The URL can be used to link to this page

5-13-91 agendaqA City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No.113 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution to amend Appendix D of the Richfield City Code. Background: On April 22, 1991, the City Council approved second reading of an ordinance amendment which provides for a conditional activity permit (CAP) and a nonconforming use permit (NUP). It is appropriate, at this time, to set the fees for these permits and include the fees in Appendix D of the City Code. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which amends Appendix D, setting the fees for conditional activity permits and nonconforming use permits. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City policy provides that fees be established to defray cost of providing these types of services. 2. Staff has determined that the recommended fees will cover the cost of services, in most cases. 3. The conditional activity permit fee would be similar but slightly lower than a conditional use permit fee, reflecting the anticipated reduction in review time. 4. The nonconforming use permit fee would be, for similar reasons, slightly lower than a rezoning fee. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could modify the resolution, and lower or raise the fees as it deems appropriate. However, a reduction in fee will require City subsidy for processing applications. Discussion /Decision Mode: Adoption of this resolution will set the fees prior to the effective date of the conditional activity permit and nonconforming use permit ordinance amendment. Respe lly submitted, JameIMager Prosser City JDP:ds 41q- i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION 7697 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1991 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7582" BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 4 be amended by adding new paragraphs 10 and 11 to read as follows: Type of Permit or License (10)* Conditional Activity Permit (11)* Nonconforming Use Permit Section Requiring Fee 515.71 $250 515.73 $300 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 114 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the off - street parking permit at Colony of Richfield Apartments, 1740 1/2 West 76th Street. Background: Colony of Richfield Apartments has requested an amendment to the off - street parking permit to allow the expansion of their parking lot. The proposal would add 43 parking spaces, giving the site a total of 378 spaces. The apartment complex has 212 units, which requires 318 parking spaces. On August 13, 1990, the City Council approved a request for an amendment to their offstreet parking permit to allow the construction of two parking structures. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an amendment to the off - street parking permit at Colony of Richfield Apartments with the following stipulations: 1. That a cash escrow agreement be held by the City for one growing season to ensure that the relocated trees would be replaced if they do not survive. 2. That seven outdoor parking spaces be provided for the physically disabled. 3. That all new curbing and grading match existing. 4. That new parking spaces on the southeast and southwest corners of the middle row of parking not encroach closer than the existing curb islands. 5. That drive aisles and fire lanes remain the same width. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The additional parking will solve the problem of uncontrolled and sometimes, unsafe parking in certain areas because of an increased demand for on site parking spaces. 2. The existing trees have been relocated elsewhere on the site, providing improved screening from the residential properties. 3. If constructed as proposed, the additional parking would permit better circulation of the parking area. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the amendment request to the off - street parking permit with a finding that the request would have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. L16-1 Decision mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar on the May 13, 1991 City Council meeting. Respfaager y submitted, Jameosser City JDP:ds 1 �� CI NSIOMtlS �• Zi 1� 12 YI Oi Niel A1011319M01 3M Yv03a Niel Y111 Ylfl MoloN 111oo10 V1 sl YI ♦I YI it Vl zl Yl It 4101 lonla oOralNa snawnloo XYvd ONt1XV0 JAW 0NVl1NOd Y/i 441, NO1NIla PIS P.2 S N3A31S 011 'JAW 131100101 " "1130s1v1a Aanarnd 101vSV31d ONV110 131tlatN 0131JUTS 3AV 31VONA1 NalY01v 1NVAYa Xvll00 1NOdn0 NOSM3113 ANOIp1/ OUTMIS 1010a11nN ON1AY1 S3nvr XONX Nv901 NVOMOR NO1r3N N3A110 -3AV NN3d "33n0 1138SAM Nv01Y3Ns Sv110N1 NOldn 1N33MIA Mans"sva JAW SUM iN N N ti b e u N N N N N N N N N N N h N N Np Z� € ZZa �NJ W W. (rr VTT/ I� CD 1(n W p N T 0 T C M N UJ cc W A W < LL � A 0 SINGLE FAMILY RES. SCHOOL PARK 2' sots context land use 1740 1/2 WEST 76TH STREET I SW Or, 80ALE 1111111 pp PUWNING 0 100 MO 4(* wo N EZONING COMMERCIAL APARTMENT 0 DUPLEX EB QUASI-PUBLIC SINGLE FAMILY RES. SCHOOL PARK 2' sots context land use 1740 1/2 WEST 76TH STREET I SW Or, 80ALE 1111111 pp PUWNING 0 100 MO 4(* wo N EZONING ul 3: Ltd I? FREEWAY STRIP F-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER P==Cq INSTITUTION °o Xo PARK AND OPEN SPACE 0 0 0 0 t °0000 004 Q. 0 0 4 vv 0 0 0 1� 0000 00 tin 00 000 6R-0- !rf .0-0.0, 0;� 1 I 0 00 0 0 Q0 - 0- 00.0 M 3: Ltd I? FREEWAY STRIP F-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER P==Cq INSTITUTION MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE PARK AND OPEN SPACE MitV7, w 9i I I I MA I L-1-1 L-1 klt--A =- 1740 1/2 WEST 76TH STREET KMNING ZONING 1 100 .1.1 wo No llijil 111 Gcj ;'-L T A, gL -do 1 *GOP I I L L IL —LJ go 4 F ILI I r I 'OS '3 AV r6 Iz I --a 3r 0- X-vt 16 OL • N V D 0 -1 ,e aemtsntle rp ;_-7 ..... fa 1 ` V � I i L Q� NO Ll - �i� tf wC�fl 7 - �. --_mss ..4 e L d ! I �t §Az—n rd �'. f�n•�� roe $ sn CAS • 3 AV 6 ZNVOO- 2 cc A ZZ l NI FRO EFYIst e Lu . CD ='Mi' M • LU ``f c- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 115 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the off - street parking permit at Richfield State Agency, 6625 Lyndale Avenue. Background: Richfield State Agency (RSA) recently purchased the house at 6636 Grand Avenue. RSA is requesting an amendment to the off - street parking permit to comply with the 1982 Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan. This plan indicated that this site is to be used for parking. The proposal would add 34 parking spaces to give the RSA site a total of 489 spaces. Based on square footage and use, the parking requirement is 455 spaces. On June 27, 1988, the City Council approved a similar request for an off - street parking permit for a 22 space parking lot at 6640- 6644 Grand Avenue. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an amendment to the off - street parking permit at Richfield State Agency with the following stipulations: 1. That the proposed landscaping and berming be consistent with existing conditions. The Letter of Credit for the required landscaping will be held by the City for one growing season to ensure proper planting and growth. 2. That new curb and gutter match the existing or be MnDOT Type B -618. 3. That new lighting comply with LHN Standard Design Guidelines. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Purchase of property allows the construction of the remaining parking improvements in accordance with the final approved planned unit development plan. 2. Site meets the requirements for number of handicap parking spaces. 3. Site is in conformance with City parking requirements. 4. Drainage pattern for new parking area meets the City Engineer's approval. 5. Underground sprinkler system is in place and is in compliance with City regulations. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the amendment request to the off - street parking permit with a finding that the request would have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. ye -1 Decision Mode: Consideration . of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar on the May 13, 1991 City Council meeting. Respect lly submitted, James Prosser City pager JDP:ds r e � N r � • a o �"tooMr15 22 OZ t"� —•�� YI pZ Ja _ :2AW I 3Ar Ntr03z 4110, YI Y/ y, 1� 4010NIN t^�•� �(�"-�,� 0010 411 g, to Y /11 I��r +r 1ot112 N .J N porJlN� •1 c W r sn +MnloJ ,l W '3Ar ONr11NOd u, ZRf° (.• -,-. �1 -- ,. Y , NO1N110 ��j 1' i ►�Z �Ir 11 i SN3A31S I 3Ab 1311031#4 N1NOM1N3M j f tom- �C�,!' �i 4YnYSllld 1NVSr 31d 1) ,I 131#4 1 •' �� rl� 0131tMb0 ,:Y �I`s. J`1 3Ar 31roNA1 L •1 A! 1 a� "i �\ NJINOIb II+ 1NraNe u�l.�� 6 xrt10O 1NOdnO 800SN31%3 4-R3N. �� I cavvio loloawnN jt��l�� 1— 93wr1• xoNx j N1o01 NboNow NO1101,1 •3Ar N043d T C�✓—� C N33n0 1 C 113SsnN 1 Vol 1 1N33 NrA riAr 23xN3x rN ~ M IN CIO r • - — Y• W M ul J " ► 1 N M T-77' I. �. r ±� -r I fir..'_ �• � ��' '�'.�11 �OIIIO: 0�, NP IIIA1Illli ,v (M 1 )! v 1; •l• 4 ° ° ° ° °•�..... °.� r0nzt TALE AVE IIIIIIII /IIII. ► °� °• °�' 11 PNMW- -//. IIII /I /IIII //. ►• °° °•� 11 II %IIIMIo •IIIII /III /III ►� °� °�s 'II /IIII /IIIII ►. °: °:: i i jIIIIIII yIIIIII /IIIII ° ° ° 11 IIIIIIII. II /IIII /IIII /► °1a /I //I /III IIIIIIII /I /II. 'III/ /IIIII � � � °ii °i °i� IIIIIIII %IIIIIIIIII. !� °� °� °i °i °i °i t1 IIIII /II IIIIIIII /III , ► ° ° °i °i °i °i °i 11'IIII /III �i IIIIIIIIIII � ►i °i °i °i °i °i� 11 � ��II��. ►I IIIIII /III / ��i °i °i 1 �i ►� °i°i °i °i °i� � ... ........ ... 11 - v- •--- •r•r •••r1•0 � •�� -• -••• III / /II /I. IIII �I I ► � ° ° ° °i °� °i °i °i °i °i� °� °�� °� .!: �'_�' III /I /III. �I/ ♦°°°°°°°°°°°°�°� °��• III /I /IIII I /I� 1/ ►�� °� °� °� °� ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° �.��•�•, III /I /IIIII ��• 11 IIIII /Iliii� 11 �1•! °�� I /II�IIIIIIIIII. . i l ••• °�� IIIIIIIIIII /Ii w7 1! ► `� II�.'IIIIIIIII��i S�Z�� 11 °i�� III/II/II/III ��_ 11 • . � IIIIIIII/. ► � �� 11 ;IIi.III /IIIIII iii. Z. � 11 sod 11 to 11 won 1' 11 �,•,••�� .�...r. r. NQ wim zon ye -q TIA •------ ,.- .- 11...1.E - - - - - -• f -��-- ..11.11... w..........1.1.» -- -__- �•~ 11...1/1/. .YF.F11.111..F. �. —_- F►.. _ - Ie lrwlswwnlw.lnn 1b11�� M '�• �F r. .111..1.11.IIi11.FM .111...'..... w.wwlrwwl.w a �.••�••n11m1n1.w �� ►" � - -- M M F.. .1111......M1FJ♦.M1 .M�I.Y\ F.... a 1 _ � _ _ .. _ -- �•-- 1- .rMwIw1111'M /.1..- I.r1A/... -.1.. F►1.w F1.w. .1 �— '----- �rwww• r1i M..1111.I..w..ww FM.. � e/ ----- - - - -_- ---- - - -- t, wo& (context • use 6625 LYNDALE "ENUE S. age MANNING k.(! it IFi 1) SCALE 0 // 200 // 400 ye -q CENTRAL Sim, ON NESS DISRTIcT SINGLE SITy FAMILY MEDIUM DEN, SUFFER E3 RESIDENCE a<i INSTITUTION PARK AND OPEN SPACE 0 co ntext� co 6625 UYNDALE AVENUE S. p rehensive Plan SCALE "I: 0 100 200 300 400 8m PLA Till/ NNING RZONING is �/ Ai sit �� NOW loo co ul ul Uj - qc-q Zz eof cfj Lij z w LU z >j Lin 04 co y0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.116 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolution authorizing the submittal of preliminary Right -of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) loan application for the purchase of property at 7645 Wentworth Avenue. Background: The City Council has approved the official map which calls for the upgrading of 77th Street between 135W and TH77. The upgrading will necessitate the purchase of property. At the present, the timing of the construction of these improvements is uncertain; however, people who own and reside in these homes must continue to make decisions about their lives. In some instances, these people must sell their home; but the pending project makes it impossible to sell. Buyers do not want to purchase uncertainty. To meet this need, the Metropolitan Council has established the Right -Of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). The fund is designed to permit cities to purchase owner - occupied dwellings when continued ownership of the property would be a hardship for the owner. The loan bears no interest. A loan would be equal to the value of the real estate, plus relocation benefits minus the salvage value of the houses. The City would pay back the loan when funding for the 77th Street project became available. The process for securing a loan is generally as follows: • After the owner of a property has listed their home for sale for a period of at least 90 days, a preliminary application is submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The attached resolution is part of the preliminary application. • The Metropolitan Council then reviews the preliminary application. • If the preliminary application is approved, negotiations for the purchase of the property may commence and a loan agreement with Metropolitan Council must be drafted. Staff has been working with the owner of the property at 7645 Wentworth Avenue which appears to qualify for RALF. The property has been listed with a realtor. The 90 day listing period has ended. Potential purchasers looked at the property but when told of the pending street project lost interest. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes staff to proceed with the filing of a preliminary RALF application. L4 b-1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council has approved the official map for upgrading 77th Street. 2. The upgrading will require the purchase of the property. 3. The City has no funds currently available to purchase this property. 4. The Metropolitan Council operates RALF and has previously approved the purchase of two properties under the program and is now processing two additional properties. 5. The owner of the subject property appears to have an eligible hardship and has been unable to sell the home during the 90 day listing period. 6. The City Council, during deliberations on the 77th Street project, indicated they would assist property owners in minimizing the difficulties this project imposed on them. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refuse to authorize the application. 2. Delay action until a future date. Discussion /Decision Mode: While the RALF program provides assistance, it does not provide immediate relief. Staff has been working with this owner for several months. It will likely require an additional four to six months to complete the process. Action to adopt the resolution on May 13 would facilitate the processing. Respec fully submitted, James Prosser City alter JDP:ds yb 4 RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAN APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF 77TH STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY; 7645 WENTWORTH AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real estate including the property at 7645 Wentworth Avenue; and WHEREAS, City funds are presently not available for purchase of real estate; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statute 473.167, Subd. 2 a. administers the Right -Of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) to acquire properties so situated with owners who are experiencing a hardship; WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that RALF monies would be made available for the purchase of "hardship properties" along 77th Street; WHEREAS, the owner of this property may qualify for purchase under the hardship provisions of RALF. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Manager submit an application to the Metropolitan Council under the RALF program for purposes of initiating the process which may result in the acquisition of the property at 7645 Wentworth Avenue. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk yE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 117 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of a subdivision waiver for the Hub West Project Area. Background: To satisfy the requirements imposed by the insurance company financing the Hub West project, the US Swim parcel must be separately described for differential financing. The Developer's Agreement will require, however, that US Swim be considered as part of the overall whole and that it not be treated as a separate entity subject to separate alienation. Recommended Motion: Approve this subdivision waiver and adopt the attached resolution. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The division is required in order to obtain adequate financing. 2. The proposed commercial development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning map. 3. Approval of the subdivision waiver will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.05. 4. The Developer's Agreement will ensure that the various parcels will be operationally integrated. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that this proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion /Decision Mode: Adoption of this resolution will project. JDP :ds permit financing of the Hub West Respectfully submitted, James tgaer osser City 140=► RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been requested to approve a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land legally described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereafter the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is as legally described on Attachment Two, attached here to and hereby made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the lots resulting from the proposed division will comply with the requirements of City Code, Section 515.09; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that compliance with City Code Section 500.05, Subd. 1, would result in unnecessary hardships and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.05. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A waiver for the property legally described on Attachment One is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. All future transfer of any of the property described in Attachment One shall be by parcel or parcels described in Attachment Two. b. The applicant shall demonstrate that real estate taxes for the Subject Project which are due and payable in 1990 and prior years has been fully paid. C. This resolution shall not be effective until the applicant has acquired title to the Subject Property. 2. Upon compliance with such conditions, city staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the requests of this resolution. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk yE�L ATTACHMENT ONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 3, Block 1, Richfield HUB Superblock PROPOSED DIVISION OF LAND PARCEL 1• yE 3 ATTACHMENT TWO All that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin county, Minnesota lying northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Lot 3 distant 317.42 feet northerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said east line; thence westerly to a point on the west line of said Lot 3 distant 14.89 feet southerly of the most westerly northwest corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said west line and there terminating. PARCEL 2• All that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the east line of said Lot 3 distant 317.42 feet northerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said east line; thence westerly to a point on the west line of said Lot 3 distant 14.89 feet southerly of the most westerly northwest corner of said Lot 3 as measured along said west line and there terminating. `7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 118 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution approving expenditure of $12,000 from Richfield's Municipal State Aid (MSA) construction account and approving Construction Cooperative Agreement. Background: The Hennepin County Department of Transportation is proposing to apply a new surface on Portland Avenue from Trunk Highway 62 (Crosstown) to I -494, and on 66th Street from First Avenue to Cedar Avenue. County policy requires that the City participate in certain costs associated with this project as follows: 1. Fifty percent of the replacement cost for sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron when the existing concrete must be replaced only because of its condition. If the replacement is to facilitate the County's work, the County pays 100% of the cost. Richfield's cost, based on the 50% replacement, is estimated at $8,300, which is MSA eligible. 2. Contract administration costs in the amount of $2,200. MSA will reimburse the City for $1,494 of this amount. The remainder will be paid for out of the sanitary sewer utility fund. 3. One hundred percent of the cost to repair manholes within the street that are in need of repair. This cost, estimated at $2,200, will be paid for by the sanitary sewer utility fund. 4. The cost of adjusting rings needed to raise manholes and water valves to the height of the new pavement surface. The County will pay for the cost of installing the rings. No cost estimate is available for this portion of the work at this time; however, staff believes the cost for adjusting the rings is minimal. Because the proposed improvement is an "off- system" improvement (not part of the City's MSA system), the State will not allow the City to receive more funds from the account than the City Council authorizes. Therefore, staff is requesting the City Council to approve an expenditure larger than is anticipated to be spent. Any funds that are approved but not spent will remain in Richfield's MSA construction account. Further, staff is requesting the City Council to approve a construction cooperative agreement to cost share the work as outlined above. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing expenditure of $12,000 from Richfield's MSA construction account for the proposed improvement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a cost sharing Construction Cooperative Agreement. qF_I Basis of Recommendation: 1. Overlaying 66th Street and Portland Avenue is necessary to maintain the roads in good order. 2. The cost to Richfield is small, and will be paid by MSA or the sewer utility fund. No general fund monies will be required. 3. Council approval is necessary to obtain the MSA funding required for this project. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to not participate in this project; however, funding is available now and non - participation could delay or halt a much - needed improvement. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item appears on the May 13, 1991 Council agenda. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to allow Hennepin County to complete the work in a timely manner. Respectfu y submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds Attachment qF a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $12,000 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES TO OFFSET CERTAIN EXPENSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESURFACING OF 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Richfield to participate in the cost of the applying a new driving surface on Portland Avenue from T.H. 62 (Crosstown Highway) to I -494, and on 66th Street from First Avenue to Cedar Avenue; and WHEREAS, County policy requires that the City participate in certain costs associated with this project; and WHEREAS, the cost of such improvement is estimated to be approximately $12,000; and WHEREAS, the approval of the City Council is needed to expend Municipal State Aid funds on an off - system improvement; and WHEREAS, approval of the City Council is needed to enter into a Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State Aid Construction Account the sum of $12,000 to apply toward the said improvement and request the Commissioner of Transportation to approve this authorization and hereby approves entering into a Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of constructing said improvement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 '4F-3 County Project Nos. 8936 & 8935 County State.Aid Highway Nos. 35 & 53 City of Richfield County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Richfield, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County has designed and requested the City's participation for the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Portland Avenue) between 81st Street and 62nd Street (Engineer's Stations Ls 184 +60 to Ls 303 +80) as well as for the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 53 (66th Street) between 1st Avenue and Cedar Avenue (Engineer's Stations Ls 3 +60 to Ls 79 +73) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project Nos. 8936 and 8935 respectively, which improvements contemplates and includes repair of concrete pavement, manhole and catch basins repair, bituminous overlay and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, A portion of the above described project lies within the corporate limits of the City, and WHEREAS, The City owns and maintains watermain and sanitary sewer manholes within the project limits; and WHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of quantities and unit prices of material and labor for the above described project and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of Seven Hundred Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three Dollars and Thirty Five Cents ($712,873.35). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and -I- 4LL Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.17, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II Prior to awarding the Contract to the successful bidder the County will determine the estimated City's proportionate share of the construction costs using the unit prices contained in the successful low bidders schedule of prices and the estimated quantities in the plan. Said estimate will be in the same format of said Exhibit "A" and shall be submitted to the City. In the event said estimate identifies the City's estimated cost participation, to be in excess of 110% of the estimated City costs included in the Exhibit "A" attached to this agreement, the City retains the right to withdraw from this agreement and will not participate in any of the City apportioned costs assigned to it herein. The City shall inform the County Engineer in writing within two.weeks from the date the bids are opened if it intends to invoke this clause. It is understood that the aforesaid option by the City to withdraw from this agreement can only be invoked prior to the County award of the project to the successful low bidder. Nothing in the previous paragraph is to be construed as a maximum amount of City cost participation in the project as constructed by the County and its agents. -2- L Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 III The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Richfield shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. IV The City shall have the right to review any changes to the plans and specifications as they relate to the City's cost participation. The City Engineer shall approve any change orders or supplemental agreements prepared by the County that affect the City's share of the construction cost of said project prior to the implementation of said changes. V The City shall reimburse the County for its share in the construction cost of the contract work for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Division of Cost Summary in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. VI In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to seventeen percent (17 %) of the amount computed as the City's share of the said contract construction cost for roadway construction, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the work performed under this contract. VII In addition to the aforesaid payments by the City for its share of the contract construction and engineering costs, the City hereby agrees to reimburse the County for all cost associated with having the County's Contractor furnish and install the exact WF �o Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 number of adjustment rings, of sufficient height, required to raise the cover of all City owned utility manholes and valve boxes within the project limits to an elevation flush with the final elevation of the bituminous overlay to be placed. VIII Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90 %) of the es- timated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans, prepared by the County and submitted to the City in accordance with Section II herein. The remaining ten percent (10 %) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. In the event the County Engineer or his staff determines the need to amend the contract with a supplemental agreement or change order which results in an increase in the contract amount, the City hereby agrees to remit within thirty (30) days of notification by the County of said change an amount equal to ninety percent (90 %) of the estimated City share as documented in the supplemental agreement or change order, provided the City's share in said supplemental agreement or change order exceeds $500.00. The remaining ten percent (10 %) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. In the event said supplemental agreement or change order does not increase the City's participation by more than $500.00 no payment from the City to the County will be required until the final City participation amount is determined. Within forty -five (45) days of payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. -4- Ll F? Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 IX The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City. X All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. XI The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. XII The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XIII Upon completion of the project, the County, at its expense, shall place the necessary signs and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on those portions of County State Aid Highway Nos. 35 and 53 constructed under this project recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permitting said modification. XIV It is agreed prior to final approval of the improvements provided herein that the County Engineer and the City Engineer, or their designated representatives, shall -5- ql=`g Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 jointly perform a field inspection of all work performed on City owned facilities. The County shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of all such work prior to relieving its Contractor for satisfactory completion of said work. It is understood that all work on City facilities is to be accomplished in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the City Engineer or his designated representative to withhold approval due to corrections requested which may be contrary to or in addition to said project plans and specifications. XV It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, all concrete sidewalk, water system and sanitary sewer work included in said improvement shall become the property of the City and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by the City at its own expense. It is further understood that neither the County, its commissioners, officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the hereinbefore described concrete sidewalk, water system.and sanitary sewer work maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement by the City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend, save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, actions or causes of action and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of negligent performance by the City, its officers, agents or employees. XVI It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, demands, judgements, fines; penalties, expenses, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the negligent performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to -6- (A& `f' F" / Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. XVII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said City employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said County employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XVIII The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. -7- d� q)5-10 Agreement No. PW 39 -19 -91 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. (Seal) CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Date: Upon plcqper execution, this agreement will/be egally valid and bindjng. Date: And: Associate County Administrator and County Engineer BY: 20� Date. Assi t nt County Attorne Date: Approved as to execution By: Assistant County Attorney Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Director, Department of Public Works Date: yF 11 Hennepin Co. Agrmt. No. PW 39 -19 -91 Exhibit "A "; Sheet 1 of 1 0 00 o 19 aa1a b O O Q N a N 01 N r1 Ido, Ifl N N b b b .~4 0 O O O O O O b b (d P'1 aT N O aT V� O U1 O M W v .1 r a In 8 m M rl -P M b ul O VP O tT 01 aI• N W N �O b b rl M O V� M n M b age WF p b V• W it W v o� � pV pE ((�y O M ! o N o •-I b N n O in O O 11 f•1 r W O rl b H IInn O h W •-1 O 11 � (yam O -'I OI aT N r •/ .Nj fNV M V1 i0 �O F IMO IN•y'1 O W! O O O •yCi tE� S N °o (W fpp V V Qn V 1°n in N ./ iinn �•1 N to M M W M O H OI 01 W W • 'tl ME N N .-1 - 0 O Of M rl \O � r Ifl qy W � 88 ill � N qIJl .. P, O S w W V CJ � M N ►7 �i o a• a DDDaa K � � `a� � €w v� i� '��i yF 11 Hennepin Co. Agrmt. No. PW 39 -19 -91 Exhibit "A "; Sheet 1 of 1 4& CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 119 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1991 and 1992 agreement with the City of Minneapolis for participation in the Urban Corps Intern Program. Background: The Urban Corps provides college students with an innovative service learning environment. Through a well - planned internship, students get an in -depth exposure in a specific field and gain valuable practical experience. At the same time, the City receives the benefit of the students' enthusiasm and academic skills at a nominal cost. For a number of years, the City of Richfield has cooperated with the Urban Corps to place area college students in internship positions with the City. This arrangement has been quite beneficial because it has enabled the City to hire additional part -time employees, at very little cost, to either undertake short -term studies or projects, or to supplement our full -time work force in performing some of the City's ongoing services. Under the program, undergraduates are paid $5.75 per hour and graduate students are paid $6.75 per hour. The cost to Richfield is $2.97 per hour and $3.48 per hour. During 1990, the Nature Center used three interns in their programs. The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with the City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This agreement does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps Interns, but it does provide the City with the option to hire interns through the Urban Corps Program as we choose. Recommended Motion: Authorize the execution of the attached agreement with the City of Minneapolis for participation in the 1991/1992 Urban Corps Intern Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Urban Corps Program provides a supplement to our full - time work force. 2. The Program also provides a resource for short -term studies or projects. 3. The cost of Urban Corps participants is relatively low. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the execution of the agreement, thus terminating the program. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the in order for Departments to the coming year. JDP:ds LiC -I May 13, 1991 agenda for consideration consider the internship program for Respe ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager 1991 - 1992 AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS PROGRAM BETWEEN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND CITY OF RICHFIELD THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 13th day of May 19 91 , by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps ") and (herein called "Agency"). WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private non - profit tax- exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: `1 The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that purpose by the Urban Corps. 2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application form. 3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in ac- cordance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in nature of assignment, duties, supervisor or work location. 4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe place to work and with responsible supervision. 5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency, and shall have the right to interview such students and their supervisors. 6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be necessary for the.proper functions -.of the program. 7. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall: a. Be in the public interest; b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing contracts for services; C. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship; d. Not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity or be for the Office of Education. ,.. 8. The Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit time reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the Urban Corps. 9. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason without prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall not be obligated to replace said student. 10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban Corps. il. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88 -352, 78 Stat. 252), and Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and 141, where applicable. 12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from all claims, causes or actions which may result from the assignments of students to the Agency or because of the acts or omissions of the students. 13. The Agency will be responsible for compensating to a work -study student any monies earned before or after the student's specified work -study award dates and /or monies earned over and above the dollar amount specified in the student's work -study award. 14. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Worker's Compensation insurance (or shall beself - insured under State Law) for such students as may be assigned to it under this Agreement. For the purposes of the Agreement the Agency shall be deemed the student's employer and that no employment relationship exists between the student and Urban Corps, and, further, that _..no.employment relationship.exists between the Agency and Urban Corps. 15. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps 51.5% or other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State program. The Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi- weekly payroll periods,.for .its .proper share of.the compensation,of_ such students as may have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period. Student hourly rates are set forth in Section 15(a) and 15(b) of this Agreement. a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at minimum rates of $5.75 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's degree, and $6.75 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 14(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is. defined for purposes.of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. V Y 16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form 'which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall pay the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student works. 17. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional twenty -one and one half percent (21.5 %) for .administrative costs. This option will be specified in the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth in Section 17(a) and 17(b) of this Agreement. a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.99 per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and $8.21 perhour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly 'compensation rates not to: be: below specified rates in 17(a); or other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of Minneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates. b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the fifth year of a five year program. 18. Performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1991 and terminate on June 30, 1992 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed upon by both the Agency and the Urban Corps; however, either party may terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice. Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and regulations. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS By Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTERSIGNED: City Finance Officer Approved as to Legality: AGENCY CITY OF RICHFIELD Agency Name 6700 Portland Ave. South Address Richfield MN 55423 City State Zip Code By Title Mayor By. Title City Manager Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney, ATTEST: City Clerk LI Cs y5 - s r � STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPZ On this 13TH day of May 19 q1, before me appeared Martin Kirsch and TamPq Prosser to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and c'i ty Manager of ri ty cf Richfield the corporation described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation; that said instrument was executed:in,.behalf of said corporation by:authority.of its Board. of Directors; and said Mayor and city Manager acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 120 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Approval of the 1990 labor contract with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1215. Background: City staff has completed negotiations and binding arbitration with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1215 on a labor agreement for the year 1990, subject to City Council approval. The bargaining unit is represented by the International Association of Firefighters to the statewide organization. Local 1215 represents the positions of firefighters, fire lieutenants and fire captains. There are presently 24 employees represented within this unit. The 1990 contract is a one year agreement. The contract articles which were at impasse and ultimately settled through binding arbitration were salary, salary progression schedule, employer insurance contribution, health insurance for retired employees, clothing allowance and working out of class. These issues were certified to proceed to arbitration by the City and the Union after an impasse was reached during negotiations. An arbitration hearing was held on October 10, 1990, with a continuation date of October 30, 1990. At those hearings, both parties had full opportunity to present the merits of their respective cases. The award, dated April 26, 1991, for each issue was as follows: 1 &2. Salaries: The arbitrator awarded a 1990 calendar salary increase of 4% across the board, with no change in the structure of the salary progression or schedule. The arbitrator rejected an additional 2.5% increase sought by firefighters because of the previous elimination of three fire lieutenant positions. 3. Employer's Insurance Contribution: The arbitrator awarded that the maximum employer contribution for health insurance be increased to $210.00 per month /per employee. This is at the same level as other employee groups received in 1990. The employer contribution for dental $16.00 per month /per employee and the insurance was increased from $10,000 The employer and union agreed to the the course of the arbitration. Both to most other employee groups within insurance was set at group term life to $15,000 per employee. latter two items during benefits are identical the City. 4. Health insurance for retired employees: The arbitrator upheld the employer's position in saying that the issue of health insurance contributions for retired employees was not subject to arbitration, and that a timely objection to arbitration on that issue had been filed. 14M -I 5. Clothing allowance: No increase in the current clothing allowance of $300 per year /per employee. The union had sought a $600 per year clothing allowance. 6. Working out of classification: The arbitrator upheld the City's position that it would remain the employer's discretion that no new language sought by the union be added to the contract. Such language would have established working out of classification assignments based strictly on a promotional list. Overall, the package awarded by the arbitrator follows fairly closely to the final offer of the City in contract negotiations and the position entered into arbitration by the City. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council approve the labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1215 for the year 1990. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City is bound under the Public Employers' Labor Relations Act by the arbitrator's decision. 2. The Union has accepted the City's offer on dental and life insurance, which then became part of the arbitration award. 3. The City and the Firefighters attempted to settle the 1990 contract through the negotiations process, but ultimately utilized the binding arbitration process to settle issues at impasse. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could challenge the arbitrator's decision, however, the award seems a very fair and equitable resolution to the contract issues that were in dispute. There also appear to be no grounds for such a challenge. Discussion /Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner to process the entire year of 1990 for the wages and benefits changes included in the arbitration award, it is recommended that the City Council act on May 13, 1991 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes and implementation effective January 1, 1990. City JDP:ds Attachment ly submitted, Prosser L4 N' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1215 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 1990 WHEREAS, the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1215 have reached an understanding concerning hours and other conditions of employment for the year 1990; and WHEREAS, the arbitrator has rendered an award on wages and benefits; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to proceed with the establishment of a labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1215 who have negotiated and gone to arbitration in good faith; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and an exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby approve the labor agreement between the City of Richfield and the International Association of Firefighters, Local Unit 1214 for the year 1990. Under the provisions of the labor agreement and the arbitration award to be implemented effective January 1, 1990. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Mayor LIT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 121 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: City Council approval of purchase of insurance for Sister City Commissioners' trip to Heredia, Costa Rica. Background: In the latter part of 1990, the City of Richfield, through its Sister City Commission, established a Sister City relationship with the City of Heredia, a suburb of the capital city of San Jose, Costa Rica. As part of solidifying the Sister City relationship and gaining firsthand knowledge of our Sister City, Heredia, several members of the Sister City Commission, the Mayor and a spouse of one of the Commissioners have indicated a desire to travel to Heredia. The party is scheduled to leave on May 15, with some members returning May 22 and others on May 25. Expenses of this travel will be paid entirely by the individuals who will be making this trip. One aspect of this trip which should be considered is a potential future claim of City liability in the event of a serious accident or death of a member or members of this travel party. While it is staff's position that the City of Richfield has no liability in such an event, it is possible that such a claim could be made. If that were to occur, there currently is no insurance in place to protect the City. Quotations for insurance coverage for the individuals traveling to Heredia were obtained and are as follows: Coverage Cost $ 100,000 per person $300 $ 700,000 aggregate $ 250,000 per person $600 $1,750,000 aggregate Coverage would be in effect to, from and while in Heredia. It should also be pointed out that there is no funding set aside in the budget for such an expenditure. Any purchase of insurance for this purpose would mean a reduction of some other line item in the budget. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City purchase insurance in the amount of $100,000 per person, $700,000 aggregate, for coverage concerning this travel at a cost of $300. qT i Basis of Recommendation: 1. If an accident should occur during this travel which causes death or serious injury to the individuals engaged in this travel, a claim might be brought against the City. 2. If such a claim were filed, the City would have some measure of monetary protection. 3. Even if the City purchases such insurance, we are not assuming liability for the travel to any greater extent than if no insurance had been secured. 4. A lower limit has been selected based upon the level of risk perceived and the budgetary constraints involved. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could forego the purchase of any insurance for this trip. 2. The City could select the greater limits of liability in purchasing this coverage. Discussion /Decision Mode: If insurance is to be purchased, it must be done in advance of the trip, otherwise the opportunity to take such action will be lost. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ff qJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.122 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase of Cushman utility vehicle in excess of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The approved 1991 Central Garage Motor Pool budget contains $8,000 for the replacement of a fully depreciated utility vehicle for Rich Acres Golf Course. Staff solicited quotations in an informal bidding process, and received two quotes for a 1991 Cushman Model #53091 Turf Truckster Chassis as follows. The proposal also asked for a trade -in price on a 1980 Cushman Model, City Unit #3. Base Bid Less Trade -In Total Cushman Motor Co. $8,390 ($1,000) $7,390 Horst Distributing, Inc. 8,495 ( 750) $7,745 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Cushman Motor Company in the amount of $7,390 for the purchase of a new utility vehicle. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Cushman Motor Company submitted the lowest responsible quotation. 2. There is adequate funding in the approved budget for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotations. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the May 13, 1991 consent calendar. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely delivery of the unit. Respect y submitted, James rosser City Ma ger JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA q Council Letter No.123 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase of three filter backwash meters in excess of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Filter backwash meters measure quality of backwash water for turbidity and decrease the amount of water needed to clean each filter bed. At the present time, 250,000 gallons of water are needed to wash one filter. Each of the six filters are backwashed weekly. The proposed meters would decrease this usage by one -third to one -half. Cost savings is an estimated $600 -$900 per week. Two vendors were contacted and quotations received for three filter backwash meters. Hach $6,435 Feed Rite Controls $6,649 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Hach for the purchase of three filter backwash meters in the amount of $6,435. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Installing the meters as a part of the filter underdrain project will decrease water usage and save money. 2. Hach submitted the lowest quote for the equipment needed. 3. There is sufficient funding available as part of the filter underdrain project for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to reject the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes, however, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained for the type of equipment needed. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item appears on the May requesting approval at this delivery in conjunction with JDP:cak 13, 1991 Council agenda. Staff is time in order to facilitate timely the filter underdrain project. Respectfblly submitted, Jam s Prosser City anager 4-IL CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.124 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for the 1991 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 were opened on May 3, 1991 from five contractors with the following results: Gunderson Brothers $17,180.00 Advanced Concrete, Inc. 18,067.00 DNCON, Inc. 19,696.50 Adcon, Inc. 21,227.00 Victor Carlson & Sons, Inc. 22;535.50 The street maintenance budget includes $26,440 for the sidewalk, curb and gutter repair project. This includes both the contractor and City labor costs. The contract is based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual work performed. Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes /tabulation and award the 1991 Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Repair project to Gunderson Brothers in the sum of $17,180. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Gunderson Brothers submitted the lowest responsible bid. 2. Funding for this project is available through the 1991 street division operating budget. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the bids received are in line with the amount of work which needs to be completed and staff does not believe we could obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the May 13, 1991 City Council meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely completion of this project. Respectfully submitted, Jam Prosser JDP:ds Cit anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening May 3, 1991 11:00 A.M. Concrete Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repair Bid No. 91 -9 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for concrete sidewalk, curb & gutter repair, bid no. 91 -9, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 17, 1991. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Jack Erskine, Public Safety Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL Gunderson Bros. Minneapolis 5% Bid Bond $17,180.00 Dncon, Inc. Lakeville 5% Bid Bond $19,696.50 Adcon, Inc. Andover 5% Bid Bond $21,227.00 Victor Carlson & Sons Eden Prairie 5% Bid Bond $22,535.50 Advanced Concrete, Inc. Burnsville 5% Bid Bond $18,067.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 13, 1991 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk yM CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 125 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Purchase of fireworks for Fourth of July Celebration. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Two firms in the metropolitan area sell fireworks and provide the staff to do the display. In the opinion of the City staff and the Fourth of July Committee, one of the firms, Americana Fireworks Display Company, provides a better show. This firm has been used for the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration fireworks for the past nine years for the following amounts: Year Amount 1982 $ 5,000 1983 $ 5,000 1984 $ 5,400 1985 $ 5,400 1986 $ 5,970 (30% reduction in time /content of 1985) 1987 $ 8,900 (approximated 1985 display time /content) 1988 $ 9,400 1989 $10,000 1990 $10,000 Americana has submitted a contract in the amount of $11,000 to provide fireworks for the Celebration in 1991. Americana will provide public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of $300,000. In the event of cancellation due to inclement weather, the show will be held on Friday, July 5. City staff recommends adding a condition to the contract to require the employees of Americana Fireworks Display Company to clean up the shooting area, after the display, of any potentially dangerous material. The City's budgeted cost share of the 1991 Celebration is $15,000 for fireworks, additional insurance coverage, and other items such as entertainment, performance stages, lighting and sound systems. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract and payment in the amount of $11,000 to Americana Fireworks Display Company for fireworks and staff to do the display for the 1991 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. q f7- I Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield supports the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration including, in part, the financial cost of the fireworks display. 2. Americana Fireworks Display Company has submitted a contract in the amount of $11,000. 3. There is $15,000 in the adopted 1991 budget for the Recreation Division of the Community Services Department for the Celebration. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to eliminate its financial support of the community Fourth of July Celebration. 2. The size of the display could be reduced thereby reducing the cost to the community. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the May 13 agenda to provide sufficient time to confirm the fireworks display for the 1991 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. Respectfull submitted, James D. rosser City Ma ger JDP:ds qN CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 126 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Application for a Community Celebration Event license with a request for a fee waiver by the Fourth of July Committee for events scheduled to take place on July 4, 1991. Background: Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a Community Celebration Event license and requests that the fee be waived for the activities that take place throughout the City on July 4, 1991. A detailed activity plan of the day's events is currently on file. A copy of the Committee's bylaws and Articles of Incorporation are also on file. The food concessions will be staffed by members of nonprofit organizations who have been with the Committee since the celebration began. Any proceeds of the concessions are used for community programs. No other outside vendors will be allowed to sell at a concession. The Committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends the approval of a Community Celebration Event license with a request for a fee waiver for the Fourth of July Committee for activities held throughout the day on July 4, 1991. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements for fee waived. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on the 4th of July. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a Community Celebration Event license for July 4, 1991 for the Fourth of July Committee is presented at this time. JDP:ds y submitted, James City Prosser `i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 127 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for VFW Post 5555, located at 710 Lakeshore Drive. Background: On April 24, 1991, the VFW submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Sunday, Monday and Thursday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager, Mr. Adler Strandquist, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. y o-- I Discussion /Decision Mode: Approve the renewal of VFW's lawful gambling application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee. Respectfty41y submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anaaer JDP:ds L/2- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE VFW POST 5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the VFW Post 5555 has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application request renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the VFW Post 5555, 710 Lakeshore Drive. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk It CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.128 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Richfield American Legion #435, located at 6501 Portland Avenue. Background: On January 16, 1991, Richfield American Legion submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Monday through Saturday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager, Mr. John Egan, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100.00 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. (4P1 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. Discussion /Decision Mode: Approve the renewal of Richfield American Legion ##435's lawful gambling application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee. RespectfAIlly submitted, Jam s Prosser Cit anager JDP :ds (4 P- C), RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION #435 WHEREAS, the American Legion ##435 has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application request renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed and investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Richfield American Legion #435, 6501 Portland Avenue. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor yQ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 129 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Church of the Assumption of Richfield, located at 305 East 77th Street. Background: On May 6, 1991, Church of the Assumption submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Saturday evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager, Mr. Lawrence Uhrich, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100.00 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the state statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. qG -1 Discussion /Decision Mode: Approve the renewal of Church of the Assumption of Richfield's lawful gambling application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee. RespJ,ger submitted, Jamesser City JDP:ds q0 -.1, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the Church of the Assumption has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application request renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May, 1991. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 130 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment regulating recycling at apartment buildings in the City of Richfield. Background: Hennepin County recently amended their Ordinance No. 13, which now requires owners of multifamily buildings to provide their residents with an opportunity to recycle by July 1, 1991. In conjunction with the County's requirement, cities in Hennepin County are required to adopt a similar apartment recycling ordinance by July 1, 1991. Owners of multifamily apartment buildings will be required to offer their tenants the opportunity to recycle those materials determined by the City to be "designated recyclables." Such materials will be identical to those items collected via the residential curbside program. If they desire, apartment owners will be given the authority to recycle materials in addition to those items identified as designated recyclables. Apartment owners will not receive a subsidy from the City or County for recycling activities. Single family recycling is subsidized $1.85 per month per household. The County, however, is making available recycling bins at a reduced cost for apartment owners to purchase for their tenants. A letter informing apartment owners of the pending change was sent in mid - April. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of the ordinance amendment specifically regulating multiunit apartment recycling. Basis of Recommendation: 1. As landfill space in the metropolitan area becomes more scarce, reducing wastes by increasing recycling becomes more important. 2. Apartment dwellers are requesting that the opportunity to recycle be made available at their buildings. 3. Cities in Hennepin County are being required by the County to adopt apartment recycling ordinances although no penalty for failure to comply has been identified. 4. The Community Services Commission reviewed solid waste issues and at the March 26, 1991 meeting recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. 5/ 5. The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance amendment on April 22, 1991. 6. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose not to adopt Section 601 as written; however, the City has been a leader in recycling and solid waste management, and staff believes amending the ordinance at this time will insure that our City remains in step with County guidelines, and with metropolitan and statewide recycling trends. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of second reading at the May 13, 1991 Council meeting. If approved, notice and publication of the amendment will take place as quickly as possible to ensure the timeliness of the July 1, 1991 effective date. Resp lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP :ds Attachment 5 -a BILL NO. 1991- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR RECYCLABLES COLLECTION AT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Subsection 601.09, subdivision 8 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read: Subd. 8. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. Multiple residence units having more than two family units and which require garbage and refuse pickup more frequently than once each week must either be equipped with containers and provided with pickup service as provided in this subsection or be equipped with a commercial incinerator complying with the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and licensed by the city as provided in this section. Containers provided as an alternative to or in addition to such incineration must be at least one cubic yard in capacity, must be conveniently located in relationship to the residence units for which they are provided, must be watertight and rodent -proof with self- closing lids and be kept in an enclosing structure concealing them from public view. Property owners of multiple residential units must provide apartment dwellers at their units an opportunity to recycle materials defined as designated recyclables. if- eextaixers- fer- designated recyclables -aFe- provided-- the- eeataixers Containers for designated recyclables must be conveniently located in relationship to the residence units for which they are provided, must be watertight and rodent -proof with lids and be kept in a enclosing structure concealing them from public view. The structure must have a concrete floor and must be kept in a state of good repair at all times. All containers must be located so that their contents are inaccessible to at least three feet above the base of the enclosing structure. The owner or operator of multiple residence property must provide for pickup from the containers. Refuse, debris, garbage, recyclables and other waste materials may not be permitted to be accumulated in or near the enclosing structures except in the containers. There shall be daily cleanup in and around each enclosing structure. II. This ordinance is effective July 1, 1991. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk R CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 131 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading consideration of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. Background: On February 11, 1991, the City Council approved a transitory ordinance which appropriates special revenue funds in accordance with the 1991 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB). Subsequently, City staff proceeded with securing bids to perform the approved work. As a result of that process, it was found that the cost of tennis court improvements will be approximately $10,000 less than budgeted. Further, the Taft Park improvements total project cost over two years is now expected to come in roughly $4,800 less than expected for a total project cost of $40,184.53. The play features for Taft Park were bid and have come in at $22,134.53. The City force account costs to grade the site, install the wood border and place sand under the feature are expected to be $8,050. Another $10,000 in 1992 cost for other play equipment and installation will complete the project. This transitory ordinance amendment provides for the transfer of the $10,000 savings in tennis court improvements to the Taft Park project for 1991. The funds would be used primarily to cover the City's labor costs referenced above. The various approved appropriations for 1991 capital projects and the proposed revisions are outlined below: 1991 Approved Recommended 1991 Appropriation Revisions Veterans Memorial Park Park Shelter Building $230,000 $230,000 Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 14,000 14,000 Tennis Court Improvements 34,000 24,000 Jefferson Park Roosevelt Park Washington Park Taft Park Play Feature 22,000 32,000 $300,000 $300,000 The adoption of revised transitory ordinance is necessary to authorize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 allows expenditures for capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund only by Ordinance. Recommended Motion: The City Council should give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of Special Revenue Funds for certain capital improvements. �0-/ Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council on February 11, 1991, gave second reading approval to an ordinance providing for Special Revenue funding for the 1991 CIB. 2. After receiving bids for the tennis court improvements, it was found that a $10,000 savings could be effected in completing the approved project. 3. The $10,000 could be transferred to the Taft Park play feature project to provide for additional capital funding for that project while staying within the originally approved $300,000 total appropriation for all projects. 4. The City Council approved first reading of the amended Transitory Ordinance on April 22, 1991 and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for May 13, 1991. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Complete the project but do not approve the revision. The City would retain $10,000 unspent amount in Special Revenue Funds for 1991 and $10,000 less in General Fund revenues. 2. Do not complete the project this year. 3. Use the $10,000 to fund another project in the CIB. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council action on this item is requested at the May 13, 1991 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jamfanager rosser Cit JDP:ds /, BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Veterans Memorial Park Park Shelter Building $230,000 Wood Lake Nature Center Carpet 14,000 Tennis Court Improvements 24,000 Jefferson Park Roosevelt Park Washington Park Taft Park Play Feature 32,000 $300,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 132 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for a conditional use permit and approval of the final development plan for the Hub West Redevelopment Project. Background: Bradley Real Estate Investment Trust has submitted a redevelopment proposal to the City for the Hub West area. The proposal consists of razing the building which contains Snyder Drug and Hausers IGA to allow the construction of a new 52,000 square foot building at the Hub West. The new building would contain a Rainbow grocery store and a Great Clips. The site would be redesigned to match the existing Hub Center which lies directly east of the Hub West. The changes proposed for the Hub West site include the following: 1. Buildings: The new Rainbow /Great Clips building would be attached to the existing US Swim and Fitness structure to provide a single building mass. The Rainbow building would be constructed of rockface concrete masonry units on all sides with the addition of stucco panels on the front facade. The building materials will be in shades of earth tones. 2. Landscaping and screening: Rear loading areas will be screened according to the City of Richfield's landscape standards. Existing parking lot perimeter planting will be maintained to ensure adequate screening from 66th Street. 3. Parking: The proposed Hub West includes a parking layout which is integrated with the existing Hub Center, U.S.Swim and Kentucky Fried Chicken through reciprocal easements. The total site will include 216,353 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) and will have 1,178 parking spaces. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking standards, 3.9 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA is sufficient. The Urban Land Institute calls for 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Because the Hub West would contain a new grocery store, a standard of 5.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA was established for the entire site. This standard would be exceeded by 96 parking spaces as proposed. 4. Access: The proposed development would be served by two access points, one located to the north on 65th Street and another to the south on 66th Street. The access at 66th Street and vacated Pillsbury Avenue would serve as the primary point of access serving Rainbow Foods, Great Clips, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The existing traffic signals at 66th Street and vacated Pillsbury Avenue will remain in place. '7- l 5. Lighting: The reconfigured parking lot would be illuminated by light fixtures which match the existing style and height which is 30 feet. Two flood lights would illuminate the front facade of Rainbow Foods. Photometric data received from the applicant indicates that the proposed lighting will not affect adjoining residences. 6. Bus Access: Existing bus use of vacated Pillsbury Avenue by MTC route 18C will no longer be available. Staff is working with MTC on rerouting. 7. Signage: An additional sign would be placed on the west side of the 66th Street and vacated Pillsbury street entry. On April 22, 1991, the City Council approved second reading of an amendment to the PC -2 zoning district and gave approval of a preliminary planned unit development plan for the Hub West. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit and final development plan for the Hub West Redevelopment Project with the following stipulations: 1. That all new lighting standards match the existing standards used throughout the Hub Center in style and height. 2. That the owners enter into a contractual corrective action if the level of service and vacated Pillsbury entry is reduced to unacceptable to the City. Such agreement method of determining changes in level of acceptable redesign of the entry. Basis of Recommendation: agreement to take at the 66th Street a point that is shall specify the service and 1. On April 23, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request. 2. Surveys have indicated a popular demand for a major grocery facility in Richfield. 3. The petitioner is agreeable to the redesign of the 66th Street and vacated Pillsbury entry if the proposed design proves inadequate. 4. Changes in bus service will be addressed between the City and MTC. 5. A developer's agreement will be entered into between Bradley Real Estate Investment Trust and the HRA detailing resolution of all issues such as finance and parking before final closure on the real estate and the start of construction. .117- a 6. For financing purposes, it is required that the US Swim parcel be separately stated. The developers agreement will require, however, that it be considered as part of the overall whole and that it not be treated as a separate entity subject to voluntary alienation. 7. The applicant has fulfilled or agreed to all of the requirements of the Administrative Review Committee. The requirements included items such as improved landscaping and building materials, more complete information on the site and building plans, a lighting plan, a directional signage plan, and that any new curbing meet City specifications. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the conditional use permit and final development plan with modifications. 2. Deny the conditional use permit and final development plan for the Hub West Redevelopment Project. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 13, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Respectfully submitted, �V Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak N N N N M M f ./t2 V. NLIONIIS _ 1110 „irDNO'I DAY YV032 �. viii I Yl itl '3 / \V Agnes-1 «OLDNIN001f Iz_ YI LI �T I Yl fl S rlu�= iI. J� � OpvOIN� III •'.�..• lMNM00 ONV,YVO I�, � rJ;•.. •,ter }•:'�:�: },.. �. C 3AV ONV,1YOd :•„'',., "'4 i u t I r"4.'•'�' NO1N 1,0 4=5• SUMUS III 3M 17„02I01 �`- 11i0LIVW Jill 1. N1YOM1N7M � I I."'�'...�� •�,'i I l {I ♦Ynas,'ud ONVYD 5 7 "3AV 3111ONA, :11 1NVLYt T�� —'j''y/ r � U •1 1 «Deno ” I I `"' i 1 • �r NOfYiw3 1I \� \� 11 0L1101l7Y1 p -- 1010*wnN .AiII� —��l —7 7---7, fiwVr 1. __"__•��1 %ON% NO11\7N ��= ='�•�I I Y7At,0 -3AV NN3d —J�1• ai :Di N73n0 'Ik{ IJ�J• 113ssnY Ik'' -•: ^�r-�{ NV0I1113Ns I SVNONl I_. U^�1 NOldn F__ n. J. 1N30NIA j3AT 11 ' NYflYNiVM I 'v' �' .z r- 7 Z a r c Y Y• . M N N N N w f '7AV Yr030 rl Vl 4111 I I NOlON111001f hl Y1f1 �I I P�1 it ��III! /N)V�IN� I I•i fMw«,00 NYw ��I �1j! ONV1«VO �r —i�1: rnl Ely 7M ONV"LLYOd %UG ' Ii «o1Ni'p _JhU I; I 04 It, tN70L31s I I ul r-� 7AV 13110*IN 1,70LIV,f k111110111 411131A _� r=1i1 wnarnld I- • {•- •- •ti�Yr�� —• •7� 1M /fV3,e oil 171YYVN ,)/oi l 1/ 013YVO II � iAV 31VON11 N�IY01V A:: s I�oc LNOdno �C`-�I' Nos11aw7 , • OYVYIO •� �A ONIAYI f7NVf %ON% NVOO, «VDYow ^�JU� ~ MOLIL7N i�J�JI 1 V3A1,0 '3AV NN7d N37nC —nrj= J, i � s ..1 113LLnY 1^ I� M M N M N N ^L= I '' NVOIY7NL u r—��; ftwONl .—dn i —i —i• LN30NIA NYMNf /M '7AV 97 %Y7% YI M M N M� H N W �00 m LU z LLI L) 9 l' H Q V O r N W J_ N J v U) K4 -1z wp N 2� V E2 U— z Oz z f- VCL M* , j4W4704 !14 pit "OU110111i0p , log P 0I I -0 4F OF '0 4: jj,�ll jj� 11 11 1;0, willill iov 41 iiiiiiii WNWI', 1-4 JQ rNO-A. 0AW IIOWA V-10410, BAR,, iii gi 04OW 4 v 0 a Lj- I 8*0N *f# * W SMS !4W.'II ON 0 RK .*4r . 4 effl#4. ..... Is', i m ®� 1 '• ►•ooeeeoeoeooQ ►oee•. I l �►i000eoi ►� ►•iiiiiiiiiiii ►iiii it �iiiiiii ♦ooe0000eeoo►000 ooee000 ►� ►.•••••e ❖eoeoeeo� ►•o•••o' s t �•oeeoeeo. ►.•ee•..e.ee.oee� o.oe.e. r e.e••e.•ee••►•e•Ite.•.•o• ioo••o•ee.•o.00e� ♦ooeo•. ►eeeeeeeoe•••►•ootl •e000e iiii•ii•�•iii' � ♦ � eiii� 11 oeeeeeoeoo. �iiiiiiiiii i•�•�•�•�•�•i' eo�o�e�e�e�•� �•e•.oeeeo •oe.•e•� II eeoeoo. !ooeoeoee•••o! !iiiioii I I �iooeo•••i �eoee•e..•••••...o .ee..eo oe•.oeeoeee •eoeee•�II .�....•.. .••eeee•eee.•.•e.e•• •oeeoe•e••e.•e•oo� Oi iiiiiiiiii! �ieiiiii � � i'►eioisiii �•i tee. ❖.•.e.•�e �e�� •�e�e�e�e�•� I � it►�i!�!�!�!�!i �1 :��1 Mae *I •ooeee♦ ejeoe.•e•.i t 81j ..: rq WE5T = SINGLE FAMILY F QUASI- PUBLIC PARK P M vereNT t --•� ►•iii iii ►•••�� d1 ►iiiii ❖i 11• ROOM *M m cscs -- 034 2.2 m 11: .12E mi -- ,t: 81j ..: rq WE5T = SINGLE FAMILY F QUASI- PUBLIC PARK P M vereNT •�•� se6. iii�i!i ❖i O . ❖. ❖. ❖. .............. Iii° � t --•� ROOM *M m cscs -- 034 2.2 m &Z i• 20, •�•� se6. iii�i!i ❖i O . ❖. ❖. ❖. .............. Iii° � e'er °i °i °i + +• ++�°•� �OO+e+OO• .•: +: +:ems. M. RMx�c v1 i08 pppp�� pppp[c 1 Ire 080�bdi it � °e °e::L•7SiS� 888 �' �, °�..'�•'.-` ►0.00OO�OOO• •OO�OOO �• +ice • ►•ei ►iei ►•ei►i� �. +.e. ►iee.I ♦ ♦OOOOOOOO• oo� ♦OO 1 ••• ♦�"� O i0000 °o °oo• °o 0000e °eon 0000 °� 11 ;i °e °o °�oeo�o� ►� ►00OOOOOOOOO�oOO� ♦OOOOO� ♦OOOOOOOOOO♦ .00♦ 11 OoOOO♦ ►� ►+00OOOOOOOO�OOO� �ioOSOO• ►� �00OOOOOOOO+ •00O 11 ♦000000• o+o• °• °+o+o+oo °+ °o °o °oo� �00000� geoe°eo°°o X • ►OOOOOOOOOOO� ♦•o� it OOOOOOo i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i�• °•�• i °i °i °i 11 �i °i °i °i °i °i °i . °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i� ►i °o °i °i °i °i °i �►i °i °i °i °i °i °i 0000000000 ►00000011 ♦0000♦ iOOOOOOOOO►OOeoOO� �io+oOO• ►Oe °eOOOOOeOOOOOe °0 °� ►oe °eOO °OOO °0� 11 �00000000000� v 0000000000 ►00000♦ O.�_�_�.e•.. ♦►ooOOeoOOO� 000OOe�11 .�00OOOOOOOO►oOOOOo O►OOOOOOeOO� ♦OOOOO��t► R-INNS IS o� 0000000000 ►000000 ♦ooeoOO� sOt►oOOOOOOOO� OOOOOO�t�Illal • • °e°e°e e°e e e e/ �0•O•� 'e °� °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °�� SM.; �•4►o- �I • • • ° °' ��• �000OOOO♦ ►OOH ,0OOOOOOO� ►•o•►o►0 1 �!�!•!!o!►!i ,OOeOOOOeoOOO� �!� ♦0OOOOOOOOOO♦ X00 ESE •0+000 1 �OOOOeoeoOOOO� ►' ��+ ++ ++oe °� °� °� °� °�e� °� °� °� °i .� ♦OOOOOOOOOOOO♦ �o� ►_�o� Ni°i°i ►ieiei� 1 OOOOOOOOeoO+OO� ,OOOOOOOOOOOOOO •�•ee +ee +ee +eeeeeeeeeOeee� �.�� ►•�� 1 ►'r•' 1 i _• � � �•��,OOOO+OOO•�� o, ►e�e� 1 ��o °e °� °i °i °� °i °i °s • • r i v R S ►�� •i 2rovot Gi■ ■L ■�.0 CC r1�CTO °o °o° o °0 0 000 000 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 °0° 00 000 00000 00000 00000 00000 n� n SITE I p°o°o° ie!o!4 ►i °i °i 0. 000 00 00 o °0 0 00 Igg*i r• ARM* ►• °• :*4 m °e � °eon a►i °v°• g°ii �ie�e�►�o�o�, NOR • �' :QQ( 91% 4 'N., 0,0 14 io! ►.�.q . :• 000 00 00 o °0 0 00 N&LLE7 AVERS 111111111 = o� J J Zb i � � SE ' . ifi f�J.• .1 w4m wwos PWAXN , n n u n m nrmmm +�tnn»n mtxlfmmm?»+nM� mnen� Z_ v Z ZZ az 0 �N Z Z IL W CO 0 W U) 0 aW O� m aD .................. - -+-...` kil V& k 1, , �i �'� „nt11TCIT� fi �y N �t �I i rt � 4 1 / �� G 4 R _,,,.y��_��'�'. "��,w�_, fP.M +MME•.. Z� z? ZO; � Nt H .$ s V woo 0 �- W O� CD I it 1 f � 0-iji � Lltv r zz (51 Ora a U AN City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No.133 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for a sign permit at 711 West 77h Street. Background: Twin City Tire is requesting a sign permit which would allow the relocation of their business sign. Twin City Tire is located in the C -3 (high density commercial) zoning district. According to the sign ordinance, all sign permits for property located in the C -3 district must be approved by City Council. The existing sign is classified as nonconforming, as it is not on the premises of Twin City Tire. Recommended Motion: Approve the sign permit to allow relocation of the Twin City Tire business sign per the attached site plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The relocation of this sign onto the Twin City Tire premises would bring it into conformance with the City Code. 2. The reader board would be removed from the sign to make it conform to size requirements. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could deny the sign permit for Twin City Tire at 711 West 77'h Street, however findings for that denial would need to be established. Discussion /Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the May 13, 1991 City Council Meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP:ds 77 1/2 STREET PROPERTY LINE * n 0 CL RICHFIELD FLORAL 40 AZ o i TWIN CITY TIRE VACANT 4 PROPOSED SIGN ,LOCATION es FEET Ty VV STREET RIGHT OF EXISNG 'Alb 1-494 SIGN LOCTIATION 711 WEST 771 /2 STREET 41,111, 111 RWO46 I PLANNING SCALE 0 10 20 30 40 so N NZONING 23! S- ......... GN a z PROPOSED o ppi 8" Ilkr �If( i �6 --fc- ' c " I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 134 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Issuance of a 1991 secondhand goods license for Guaranty Coin Exchange, Inc., d /b /a Twin Cities Gold & Silver, located at 750 West 66th Street. Background: On April 19, 1991, the City received the application and other required documents for the secondhand goods dealer license for Guaranty Coin Exchange, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: - Mr. John Anderson is owner and manager of this establishment. He has no known criminal record. A financial background investigation has been conducted. The investigation found no history of financial problems. - A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the by -Laws have been provided with the application. - The $1,500 bond has been submitted with the application. From January, 1990 through December, 1990, there were three Public Safety contacts with Guaranty Coin Exchange, Inc. The Public Safety contacts were burglary alarm, forgery /counterfeit and a medical emergency. Environmental health staff have not received any complaints in 1990. Recommended Motion: Approve the 1991 secondhand goods dealer license for Guaranty Coin Exchange, Inc. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City Codes pertaining to secondhand goods dealer licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond May 13, 1991, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. q- l Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the issuance of Guaranty Coin Exchange, Inc., d /b /a Twin Cities Gold & Silver secondhand goods dealer license has been scheduled for May 13, 1991. This license will expire December 31, 1991. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond May 13, any subsequent hearing should be scheduled appropriately. Respectfu2Ty submitted, Jamefnager osser City JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.135 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Issuance of a 1991 pawnbroker and secondhand goods license for Plaza Pawn, located at 6414 Nicollet Avenue. Background: On April 11, 1991, the City received the application and other required documents for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: - Ms. Dorothy Krieger is the owner of this establishment, and Ms. Lynda Van Poll is the manager. They have no known criminal records. A financial background investigation has been conducted. The investigation found no history of financial problems. - Ms. Krieger holds a Federal Firearms License - U.S. Treasury Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms and has applied for a City Firearm Dealer's License. - A copy of the Articles of Incorporation have been provided with the application. - The $1,500 bond issued by Truck Insurance Exchange has been submitted. From January, 1990 through December, 1990, there were three Public Safety contacts with Plaza Pawn. The Public Safety contacts were a burglary alarm, a robbery alarm and a lock out. Environmental health staff have not received any complaints in 1990. Recommended Motion: Approve the 1991 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City Codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. /O -1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond May 13, 1991, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the issuance of Plaza Pawn's pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license has been scheduled for May 13, 1991. This license will expire December 31, 1991. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond May 13, any subsequent hearing should be scheduled appropriately. Respect ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 136 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Issuance of a 1991 pawnbroker and secondhand goods license for Firearm Systems and Design, d /b /a The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker, located at 7529 Lyndale Avenue. Background: On April 17, 1991, the City received the application and other required documents for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Firearm Systems and Design. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: - Mr. Patrick Teel is owner and manager of this establishment. He has no known criminal record. A financial background investigation has been conducted. The investigation found no history of financial problems. - Mr. Teel holds a Federal Firearms License - U.S. Treasury Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms and a City Firearms Dealer License. - A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the by -Laws have been provided with the application. - The $1,500 bond has been submitted with the application. From January, 1990 through December, 1990, there were seven Public Safety contacts with Firearm Systems and Design. The Public Safety contacts were disorderly conduct, suspicious person, weapons offense, burglary alarm, shoplifting, vandalism and theft. The majority of these calls were initiated by Firearm Systems and Design. Environmental health staff have not received any complaints in 1990. Recommended Motion: Approve the 1991 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Firearm Systems and Design. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City Codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. !I -I Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond May 13, 1991, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the issuance of Firearm Systems and Design, d /b /a The Gun Shop and Pawnbrokers, pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license has been scheduled for May 13, 1991. This license will expire December 31, 1991. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond May 13, any subsequent hearing should be scheduled appropriately. James City JDP:ds submitted, sser fa CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 137 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a residential kennel license for Marilyn Staber who lives at 7544 2nd Avenue. Background: On April 1, 1991 Marilyn Staber submitted an application for a residential kennel license. She owns four dogs and one cat (all four dogs are Terriers and the cat is a Tabby). Ms. Staber's application had all contiguous property owner's signatures on it with the exception of the resident living next door at 7538 2nd Avenue. On April 16, 1991, 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. Staff has been contacted by three of Ms. Staber's neighbors who do not support the issuance of the kennel license. Concerns expressed include: • Dogs are not adequately exercised. This may effect the animal's health. • There are several dogs in the neighborhood and when one dog barks others bark also. • It has been alleged that the dog barking may aggravate health problems of several elderly neighbors. • Inadequate yard space for a kennel. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be denied. Basis for Recommendation: I. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The City has been contacted by neighbors who have several concerns that staff believes have caused an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to approve Ms. Staber's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would be able to keep her four dogs and one cat. Discussion /Decision Mode: Recommendation to deny the application for a residential kennel license for Marilyn Staber, 7544 2nd Avenue is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfy-I-ky�)submitted, James D. W osser City M a er JDP :ds I a- IP- May 6, 1991 Today I spoke with who lives at He will not be attending the Council Meeting for the issuance of a Kennel License to Marilyn Staber. Since he has to live next door to her, he doesn't want to "rock the boat" and cause any further problems. He did however, want us to know that he is against the issuance of a license to her, and for that reason, he did not sign approval on the kennel license application. He asked that we look back at all the past problems and make our decision accordingly. These problems are listed below: May 16, 1990 May 18, 1990 May 31, 1990 June 7, 1990 June 22, 1990 August 10, 1990 November 28, 1990 February 17, 1991 February 25, 1991 Property Maintenance Complaint (steps, unpainted shutters etc.) 2nd Complaint on above violations Pro - active inspection - long grass and broken windows. Long grass cut All violations resolved except the garage door was not repaired Broken windows replaced - Resolved Pro - active - no current residential kennel license Pro - active - complaint of an inoperable vehicle Vehicle removed - Resolved ----------------- --------- - 17-(?/ 617 ia- y May 3, 1991 Ms. Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator Richfield Public Safety Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 -2599 Dear Ms. Christensen: We would like to cast a no vote for the residential kennel license which Marilyn Staber, 7544 2nd Avenue South, has applied for. Sincerely, x�p Mr. & Mrs. oseph R. Piche' 7601 Stevens Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota I,3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.138 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of a proposed ordinance amendment to City Ordinance Code 310.45 Retirement Age. Background: City Ordinance Code 310.45 Retirement Age addresses a mandatory retirement age of 70 with a possible extension to 75 years of age by the City Manager on a year by year, case by case basis. When the City Ordinance was written, it was permissible to establish such age limits for general employment. However, more recent federal law makes this ordinance provision obsolete. Subdivision 1 and 2 of Section 310.45 should be modified to comply with the current Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The current federal law and proposed ordinance amendment do not establish a set retirement age. Instead, a mandatory retirement is imposed only when the employee's age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the City's normal operation. Courts have held that with respect to municipal employment, positions such as Police Officers and Firefighters may fit such a BFOQ. Recommended Motion: Adopt the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment to City Ordinance Section 310.45 Subdivisions (1) and (2) and schedule a public hearing and second reading for the June 10, 1991 City Council meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The current City Ordinance is in conflict with the current Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act by requiring a general mandatory retirement at age 70. 2. The Federal Act takes precedence over the City Ordinance and as such the ordinance is obsolete as written. 3. The proposed amendment would put the City Ordinance in concert with the relevant federal law. 4. The City Attorney recommended this amendment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Fail to amend the ordinance leaving it in conflict with federal law. 2. Amend the ordinance to provide some other mechanism or age to trigger mandatory retirement. However any standards other than those established by federal law would not be legal. Discussion /Decision Mode: It is recommended that th as quickly as possible to federal law. JDP:ds /3-/ e City Council take action on this item place this ordinance in accordance with y submitted, James V/ Prosser City Moiyager / 9-a BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 310 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subdivisions 1, 2 and 6 of Subsection 310.45 to read as follows: 310.45 Retirement Age. Subdivision 1. General rule. The retirement age for employees except elected officials but including the Manager, City Attorney and Health Officer, shall be as provided in the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and subject to all applicable exceptions contained therein. The- Fet!FemeRt- age - shall- He- subject -te- the- fellewlRg pFevisieRs- ef- this- SubseetieR- Subd. 2. Age -79- -- Where - the - Manager- € }Rds- that -the eeRtiRued- emgleymeRt- a € -aR- empleyee- HeyeRd- age- 70- weuld -be -ef spee }al- beReflt -te- the- elty; -he- may- exteRd -sueh- retirement- age -em a- year -te -year- basis- Ret- te- exeeed -the- age- ef- 76;- upeR- reeelpt -ef adequate- medleal- fRfermatfeR- lRdleatlRg- the- empleyee -ls -iR -geed health -and- able- te- peFieFm- his- werk--- Hpen- wrltteR- Retiee -te -the empleyee-- the- MamageF- may- eaReel -a- deferral -ef- retirement- at -aRy time- Occupational qualification. Where the employee's age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the City's normal operation, a mandatory retirement age may be imposed. Subd-- 67-- Separability - -- The- pFevisleRS -ef- this- SubseetleR de- Ret- amend- er- medlfy -aRy- age - retirement- pFevlsieRS- relatiRg -te the- FequiFemeRt -ef- members -ef -the- Pellee -er- Fire- Divislens -whleh aFe- eeRtalRed- in-aRy- State - Statute- er- lR -aRy- rule -ei- the -jelRt Pellee- and- FiFe- 6lell- Servlee- Eemm}ssleR- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk /4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.139 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of the City's continued participation in the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). Background: At the April 29, 1991 Study Session, the Council discussed the City's continued participation in the SRA. Representatives of the SRA were present to review the SRA's background and achievements. Staff has suggested that the City Council should consider withdrawing from the SRA. Staff has reviewed all expenditures for possible reductions or elimination. The direct benefits the City is receiving from the SRA are difficult to quantify. The dues of this organization are $3,000 for 1991. The joint powers agreement for this organization indicates that any member may withdraw by filing a written notice by June 15. The withdrawal will then take effect at the end of the calendar year. Given this timeframe, it is appropriate for the Council to make a decision on this matter. Formal Council action is required at this City Council meeting to allow time for the City to file a written notice of withdrawal. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council discontinue the City's participation in the Suburban Rate Authority effective in 1992 and also authorize the City Manager to submit a written notice of withdrawal. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Given the financial situation of the City, it is appropriate for the Council to make a decision as to the City's continued participation in the SRA. 2. The 1991 dues of the SRA are $3,000. 3. The direct benefits received from the SRA are difficult to quantify. 4. Formal Council action is required on this issue. A decision at this Council meeting will give the City time to submit a written notice of withdrawal. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to withdraw from the SRA. /L/-/ 2. The Council could decide to delay their decision. However, if the June 15 deadline is missed, the City will be unable to withdraw for another year. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the May 13 agenda for City Council consideration. Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 15- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 140 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Advertisements in Community Services publications. Background: A proposal has been initiated to sell business advertising in the seasonal brochure and reduce the overall production cost. The concept was introduced by Bruce Abrahamson, Director of Community Education. Mr. Anderson's connection with Edina's Community Education brochure initiated conversation regarding this idea. The school district is aware the City is considering use of advertising in seasonal brochures. The concept of advertising and the proposed policy were reviewed by the Community Services Commission. On April 9, 1991 the Community Services Commission took action to recommend use of advertising in Community Services publications to both the City Council and the Board of Education. On April 24, 1991 the Community Services Commission took action recommending the proposed policy to the City Council and the Board of Education. Attached is the proposed policy for selling advertisements in Community Services Department publications. The Department does have a variety of newsletters that promote the individual division's programs and activities. It would be preferable to cover them all with one policy should others wish to sell advertising. Recommended Motion: Accept the policy regulating advertisements in Community Services publications. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Advertising in City publications will provide funds to offset some of the cost of the publications. 2. School district staff has indicated an interest in pursuing advertising for shared publications. 3. The Community Services Commission has recommended approval of the advertising concept and the policy for such advertising. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve advertising in City publications. 2. Amend the policy as deemed appropriate. /57-/ Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the May 13, 1991 Council agenda. Council may delay action; however, a timely approval would provide for the process to take place in earlier publications. Respeinger y submitted, James osser City JDP:ds Attachment 1 5- C-�- POLICY REGULATING ADVERTISEMENTS IN COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PUBLICATIONS The Community Services Department of the City of Richfield strives to keep the citizens informed of Department policies and programs through a variety of Department publications. To offset the cost of printing these publications, the Department periodically solicits advertisements from area businesses. The City of Richfield establishes the following policy for accepting advertisements in city publications: 1. Given the negative public health and safety ramifications associated with the use of liquor, particularly by minors, the City will not accept advertisements which relate to or promote the use of liquor. 2. There is a preponderance of evidence indicating the negative impact of tobacco usage on the public health. The City will not accept advertisements relating to or promoting the use of tobacco products in its publications. 3. Advertisements for businesses that are in the primary business of selling liquor and /or tobacco products will not be accepted. 4. Advertisements which are libelous or obscene or which promote sexually oriented businesses and /or products will not be accepted. Nor will advertisements which promote illegal products, business or activities be accepted. 5. The City is a non - partisan entity. Advertisements for the promotion of a political party, candidate, or issue will not be accepted. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of May, 1991. /(o CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 141 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Designation of a second Council representative to MASAC for 1991. Background: Members of •the City Council serve as the City's representatives on various metropolitan agencies and the City's boards and commissions. Each year, the Council appoints Council Members to serve on the various agencies. On February 11, the Council designated all liaison appointments for 1991. Don Priebe was appointed as a MASAC representative. However, Mr. Priebe declined the appointment. In the past, the City has had two MASAC representatives. Currently, Council Member Stokes is the representative. There are also two alternates, Council Member Sandahl and City Manager Prosser. Recommended Motion: Designate a second representative to MASAC for 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City needs representation on MASAC. 2. In the past, the City has had two MASAC representatives. 3. The City's original designation declined the appointment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the designation until a future Council meeting. 2. Do not designate a second MASAC representative. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the May 13, 1991 City Council agenda for Council consideration. Respectf)4ly submitted, Ci JDP:ds . Prosser /17 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.142 Agenda May 13, 1991 Issue Statement: Council consideration as to whether to hold a Council meeting on May 27, 1991. Background: Because of the Memorial Day holiday, the second Council meeting for May, 1991, would be held on Tuesday, May 28. Recommended Motion: Cancel the City Council meeting regularly scheduled for May 27. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The business can be carried over to June, 1991. 2. The holiday may cause a problem with a quorum for the Council. Alternative Recommendation: Hold the second Council meeting in May on May 28. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the May 13, 1991 Council agenda so that proper public notification can be made if the meeting is cancelled. Respectfully ubmitted, James D. osser City Man er JDP:ds