and regulating and restricting the
development of secondhand goods stores, pawn shops and similar
uses within the City.
Background:
The City Council has previously considered adoption of a
resolution authorizing a study and imposing a temporary
moratorium on licensing of secondhand goods stores, pawn shops
and similar uses within the City in order to provide an adequate
opportunity for the study to be completed. It is appropriate for
the Council to conduct a public hearing and consider by ordinance
imposing a moratorium for a period of one year. The moratorium
could be removed prior to that time by City Council action. The
Council has received a request to exclude auction houses from
this moratorium. However, the conclusion of our City Attorney is
that such an exclusion would possibly impair the planning
process. (See attached letter.) The attorney also recommends
clarifying the moratorium ordinance by specifically including
auction houses. That clarification is included within the
attached draft.
Recommended Motion:
• Adopt an interim ordinance restricting development of secondhand
goods stores, pawn shops and similar uses within the City for a
period of one year.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Allow adequate opportunity for study of this issue.
2. Allow adequate opportunity for Planning Commission and City
Council consideration.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide not to institute a moratorium but to
continue with the study.
2. If the Council does not approve the resolution authorizing
the study then it would be inappropriate to consider this
ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented
meeting of November 23.
for action at the City Council
lly submitted,
• JDP:ds
Jam sV . Prosser
Cit naaer
1,,-?
ORDINANCE NO.
• INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING
PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS;
AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDHAND
GOODS, PAWNBROKER, AND SIMILAR USES WITHIN THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The City's zoning ordinance does not contemplate or
adequately address the classification of secondhand goods
stores, pawnshops, auction houses and other similar uses.
1.02. The City's zoning ordinance is unclear as to whether uses
such as secondhand goods stores, pawnshops, auction houses
and rummage shops other similar uses should be classified
as "retail stores," which are permitted uses in a C-2
general commercial zoning district, or whether a new
classification should be adopted for those uses.
1.03. In addition to the proper zoning classification of such
uses, there are a number of significant planning and land
use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses,
including the following:
1. The particular zoning districts in which such uses
should be allowed as either permitted or conditional
uses.
2. The concentration and density of such uses in the City
and its neighborhoods.
3. The effect of such uses on other uses in the
surrounding area.
1.04. There is a need for a study to be conducted so that the
City can adopt a set of comprehensive plans and land use
zoning regulations pertaining to such uses. Such a study
will address the land use and zoning issues, including
those referenced above. The study will also address the
City's licensing regulations regarding secondhand goods
stores and pawnshops and the extent to which the licensing
regulations require modifications in order to maintain
harmony and consistency between the zoning and licensing
regulations.
0
1.05. There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for
the purpose-of protecting the planning process and the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City
and to ensure that the City and its citizens retain the
benefits of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance until such a study has been completed. There is
a need to restrict such uses until such a study has been
completed and any modifications to the City's zoning and
land use regulations are accomplished.
1.06. The City Council has directed that such a study by
undertaken.
1.07. Minnesota Statues, section 462.355, subd. 4 (Act) permits
the adoption of interim zoning ordinances during the
planning process.
Section 2. Planning and Zoning Study; Moratorium.
2.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff to
determine how uses such as secondhand goods stores,
pawnshops, auction houses and other similar uses should be
regulated within the City. The scope of the study should
include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. the particular zoning districts in which such uses
should be allowed as either permitted uses or
• conditional uses;
b. the density and concentration of such uses;
c. the effect of such uses on other uses in the
surrounding area;
d. the need, if any, for modifications to the licensing
regulations regarding secondhand goods stores and
pawnshops.
2.02. Upon completion of the study, the matter is to be
considered by the Planning Commission for its review and
recommendation to the City Council.
2.03. A moratorium on the development of secondhand goods
stores. and pawnshops, auction houses and other similar
uses is adopted pending completion of the study and the
adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance.
No license or building permit may be issued for such uses
or for the expansion of any existing use during the
moratorium period nor may any rezonings, plattings or
replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be
granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium
period. The. moratorium period shall expire on November
26, 1993 or such earlier date as may be further adopted by
ordinance. The moratorium period may be extended for a
reasonable time by ordinance, as may be necessary to
complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to
the City's zoning ordinance.
-7-3
Section 3. Effective Date.
This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of
the Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this th day of 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
1 ? { {fin
REG
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Prosser
FROM: Corrine Heine
Assistant City ttorney
DATE: November 18, 1992
RE: Moratorium; Auction Houses
1,4
At the council meeting on November 9, 1992, the city council
requested that our office report on whether the moratorium on
pawnshops, secondhand goods stores, and similar uses should be
interpreted to apply to auction houses. This issue arose because
of an inquiry by a person who has expressed an interest in opening
an auction house in Richfield.
As explained by the applicant, an auction house operates on a
consignment basis. Items are taken in during the week, and a sale
is held once a week. The sale is conducted by a licensed auction-
eer. No fee is charged until an item is sold, at which point a fee
the auction house collects a percentage of the sale price.
The City's moratorium relai
shops, "and other similar u
houses are included in the
First, could the language
auction houses -- i.e., is
secondhand goods store or
actually intend to impose a
;es to secondhand goods stores, pawn-
ses." The question of whether auction
moratorium is a question of intent.
reasonably be interpreted to include
an auction house a similar use to a
pawnshop? Second, does the council
moratorium on auction houses?
In determining whether the uses are similar, the focal issue is
whether the uses present similar land use impacts and regulatory
concerns -- not whether the business operations are identical. The
applicant stressed the differences in the way that fees are
charged, but that operational difference is not determinative, if
the reasons for adopting the moratorium on pawnshops apply with
equal force to auction houses.
In my opinion, auction houses are a similar use to secondhand goods
stores and pawnshops, and the ordinance and resolution could be
interpreted as imposing a moratorium on auction houses. Just as
with pawnshops and secondhand goods stores, the City's zoning
ordinance does not clearly indicate the proper zoning classifica-
tion for an auction house. According to City staff, no application
has ever been received for an auction house. In the past,
pawnshops and secondhand goods stores have been treated as "retail
stores" and given a C-2 zoning classification. It would appear,
however, that auction houses may have different traffic impacts,
noise impacts and parking demands than run-of-the-mill retail
stores, because auction house sales are concentrated in a single
day rather than spread over an entire week. This issue -- of the
1
1.1-6
appropriate zoning classification and land use controls for auction
houses -- deserves study by City staff.
Like secondhand goods stores and pawnshops, auction houses deal in
the sale of previously used, rented, owned or leased personal
property. The City's regulatory concern is the same as for
pawnshops, i.e., that auction houses could be used to dispose of
stolen property. As part of the study under the moratorium, the
City will be considering changes to its licensing regulations, and
the regulatory issues raised by auction houses merit similar study.
In summary, auction houses are similar in operation to secondhand
goods stores and pawnshops and do raise similar land use and
regulatory issues. It is reasonable to interpret the City's
moratorium on pawnshops and similar uses as including auction
houses. Although no change to the moratorium ordinance is
required, for the sake of clarity I recommend that the council
amend the moratorium ordinance on second reading to specifically
include auction houses. A revised ordinance is provided with this
memorandum.
If the City council did not intend to impose a moratorium on
auction houses, then the ordinance should be amended on second
reading to specifically exclude auction houses.
2
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 265
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on consideration of an off-site directional sign
permit at 100 West 78th Street. (Deferred from October 26,
1992.)
Background:
Adams Outdoor Advertising has submitted an application for an
off-site directional sign permit at 100 West 78th Street. The
off-site directional sign is for Motel 6 at 7640 Cedar Avenue.
The City Code allows off-site directional signage provided
specific location, sign and impact conditions are met.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the off-site directional sign permit at 100 West 78th
Street.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. This proposal meets the requirements for issuance of an off-
site directional sign permit.
2. The State of Minnesota has reviewed and approved this
proposal.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could deny this request with a finding that the
proposal does not meet the requirements set forth for issuance of
the permit, and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
the surrounding properties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November
23, 1992. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers
of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public
hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet and
published in the Sun-Current.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
11
HajoM-.uaM ?IL
a
z s 0
o? c
o
s
IS)
4-1
w
J
s
m
o
? to
? v
S
NI i i
i o
? u
-'?
IL-
•
?z
O
O
U ?-
X1.,7
O
O
L
(!)
S
4-1
3
C?
R
?Nl
lold
w
z
5?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 264
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Payment of arbitrage rebate for General Obligation Improvement
Bonds of 1987 in the amount of $5,200.
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 rabate calculation must be performed every five
years until the bonds are retired.
The $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 are
subject to the arbitrage rebate requirements. A portion of the
bond proceeds ($610,000) were used to finance the Academy of Holy
Angels (AHA) sprinkler system, which was subsequently assessed to
the AHA. This use of the proceeds was considered "private
activity," which rendered the bond issue subject to the arbitrage
• rebate rules. The $610,000 was invested separately from the
City's pooled investments, and interest earnings have been
cumulating to fund the arbitrage rebate.
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 $5,200. Due to the
extensive detail of the calculation and the due date of November
13, 1992, 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 Improvement Bonds of 1987 in the amount of $5,200.
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 November 13, 1992
would have included penalties.
2. Deloitte & Touche calculated the rebate to be $5,200.
3. City staff reviewed the supporting calculations and
agrees with the rebate amount.
?S -I
4. The extensive detail required
must be processed by both the
accounting firm did not allow
specific rebate payment amount
Council meeting.
to make this calculation
Finance Division and the
adequate time to present
at the November 9, 1992
which
a
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 November 13, 1992. The payment should now be considered for
City Council approval at the next City Council meeting, which is
November 23, 1992.
lly submitted,
RespeYanager
JameProsser
City JDP:ds
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 51?
Council Letter No. 263
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Approval of expenditure of $123,848 for installation of utilities
underground for the 77th Street reconstruction project.
Background:
Our engineers completed a study of the available options and costs
of burying the power, telephone and cable television lines (copy
attached).
Burying utility lines provides obvious visual benefits. Not only
are the wires and poles unsightly but trees must be kept trimmed
away from the lines, giving them an unnatural appearance.
After considering the costs and benefits of burying the lines in
the various sections of the project, BRW and staff recommend that
the overhead wires between Nicollet Avenue and Chicago Avenue be
buried as part of the 77th Street construction.
Burying of utility lines is not an eligible expense in the Federal
Demonstration Grant or MSA (gas tax) funds. There are sufficent
funds in the Capital Project Funds to cover this cost. However,
staff is recommending that other sources be explored prior to a
final funding decision in 1993.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the removal of overhead utility lines along the north side
of 77th Street between Nicollet and Chicago Avenues and relocate
the utilities below grade along the south side of 77th Street
between Nicollet and Chicago Avenues as part of the reconstruction
of 77th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The relocation of the utility lines will provide an improved
visual environment along 77th Street.
2. Removal of or damage to existing trees will be minimal, and the
addition of new trees will not be affected.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Require that the utility lines be maintained above ground.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision is needed November 23 as plans for the relocation of the
utility lines should begin promptly.
lly submitted,
Ja e . Prosser
Ci y nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
Memorandum ??? I
10
R
B R W INC. DATE: November 6, 1992
TO: Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
FROM: Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP
Tony Heppelmann, PE
RE: Above Grade Private Utility Issues
77th Street Project
Planning
Transportation
Engineering
Urban Design This memorandum outlines the urban design issues relating to the above
Thresher S
a
e ground private utilities in the 77th Street Project area and presents
qu
r recommendations regarding resolution of the above grade private utility
700 Third Street So. relocation and reconstruction.
Minneapolis,
MN 55415 BACKGROUNDASSUES
6121370-0700
Fax 612/370-1378
The reconstruction of 77th Street is a major project in the City of Richfield. It
Minneapolis will have a significant functional and visual impact on the adjoining residential
Phoenix areas as well as on the commercial strip along I-494. Two important beneficial
Denver impacts of the project are an enhanced appearance and edge condition for the
St. Petersburg residential areas and improved visual appearance and, therefore, greater
San Diego potential for future redevelopment of the strip along I-494.
Seattle
One of the key components, in terms of improving the visual environment, is
Donald
W.
l the location of the above grade utility lines. The reconstruction of 77th Street
o
Wolsfeld sfeld
Richard
P.
requires the relocation and reconstruction of three private utilities which are
Peter E. Jarvis
Thomas E Carroll currently located above grade: NSP power lines; U.S.. West telephone lines;
Craig A. Amundsen and cable television lines. The issues which need to be resolved are: where
Donald E. Hunt should the lines be relocated to and what would be the associated costs of the
John B. McNamara relocation?
Richard D. Pilgrim
Dale N. Beckmann
*Jeffrey L. Benson
Ralph C. Blum
Gary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch
Paul N. Bay
• SE,a-
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
November 6, 1992
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 77th Street corridor has three different above grade utility conditions: the
utilities are located on the south side of the roadway; the utilities are located on
the north side of the roadway; or the utilities cross the roadway. Figure 1
illustrates the various above grade utility conditions along the corridor:
In Segment 1, I-35W to Lyndale Avenue, the utilities are located on
poles along the south side of the roadway between Emerson and Aldrich
Avenues.
• In Segment 2, Lyndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue, there are no above
M grade NSP utilities along 77th Street, but three major NSP feeder lines
cross 77th Street above grade at the following locations: the mid-block
property line between Garfield and Harriet Avenues; Pleasant Avenue;
and the mid-block property line between Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenues.
In Segments 3 and 4, Nicollet Avenue to Portland Avenue and Portland
Avenue to Chicago Avenue, a major NSP feeder line is located on poles
along the north side of 77th Street.
In Segment 5, Chicago Avenue to TH 77, a major NSP feeder line is
located on poles along the south side of 77th Street, between Elliot and
Bloomington Avenues, and a major feeder crosses 77th Street above
grade between 12th and 13th Avenues.
ALTERNATIVES
There are basically two options for accommodating the utilities: leave them
above grade; or place them in conduits below grade. Leaving the utilities
above grade has visual appearance implications and placing them below grade
has cost implications.
i
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
November 6, 1992
Page 3
Above Grade Alternative
The visual appearance implications of leaving utility lines above grade are
relatively obvious. The more utility lines are left above grade the more
cluttered and unsightly the environment will appear. In addition, NSP power
lines can not be located in the vicinity of large trees or the trees need to be
trimmed back to accommodate the power lines. The pruning of large trees
around power lines often deforms them and can be harmful to them.
Figure 2 illustrates the option of locating the utility lines above grade north of
the residential loop roads. In this alternative, the utility lines would impact the
large existing trees adjacent to the loop, roads and the pedestrian walkways and
they might require tiebacks across the loop roads. The trees, many of which
are located on private properties, would need to be heavily trimmed or removed
to accommodate the utility lines.
Other locations for above grade utility lines, such as along the screen wall or in
the boulevard south of 77th Street, would have similar impacts by restricting
the ability to plant large trees in those areas.
Below Grade Alternative
Locating utilities below grade eliminates the impact on the visual environment
but has severe implications related to cost. The general agreement between the
utilities and the City is that the utilities will absorb the cost of adjusting or
relocating utility lines, as required for City projects. However, improvements
to the utility systems, such as converting them from above grade to below
grade installations, have to be borne by the improvement project, the City, or
private developers, if the improvements are part of private redevelopment
projects.
The primary issue in relocating utility lines below grade, is the cost of placing
the NSP power lines in conduits and providing the required switches and other
electrical equipment to modify the system. Since the telephone and cable
0
0
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling .
November 6, 1992
Page 4
television companies utilize primarily NSP poles for supporting their cables,
they will relocate their lines below grade if NSP relocates below grade.
Table 1 lists the costs associated with relocating the NSP power lines, in the
77th Street corridor, to new locations above grade as well as relocating the
power lines below grade. The column titled "Relocate" includes all costs
required for relocation and adjustment of the NSP power lines above grade.
These costs would be borne entirely by NSP. The column titled "Locate Below
Grade" includes the total cost. of placing the NSP power lines below grade.
The amounts shown in the last column indicate the cost difference between
placing the NSP power lines below grade and relocating them above grade.
This difference would be the City's share of the cost to locate the NSP power
lines below grade.
TABLE 1
COSTS FOR RELOCATING NSP POWER LINES IN THE
77TH STREET PROJECT CORRIDOR
(Cost Data Provided by NSP)
Segment Relocate
(NSP Cost) Locate
Below Grade Difference
(City Cost)
1. 35W - Lyndale Avenue $ 38,558 $ 67,752 $ 29,194
2. Lyndale - Nicollet 19,843 120,723 100,880
3. Nicollet - Portland 50,338 136,910 86,572
4. Portland - Chicago 17,750 55,026 37,276
5. Chicago - TH 77 0 61,500 61,505
TOTAL $126,489 $441,916 $315,427
n
5E-5
•
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
November 6, 1992
Page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ideally, in order to minimize visual clutter, all utility lines should be placed
below grade. However, because of budget constraints, this may not always be
feasible. With the understanding that funding for relocating utilities below
grade may be limited, following is a discussion of each segment of the corridor
with recommendations regarding utility relocation.
Segment 1 - I-35W to Lvndale Avenue
In this segment, the utility lines, which serve the commercial strip along 77 1/2
Street, are located on poles along the south side of 77th Street. The utility
poles and utility lines add to the generally cluttered appearance of this area but,
since this area has been identified for future redevelopment, it would be a
reasonable approach to leave them in place with the understanding that the
above grade utility lines will be removed and relocated below grade at the time
that this area is redeveloped.
Segment 2 - Lvndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue
In this segment, three main feeder lines cross 77th Street above grade. Utility
lines crossing the street are less visually intrusive and less of a negative impact
than lines running parallel to the street. Because of their minimal visual
impact and because of the relatively high cost to relocate the crossings below
grade, it is recommended that these crossing remain in place, at this time.
However, every effort should be made, in the future, to relocate the utility line
crossings below grade, especially if redevelopment occurs in the area, or if
other opportunities arise.
Segments 3 and 4 - Nicollet Avenue to Chicago Avenue
The conditions, in regard to the above grade utilities, are the same in
Segment 3 as in Segment 4, except that Segment 3 will be reconstructed in
Phase 1 of he 77th Street reconstruction project whereas Segment 4 will be
• reconstructed in Phase 2. The options in these segments are to relocate the
5E? ?0
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
November 6, 1992
Page 6
utility lines on poles north of the residential loop roads or to place them below
grade under the sidewalk on the south side of 77th Street. Whichever
relocation choice is made, the same solution should be.applied in both
segments.
Since relocating the utility lines above grade north of the loop roads will have
significant visual impact as well as impacts on the existing trees along the
property boundaries, it is recommended that in these two segments the utility
lines be relocated below grade under the sidewalk on the south side of 77th
Street.
The overall costs for the NSP line relocations in Segments 3 and 4, as shown
in Table 1, will be $136,910 for Segment 3 and $55,026 for Segment 4
resulting in a total relocation below grade cost of $191,936. The City's portion
of the costs will be $86,572 _for Segment 3 and $37,276 for Segment 4
resulting in a total Cost to the City of $123,848.
Segment 5 - Chicago Avenue to TH 77
This segment, which is similar to Segment 1, has utility lines located in the
boulevard, south of 77th Street, between Elliot and Bloomington Avenues. The
area south of 77th Street, although it has not been identified as a definite
redevelopment project, does have long-term redevelopment potential. In
addition, the conditions in this area may change with the proposed
reconstruction of I-494. In light of these two future impacts, it would be a
reasonable approach to hold off relocation of the utility lines below grade, in
this segment, for now. However, just as in Segment 1, the decision to leave
the utility lines above grade should be done with the understanding that the
long-term goal is to relocate the utility lines below grade.
5e
•
Don Fondrick
Mike Eastling
November 6, 1992
Page 7
SUMMARY
In summary, the recommendations regarding the above grade utilities in the
77th Street Project area are as follows:
Remove the overhead utility lines in Segments 3 and 4, between Nicollet
and Chicago Avenues, and relocate them below grade under the sidewalk
along the south side of 77th Street. The cost to the City of these
improvements will be approximately $123,848.
• Pursue, in the future, the removal of all above grade utilities in the project
area. Placement of all utilities below grade should be an objective in all
• redevelopment projects. The priorities for relocating the utility lines
below grade should be as follows: first, Segments 3 and 4, Nicollet
Avenue to Chicago Avenue; next, Segments 1 and 5, I-35W to Lyndale
Avenue and,Chicago Avenue to TH 77; and, finally, Segment 2, Lyndale
Avenue to Nicollet Avenue.
AP/jkh
RII734
0
C
I•
I t ?
'S '3AV oat { ;.
'S '3AV ONZ `
• ' 1 1
's 'IV SN3A315
w
's 'ml isl
j ?
(ZS HVSO)
'S '3Av iTnOOIN
T
I ,
s 3AV 113OSnne
1
t
?
'S '3,\V RLt§O*.LN3M I
,
.s 3AV wnesllld
ANVdN as Nn OOS
'S 3AV 1NVSV3ld rM
?
'? ...
V
i
'S '3AV L3lNbVH
•s •3AV Ol33aV0 . , _. _. 1.
's 3Av 3WY Nkl
i
•s 'mV HOlaOlr
ow
•s '3Ar 1NVAN9 :...A/ ;
•s W xvn,o 0 4
,w
s 3AV iNOdno
'3 /// 3AVNOSa3M3
a?
i
.IV r ...
V0n3ad
3
•3nr aavai?
61.
C^ A
W w
w
x
V
?i
F
F
V
Wil
b
LE
0
0
00,
-sv
H-.
U
m N
a
oa
0
a
a
0
0
7 Z^
N
H
F
O
as
a
0
NQ
x
a
0
F
U
rT
6D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 262
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Setting date of public hearings for the renewal.of pawnbroker and
secondhand goods licenses.
Background:
The pawnbroker and secondhand goods licenses will expire on
January 1, 1993. City ordinance provides that the City Council
conduct a public hearing to consider all pawnbroker and
secondhand goods license renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 14, 1992 as the date to hold public hearings on
the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods licenses for Twin
Cities Gold & Silver; The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker; and Plaza
Pawn.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license
may be considered.
2. The renewal process has been initiated.
. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 14 will provide ample
time to complete the licensing process before January 1,
1993.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may
delay the licensing process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 23, 1992 will
provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings.
Resp ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
CJ
5 c.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-261
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Setting date of•public hearings for renewal of on-sale liquor
licenses.
Background:
The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will
expire on January 1, 1993. City ordinance provides that the.City
Council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license
renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 14, 1992 as the date to hold public hearings on
the renewal of liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante;
The Ground Round; Khan's Mongolian Barbecue; American Legion Post
No. 435; VFW Post No. 5555; and Champps of Richfield.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license
may be considered.
2. The renewal process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearings on December 14, 1992 will provide
ample time to complete the licensing process before January
1, 1993.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may
delay the licensing process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 23, 1992 will
provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings.
Respeq-?fully submitted,
Jai eb?. Prosser
City anaaer
JDP:ds
7
6 C?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 260
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Setting date of•public hearings for the renewal of wine licenses.
Background:
The wine licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on
January 1, 1993. City ordinance provides that the City Council
conduct a public hearing to consider all wine license renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 14, 1992 as the date to hold public hearings on
the renewal of wine licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza; and
Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license
may be considered.
2. The renewal process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearings on December 14 will provide ample
time to complete the licensing process before January 1,
1993.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1.. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may
delay the licensing process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 23, 1992 will
provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings.
y submitted,
Jame MW Prosser
City a ger
JDP:ds
L1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 259
• Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Adoption of resolution establishing just compensation and
authorizing the purchase of 7646 Lyndale Avenue and certain Soo
Line Railroad property.
Background:
The purchase of property at 7646 Lyndale Avenue is necessary to
effectuate the proper design of the intersection of 77th Street
and Lyndale Avenue. The building is occupied by the Lyndale
Agency Inc., an insurance company and a resident. The insurance
agency has already identified a location to which to relocate.
The City also has a relocation responsibility to the residential
tenant.
The railroad property taking is a partial one; 30 feet in depth
from the south right-of-way line of 77th Street (the existing
77th Street is only 30 feet wide at this location). In addition,
there is a need for a temporary construction easement 22.5 feet
wide adjacent to and south of the partial taking.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which does the following:
• 1. Sets just compensation for 7646 Lyndale Avenue at $115,000
plus $4,867 for the immovable fixtures.
2. Sets just compensation for the Soo Line partial taking at
$9,000 and $400 for the temporary construction easement.
3. Authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute purchase
agreements in the amounts of just compensation following plan
approval by MnDOT and FHWA.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The property is needed for the 77th Street project.
2. MnDOT and FHWA procedures have been followed.
3. With MnDOT and FHWA approval project funds will be available.
Alternative Recommendation:
Delay action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval will permit acquisition and relocation activities to
proceed in a timely fashion.
Respe lly submitted,
• James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:dkh
6P-1
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION,
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase
certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th
Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of
Richfield (City) said real property being described as:
Parcel No. 24A
7646 Lyndale Avenue, legally described as that part of Lot 7,
"Glenn's Addition", lying between the south line of the north
28.3 feet of said Lot 7 and the north line of the south 30.9 feet
of said Lot 7 according to the recorded plat thereof; and
Parcel No. 35A
Soo Line Railroad property,
Partial taking (30 foot strip) legally described as:
The north 30 feet of the west 66 feet of the east 91 feet of
• the south half of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter
of section 34; township 28, range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Temporary Construction Easement
Over, under and across the south 22.5 feet of the north 52.5
feet of above said west 66 feet.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted official plans for improvements
to 77th Street; and
WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the
purchase of real property; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to
acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project
and approval of the purchase of this property is anticipated; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject
property to be made by qualified independent professional real
estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and
• WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the
appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and
has certified same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
. City of Richfield, Minnesota as.follows:
1. That just compensation is determined to be:
$119,867 for 7646 Lyndale Avenue (Parcel 24A)
$ 9,000 for fee ownership of Soo Line property (Parcel 35A)
S 400 for a temporary construction easement on Soo Line
property.
2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to commence
negotiations for the purchase of said real property following
MnDOT and FHWA approval.
3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute
a purchase agreement for the amount of just compensation
set forth in this resolution.
4. That the City Manager is hereby directed to notify, in
writing, the owners of subject property as soon as possible
that the City intends to acquire his/her property and
establish eligibility for relocation benefits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
• Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
L
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• . Council Letter No-258
Agenda November 23, 1992
Issue Statement:
Present the Silver Service Award-to Ms. Beth Herman at Richfield
Bank and Trust Co., 6500 Lyndale Avenue; and an honorable mention
award to Mr. James Miller, owner of Twin City Tire, 719 West 77?
Street, for hiring seniors and disabled in Richfield.
Background:
The Silver ?Service Award was established in 1991 by the Richfield
Human Services Commission Serving Seniors and Disabled to
recognize those individuals/businesses in the community who have
helped to make Richfield a better place by hiring seniors and
disabled people. Commission members contacted managers of
businesses within the City inquiring about their hiring
practices,.
Recommended Motion:
Present the Silver Service Award to Ms. Beth Herman, Staffing and
Compensation Administrator at Richfield Bank and Trust Co., and
an honorable mention to Mr. James Miller, President of Twin City
Tire Co.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. Ms. Herman has hired both elderly and disabled people to work
for Richfield Bank and Trust Co. The bank works
cooperatively with the Sister Kenny Institute in their
hiring process.
2. Commission members were also impressed by James Miller, owner
of Twin City Tire. One of the employees was injured in an
accident and became disabled. The company restructured his
position to keep him on the payroll.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the November 23, 1992 Council meeting.
lly submitted,
Ja es. Prosser
Ci v /natter
JDP:ds
0