08-13-90 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 194
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1989.
Background:
The City's auditing firm of Deloitte and Touche completed the
audit of the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 1989 late in
June. The Comprehensive Annual 'Financial Report was subsequently
submitted to the State of Minnesota as required and to the
Government Finance Officers Association for compliance review.
At the City Council Study Session of August 6, 1990,
representatives from Deloitte and Touche made a detailed
presentation of the financial report to the City Council and
answered any questions concerning the report. The action to be
taken at the August 13, 1990 meeting is the official receipt of
the CAFR by the City Council.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ending December
31, 1989.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City's Auditor has performed an audit of the City's
financial records for the year ending December 31, 1989 and
is making a report to the City Council concerning legal
compliance and internal control.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further
explanation of their findings.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the August 13, 1990 City
Council meeting. The report has been previously submitted to the
State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law.
ly submitted,
James T1. Prosser
City k4nager
JDP:ff
`1 l�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 195
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Resolution Providing for Polling Places and Designating Election
Judges for the September 11, 1990 State Primary Election.
Background:
Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 provides that election judges
for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the
governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be
made at least 25 days before the election at which the election
judges will serve.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution designating polling places and appointing election
judges for the State Primary Election to be held on Tuesday,
September 11, 1990.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Compliance with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2
2. The proposed resolution contains names of those who have
indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an
election judge for the September 11, 1990 State Primary
Election. The names come from a pool of people who have
indicated their interest in serving as a election judge to
the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S.
204B.21 subd. 1 and those who have previously served or
indicated interest in serving.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not
named in the resolution.
2. If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the
conduct of the election would not be valid.
Discussion /Vecision Mode:
The City Council is required by state statute to make election
judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election.
Therefore, it is recommended the City Council pass the attached
resolution at this meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit s anager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES
AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR
THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION
OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held on Tuesday,
September 11, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, that said election shall be held at the
polling places as herein appear specified:
Precinct No.
lA
Mt. Calvary Education Building
Ward 3
6541 16th Avenue
Precinct No.
2A
St. Peter's Catholic Church
Ward 2
6720 Nicollet Avenue
Precinct No.
3A
Sheridan Hills School
Ward 1
6400 Sheridan Avenue
Precinct No.
4A
St. Richard's Catholic Church
Ward 1
7540 Penn Avenue
Precinct No.
5B
Richfield Junior High School
Ward 1
7461 Oliver Avenue
Precinct No.
6B
Central School Building
Ward 2
7145 Harriet Avenue
Precinct No.
7A
Hope Presbyterian Education Facility
Ward 2
7201 4th Avenue
Precinct No.
8A
Richfield Intermediate School
Ward 3
7020 12th Avenue
Precinct No.
9A
Centennial School
Ward 3
7315 Bloomington Avenue
.77
and, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for
said election:
Shirley Gisselquist (DFL)
Ralph Roberts (IR)
Lois Kovach (DFL)
Mae Farr (IR)
Joyce Morrell (IR)
Patricia Lindberg (DFL)
Fern Oreck (DFL)
Helen Hillstrom (DFL)
Lavella Turek (DFL)
Myrtle Lindgren (IR)
Jette Floberg (IR)
Dorothy Hanson(IR)
Frederick Moore (DFL)
Jan Andersen (IR)
Linda Bloomgren (DFL)
Helen Moritz (DFL)
Robert Mack (DFL)
Mr. Ted Chao (IR)
Danette Kamrath (IR)
Catherine Alfano (DFL)
Pam Hlady (IR)
Angela Aylward (IR)
Gaynelle Buckland (DFL)
Marilyn Beyel (DFL)
Phyllis Reinmuth (IR)
James Harkness (DFL)
Ann Benson(IR)
Helen Peterson (DFL)
Pat Bunting (DFL)
Alvina Mjelve (IR)
Alternates:
Bernice Utter (DFL)
Gert Broker (IR)
Shirley Comstock (IR)
Lois Ball (DFL)
Beth Oglesbee (IR)
Helen Norman (IR)
Kathleen Leckner (DFL)
Ray Johnson (DFL)
Vivian Bennis (IR)
Betty Halloran (IR)
Muriel Bernstein (DFL)
Gladys Hayden (DFL)
June King (IR)
Bernice Johnson (DFL)
Jean Frenz (IR)
Betty Obenchain (DFL)
Vernette Carlson (DFL)
Alice Dickinson (IR)
Emily Day (DFL)
Mavis Spencer (DFL)
Bernadette Lais (IR)
Eloise Friend (IR)
Gertrude Herll (DFL)
Audrey Winslow (IR)
Lucille Gilberstadt (DFL)
Dee Wilcox (IR)
Stephanie Muenzhuber (DFL)
Sue Muilenberg (IR)
Corrine Cosgrove (DFL)
Barb Cook (DFL)
Clifford Martinson (IR)
Sue Lewis (IR)
Myrtle Thom (DFL)
Charlotte Bonstrom (IR)
David Gill (IR)
Robert Lexvold (DFL)
Ilene Holen (IR)
Elizabeth Bowman (IR)
Connie McDonald (DFL)
Lloyd C. Johnson (DFL)
Edith Nye (IR)
Arville Beckman (DFL)
Hazel Splittstoeser (IR)
Ruth Lundquist (DFL)
Arline Thomas (IR)
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th
day of August, 1990.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Steven J. Quam
Mayor
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda August 13, 1990 .
Issue Statement:
Resolution declaring costs to be assessed for the installation of
a fire protection system for Richfield Floral and Nursery and
setting date of hearing.
Background:
On December 11, 1989, the City Council adopted a resolution
declaring the adequacy of a special assessment petition from
Richfield Floral and Nursery and authorized the execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement for fire suppression improvements on
behalf of the City. The resolution authorized the use of the
City's Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund to finance the
project on an interim basis and to assume the assessment roll
upon completion of the project. As has been the case with a
number of other fire suppression projects within the City of
Richfield, the City has utilized MN Statute, Chapter 429 to
provide for special assessment financing for this type of
improvement.
The petition and Memorandum of Agreement provide for fire
suppression improvements not to exceed $13,690.00, that the
interim financing from the PIR Fund be charged at an eight (8$)
percent interest rate and repaid as special assessment payments
over a five year period.
The total costs incurred for the installation of the fire
suppression improvements at Richfield Floral and Nursery have now
been determined to be $13,690.00. In addition, capitalized
interest from the PIR Fund used to pay for the improvements
amounts to $760.36 for a total of $14,450.36.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution declaring the cost to be assessed
ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment and setting
the date of hearing for the proposed assessment for September 10,
1990.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Richfield Floral and Nursery has petitioned that the City
provide for the installation of fire protection facilities at
811 -813 East 66th Street in the City of Richfield.
2. The petition, as submitted, comes within MN Statute 429 for
the special assessment of fire suppression improvements.
3. The City Council, on December 11, 1989, adopted the
resolution approving the adequacy of the petition and
1113 -1
authorizing the improvements under the special assessment
process.
4. All fire suppression improvements at the above- referenced
location have been completed. The total cost of the
improvements have been finally determined.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The resolution declaring costs to be assessed and setting the
public hearing for Richfield Floral and Nursery must be done on
August 13, 1990 in order to provide adequate notice for the
September 10, 1990 Council date for public hearing. September
10, 1990 is also a necessary deadline in that all special
assessments must be certified to the County in a timely manner
prior to the November 15, 1990 deadline.
Respe ly submitted,
James Prosser
City pager
JDP:ff
r
1-13- z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEM FOR RICHFIELD FLORAL AND NURSERY
AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING
WHEREAS, cost has been determined for the installation of a
fire protection system for Richfield Floral and Nursery located
on 811 -813 East 66th Street in the City of Richfield in the
amount of $14,450.36 for the following property:
PID# 26- 028 -24 -31 -0045 - 811 -813 East 66th Street
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
1. The cost to be assessed against the property owner is
declared to be $14,450.36;
2. The City Clerk shall file a copy of such proposed
assessment in his office for public inspection;
3. The Clerk shall, upon that completion of such proposed
assessment, notify the City Council thereof.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 13th day of August, 1990.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Enactment of a resolution authorizing execution of the 1990 (Year
XVI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program Subrecipient Agreement.
Background:
Subrecipient agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County
which provide the basis for implementing the specific activities
of the 1990 (Year XVI) Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program. The agreements are required
pursuant to the CDBG program entitlement grant regulations.
Before Hennepin County may disperse any Year XVI CDBG funds, the
agreement must be signed by Hennepin County, the recipient, and
the City of Richfield (the subrecipient).
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the proposed resolution, authorizing signature of the
subrecipient agreements.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Year XVI CDBG program has previously been approved by the
City Council (see Attachment A), and the signature authorizing
the enactment of the subrecipient agreements would allow Hennepin
County to disperse the funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
To not authorize enactment of the subrecipient agreements thereby
preventing the City from utilizing Year XVI CDBG program funds.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The resolution must be acted upon at the August 13, 1990 meeting
to allow disbursement of CDBG Year XVI funds in a timely manner.
Respe f ly submitted,
James . Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
yC -1
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF THE YEAR XVI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has executed a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of
participating in the 1990 (Year XVI) Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant
from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
purposes of the program and the City is the subrecipient of those
funds; and
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and
County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the
specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken
with program funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number
A05740, on behalf of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this
Steven J. Guam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
YEAR XVI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
APPROVED FUNDING
1. Housin,e IImprovement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 66,577
b. Scattered Site $ 65,000
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 13,159
b. Day Care $ 18,093
TOTAL $162,829
y0 -;z
v
yC -_3
Contract No. 41.1.5 D
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, Statee of fMinnesota, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," and the
of 1C.i�h rlw/ , hereinafter referred to as " SUBRECIPIENT,"
said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of
Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community develop-
ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient; and
WHEREAS, $ �(� t'-�/ from Federal Fiscal Year 1990 CDBG funds has been
approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of
eligible and fundable community development activity /ies as included in and a
part of the 1990 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program and as set forth in
the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for
the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said
responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement
executed between Recipient and Subrecipient and in the 1990 Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and
the Certifications contained therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows:
1. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation
only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1.
2. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, as promulgated in 24 CFR
570.502, shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Sub-
recipient provided for in this Agreement or by any program income
generated therefrom.
3. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all
supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for
implementation of its activity /ies. Procurement shall be carried
out in accordance with the "Common Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85)
(which replace OMB Circular A -102 for the purposes of this Agree-
ment), the procurement requirements of the Subrecipient, and all
provisions of the Community Development Block Grant Regulations, 24
CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The
Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertise
Jr
yc -y
ments, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all con-
tracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as
necessary to insure compliance with the above described procurement
requirements. The Recipient shall provide advise and staff assis-
tance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - funded activity /ies.
4. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisi-
tions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity/
ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its
name and shall hold title to all properties purchased. The Subre-
cipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices,
appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition
under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG
Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing
all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said
regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assis-
tance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - funded activity /ies.
5. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a)
and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in
24 CM 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and
relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require-
ments of 24 CM 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section
104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CM 570.606(d)
governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of
the Act.
6. The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the expenditure of all
CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance
with OMB Circulars A -87 and the "Common Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85)
and in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable.
All records shall be made available, upon request of the Recipient,
for inspection /s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representa-
tives. If a financial audit /s determines that the Subrecipient has
improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development disallowing such expenditures, the
Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such
disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are
specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement.
7. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to
comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply
with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being
understood that the Recipient has responsibility to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for insuring
compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will
promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or
character of the activity /ies which it is implementing.
2
LJC -5
8. a. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and
hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs,
expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing
out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or
corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property
of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection
with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this
Agreement.
b. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect
itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement
provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during
the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and
keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess
umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of
an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising
from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death
and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence,,and
$600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occur-
rence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability
coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and
employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between
the Subrecipient and the Recipient.
9. The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with Community
Development Block Grant funds in such amounts as agreed upon in this
Agreement to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG - eligible
activity /ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the
Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expendi-
ture of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall
therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw
no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activ-
ity /ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant
Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as
well as copies of all documents and records needed to insure that
the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and
requirements.
10. The Recipient shall maintain the environmental review record on all
activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing
necessary information to the Recipient to accomplish this task.
11. The Recipient shall_ be responsible for the preparation of all
requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities
undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the
Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising
for contractual services which will include costs likely to be
subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal
Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The
Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to
insure compliance with these requirements.
12. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subre-
cipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site
3
`1c —(c
assistance regarding Community Development Block Grant procedures
and project management. This assistance will be provided as
requested by the Subrecipient, and an other times, at the initiative
of the Recipient, when new or updated information concerning the
CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be
provided to the Subrecipient.
13. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures
and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the
Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecip-
ient agrees to provide all information required by any person
authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the
Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same.
14. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or
termination of this Agreement may occur if the Subrecipient materi-
ally fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agree-
ment may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR
85.44. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by
either party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of
such termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under
this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient
following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the
Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or
unspent following such date of termination shall automatically
revert to the Recipient.
15. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been
reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed and
approved by the respective parties, governing bodies and properly
executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All
Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement
by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at the time of any
Amendment.
16. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated
for any purposes by the activities of the Subrecipient in the
performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Govern-
ment Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all
other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota
Rules implementing such act now in force or hereafter adopted, as
well as Federal regulations on data privacy.
17. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to
the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against
Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service
or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age,
sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference,
public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin;
and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
4
L4 C --7
18. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1990. The termina-
tion date of this Agreement is December 31, 1991, or at such time as
the activity /ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfac-
torily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient
shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or
uncommitted for the activities described in Exhibit 1.
19. If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the
expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall
apply, as well as the following specific stipulations:
a. The Subrecipient recognizes that it must notify the Recipient
of any program income within ten (10) days of the date that
such program income is generated. When program income is
generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with
CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the
percentage of CDBG funds used.
b. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by
the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program
income is generated or may be retained by the Subrecipient, as
specifically identified in Exhibit 1.
C. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the
responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use
of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate
recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recip-
ient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is
hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees
to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in estab-
lishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting
system, as required by HUD.
d. That in the event of close -out or change in status of the
Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received
subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be paid
to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is
received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient,
should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur.
20. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was
acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG'funds in
excess of $25,000 shall either be:
a. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208
until five years after expiration of this Agreement; or
b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the Recipient's being
reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of
the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improve-
ment to, the property.
5
j
IE
(4 C-9
- 21. The following standards shall apply to real property under the
control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole
or in part, using CDBG funds:
a. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty
(30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the
real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or
improvements including disposition. -
b. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount
equal to the current fair market value (less any portion
thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of
property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or
transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG
regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the
Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property
referenced herein.
C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer
of property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of
status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement
between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to
the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the
property.
22. The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit
consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law
98 -502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A -128,
Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB
Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities,
Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations.
a. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year
this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance
affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecip-
ient within six (6) months of the provision date.
b. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where
less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal
sources in any one fiscal year.
C. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds.
d. The Recipient reserves the right to recover, from non -CDBG
sources, any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by the audit.
23. The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR
570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing
Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means cf Carrying Out
Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concern-
ing Church /State Activities).
2
ti
`1 L-9
24. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notifica-
tion, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in
24 CFR 570.608.
25. The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for
activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively
further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impedes action
taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification.
26. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or
on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of
any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of
any Federal loan, the entering into of amendment, or-modification of
any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
27. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or
will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influ-
ence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," will be completed and submitted in accordance with its
instructions.
28. The use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies against any
individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within
the jurisdiction of the Subrecipient is prohibited.
7
yC -in
SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
19_, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having
signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions
herein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
Agreement will be legally, STATE OF MINNESOTA
valid and binding.
!/ Chairman of its County Board
Assistant County Attorne} And:
// /� CiJ �� Deputy /Associate County Administrator
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
8
Attest:
Deputy /Clerk of the County Board
SUBRECIPIENT: �
�I OF _1C (h 4l t el
By:
Its
And:
Its
Attest:
Title
The City is organized pursuant to:
_ Plan A _ Plan B _ Charter
L/ C -11
Contract No. A05740
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1.
STATEMENT OF WORK
The following activity /ies shall be carried out by the City of Richfield
under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth
below.
Up to $162,829 are to be provided in Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds
to the City of Richfield to assist in the funding of the following activi-
ty /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified:
Attachment A. #080 Child Day Care $ 18,093
Attachment B. #081 HOME 13,159
Attachment C. #082 Rehab of Private Property 66,577
Attachment D. #083 Scattered Site Housing 65.000
$162,829
uC. -IZ
ATTACHMENT A
1. ACTIVITY: Child Day Care
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMBER: 080
4. BUDGET: $18,093
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Provide child daycare assistance for Section 8 income eligible households
utilizing a sliding fee scale through an agreement with the Greater
Minneapolis Daycare Association.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
Type: [X] Non - Profit Agency Greater Minneapolis Davcare Association
[ J Public Agency
[ J Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.-
[X] Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[ ] Exempt (EX)
[ J Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
] Funds Released (FR) Date:
L4C -/3
[ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost-
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Proverty Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that ,
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
�[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
t4 C,-/ q
[ ] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart 3 shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ ] Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low - and moderate - income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[X] Limited Clientele
[ J Housing
[ ] sob Creation or Retention
[ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ J Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1).
] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ J Other Requirements
UC -1s
ATTACHMENT B
1. ACTIVITY: Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.)
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMBER: 081
4. BUDGET: $13,159
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Provide routine home maintenance /rapairs and homemaker services through
the H.O.M.E. program to the elderly and handicapped. This is a program
of the South Hennepin Human Services Council.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
,�- Type: [X] Non- Profit Agency Senior Community Services
[ j Public Agency
[ J Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing.a service.or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said.agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity dust be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
[X] Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[X] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ ] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
[ ] Funds Released (FR) Date:
0C. -/(,�'
[ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically .
used for procuring professional services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
-[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
gCr-7
[ ] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ ) Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[X] Limited Clientele
[ J Housing
[ J Job Creation or Retention
[ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ j Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1)•
[ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ ] Other Requirements
L4 C- I ?
ATTACHMENT C
1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Private Property
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMBER: 082,
4. BUDGET: $66,577
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing)
6. DESCRIPTION:
This locally administered program provides grants to income eligible
households for improvements consistent with the Urban Hennepin County
Procedural Guide for Housing Rehabilitation. This is a multi -year
activity.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
Type: [ J Non - Profit Agency
[X] Public Agency Richfield HRA
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a °service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
[X] Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[ J Exempt (EX)
[ J Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
[ ] Funds Released (FR) Date:
4 C-- / cj
[ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase.. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. .
-[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
L) C- 2U
[ ] Ploperty Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ ] Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ j Area Benefit
[ j Limited Clientele
[Xj Housing
[ ] Job Creation or Retention
[ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
S. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1).
j Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community, Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ ] Other Requirements
r
yC-a t
ATTACHMENT D
1. ACTIVITY: Scattered Site Housing
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMBER: 083
4. BUDGET: $65,000
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing)
6. DESCRIPTION:
The Richfield HRA administers an ongoing program to acquire substandard
dwellings, clear the site and develop new single family homes affordable
to lower income families per established program guidelines. This is a
multi -year activity. Program income will be returned to this activity.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X) Supplemental Agreement
Type: [ ] Non - Profit Agency
[X] Public Agency Richfield HRA
} Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a, service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X) Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
-[X) Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[ ) Exempt (EX)
[ } Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
[ } Funds Released (FR) Date:
L/ c. -ate
[ ] Labor Standards /Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
�~ the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
[X] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
.[X] Residential Antidisvlacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
Ll C-0�
[ ] Proverb Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570,505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[X] Jand Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated -in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[ ] Limited Clientele
[X] Housing
[ ] Job Creation or Retention
[ ] prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1).
[ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ ] Other Requirements
�l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Request for extension of Planned United Development (PUD)
amendment for the property located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South.
Background:
On August 28, 1989, the City Council approved a PUD amendment for
Richfield State Agency, Inc. at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South for the
construction of the following items:
A. A six story addition to the northwest corner of the
existing building.
B. A 12' x 48' addition to the west side of the existing
drive -thru center located along the south property line.
Carl E. McBride, Vice President, has requested that an extension
be granted for an additional period of one year. The additional
time is requested as they are still negotiating with McDonald's
in reference to the space on the lower level of the building.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for a one -year extension of the Planned
United Development Amendment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Section 545.09 Subd. 8 Time Limitations states that a permit
expires one year after it has been issued unless upon written
application,of the owner of the affected land the board
extends the expiration date of such permit for an additional
for an additional period not to exceed one year.
2. Based on past practices, we have granted extensions to
requests of this nature.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the extension of the planned unit development amendment if
the circumstances of the original amendment have been altered.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on August 13, 1990. The
hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield
City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
ly submitted,
James VS Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
Yf)-I
Telephone
(612) 861-7355
p � 861305
0 Ir 7-T
- INSURANCE SERVICES
6625 LXNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
July 12, 1990
Shawn B. Drill, Zoning Administrator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms Drill:
In response to your letter of July 10 regarding the August 28, 1989
PUD Amendment to the property located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South,
I would request an extension be granted for an additional period of
one year. We are still negotiating with McDonalds in reference to the
space on the lower level. Please acknowledge your approval and reply
to Steven Kirchner, Richfield State Agency, Inc. on your acceptance of
this extension. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Carl E. McBride
Vice President
CEM :mt
P. S. I had discussed this with Bruce Palmberg approximately one month
ago.
cc: Byron Wallace, Director of Community Development
✓$ill Weaver, City Planner
yE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing City of Richfield's
participation in an environmental cities group.
Background:
Representatives from St. Paul, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park,
Golden Valley, Robbinsdale and Eagan have initiated an effort to
cooperatively address a number of environmental issues. The
issues include water quality, air quality and solid waste. The
cities conducted an initial meeting to discuss the feasibility of
working together to jointly develop ordinances regulating
phosphorus in household and chemical laundry detergents;
restricting the use of lawn care chemicals, and prohibiting the
use of small incinerators. The group was formed as a mechanism
to help cities increase their impact on environmental
initiatives. Participation in the group would be nonbinding,
that is, cities would not be required to adopt various ordinances
or controls suggested or discussed by the group.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a resolution authorizing participation in an
environmental cities group.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Review of these environmental issues with other cities would
provide the City with the benefit of analysis by other
communities that could not normally be undertaken by the City
alone.
2. Participation is nonbinding.
3. The environmental issues addressed by this effort are of
concern to the City of Richfield.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City could decide not to participate in this effort. We
could nevertheless review and adopt ordinances prepared by the
group.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of
August 13.
Ci
JDP:tlm
y Submitted,
Prosser
L4 L-i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY OF RICHFIELD
TO JOIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL CITIES GROUP
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield recognizes its leadership
role in protecting the environment of those people living and
working within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has become frustrated with the length of
time it takes the federal and state governments to act on many
pressing environmental concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that local environmental
initiatives often have a more immediate impact on the
environmental problems facing them; and
WHEREAS, the City understands that there is a need by
business, other governmental bodies, and the public for uniform
regulations across the state; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that one way to obtain this type
of uniform regulation is to work closely with other cities in
such a way as to coordinate the environmental legislation passed
in these cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield authorizes the City to join an environmental
cities group, to participate in it decision making processes, and
to share information with other group members.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council understands
that, although the decisions of the group are not binding to the
City, the City has a commitment to participate actively in the
activities of -the group to the fullest extent possible.
PASSED this 13 day of August, 1990.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for tennis court repair.
Background:
In the spring of 1988, city staff initiated a program to repair
and replace tennis courts throughout the city with the priority
of repairs based on the condition of the courts. Tennis courts
at Augsburg, Jefferson, Sheridan and Christian Parks were
repaired in 1988; and courts at Donaldson, Fairwood and Memorial
Parks were repaired in 1989. Major repair and resurfacing is
scheduled for the six tennis courts at Augsburg Park this summer.
The 1990 revised park maintenance budget contains $36,000 for
this work. A format" bid opening for this work was held on
Friday, July 20, 1990 with the following results:
Tennis West Ltd. $38,683
Bituminous Consulting & Contracting Co. 38,695
Recommended Motion:
Award a contract for tennis court repair and resurfacing to
Tennis West Ltd. in the amount of $38,683.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Tennis West, Ltd. submitted the low bid for this work, and
they are a reputable tennis court contractor. This
contractor performed the work for last year's repair, and
was more than satisfactory.
2. Funds will be available in the 1990 park maintenance budget
to cover the additional $2,683.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not make any repairs at Augsburg Park tennis courts at
this time. However, the work completed in 1988 was performed
with the full realization that additional work would be
needed in the near future.
2. Council could choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to
rebid the project; however, delays caused by rebidding could
lead to the work being delayed another year, and would be
more expensive at a later date.
y F-
Discussion Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate
the repair work on these tennis courts. If action is not taken
to award a contract at this meeting, we will not have time to
accomplish the work this summer.
Respegt�ly submitted,
Jameg D. Prosser
City nager
JDP /reb
LI F-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
July 20, 1990
11:00 A.M.
Repair & Resurface Six (6) Tennis Courts
Bid No. 90 -10
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 repair and resurface of six (6)
tennis courts, bid no. 90 -10, as advertised in the official
newspaper on July 4, 1990.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL
Finley Bros. Enterprises
dba Tennis West Ltd. Minnetonka
Bid Bond
$ 38,683.00
Bitumous Consulting &
Contracting Co., Inc. Minneapolis
Bid Bond
$ 38,695.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 13, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
L4 r-,-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for joint cleaning and resealing.
Back round:
Cleaning debris from joints in concrete streets removes
inflexible material that can cause the joint to erupt during
times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are resealed with
material that expands and contracts with the pavement surface.
This also will reduce water intrusion into the pavement base,
which weakens the street surface.
The area under consideration is Lyndale Avenue from 76th - 78th
Streets, 65th Street from Graham to 66th, and approximately seven
alleys (Nicollet between 71st - 73rd, and Fourth - Fifth Avenue
between 66th & 67th).
Bids from four contractors were o
1990 joint cleaning and resealing
results:
Forby Contracting, Inc.
Thomas & Sons
Progressive Contractors,
G. C. Strasburg
pened August 3, 1990 for the
project with the following
$61,488.15
64,663.50
Inc. 72,673.40
75,721.38
The total Professional Services line item under the Street
Maintenance budget is $266,500 for the sealcoating, concrete
joint cleaning and sidewalk, curb and gutter repair projects.
This includes both the contractor and City labor costs. The
contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be
made on actual work performed.
Council would be authorizing contracts at the stated amounts,
with the stipulation that the contract documents allow variances
The combined totals of the work in this professional services
budget line item will not exceed the budgeted total. However,
the sidewalk, curb and gutter repair and the joint repair
contracts may individually exceed the total estimated contract
totals.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award a contract for
the 1990 joint cleaning & resealing project to Forby Contracting,
Inca in the sum of $61,488.15.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Forby Contracting, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid.
L-1 G - i
2. Forby Contracting, Inc. is a well -known and reputable
company.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may choose to reject all the bids and direct
staff to obtain new quotations. However, the bids obtained are
reasonable, and staff does not believe we could obtain a better
price from a reputable contractor.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay award of this contract; however, the
contract documents allow the bidders to withdraw their bids after
30 days of the bid opening. Also, this work needs to be
completed before cold weather becomes a problem, so staff is
asking for approval at this time.
Respectfealy submitted,
Jame fanager rosser
City,
Attachment
JDP /reb
L- & -I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
August 3, 1990
11:15 A.M.
Concrete Joint Cleaning & Resealing
Bid No. 90 -12
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for concrete joint cleaning and
resealing, bid no. 90 -12, as advertised in the official newspaper
on July 18, 1990.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL
Thomas & Sons Rogers
Bid Bond
$64,663.50
G.C. Strasburg Co. Burnsville
Bid Bond
$75,721.38
Forby Contracting Inc. Hinckley
Bid Bond
$61,488.15
Progressive Contractors Osseo
Bid Bond
$72,673.40
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 13, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
q14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for the 1990 sidewalk, curb and gutter repair
project.
Background:
Repair of concrete sidewalks, and concrete curb and gutter work
is performed each year as a safety precaution. The maintenance
program consists of removal and replacement of deteriorated
concrete sidewalks sections and curb and gutter in various areas
of the city.
Bids from seven contractors were opened on August 3, 1990 with
the following results:
G. C. Strasburg Company $26,200.00
AdCon, Inc. 26,500.00
Thomas & Sons Construction 29,790.00
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. 29,820.00
DNCON, Inc. 32,230.00
Lindahl & Carlson, Inc. 33,048.50
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 33,700.00
The total Professional Services line item under the Street
Maintenance budget is $266,500 for the sealcoating, concrete
joint cleaning and sidewalk, curb and gutter repair projects.
This includes both the contractor and City labor costs. The
contracts are based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be
made on actual work performed.
Council would be authorizing contracts at the stated amounts,
with the stipulation that the contract documents allow variances
The combined totals of the work in this professional services
budget line item will not exceed the budgeted total. However,
the sidewalk, curb and gutter repair and the joint repair
contracts may individually exceed the total estimated contract
totals.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award the 1990
Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Repair project to G. C. Strasburg
Company in the sum of $26,200.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. G. C. Strasburg Company submitted the lowest responsible bid.
2. Funding for this project is available through the 1990 Street
Division operating budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all
new quotations; however, the bid
amount of work which needs to be
believe we could obtain a better
contractor.
q N-
bids and direct staff to obtain
s received are in line with the
completed and staff does not
price from a reputable
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 13, 1990 City Council
meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
facilitate timely completion of this project before cold weather
becomes an obstacle to performing this work.
Respectf,v4ly submitted,
Jame f.Prosser
cityLkanager
Attachment
JDP /reb
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA y �-� L
Bid Opening
August 3, 1990
11:00 A.M.
Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repair
Bid No. 90 -11
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair,
bid no. 90 -11, as advertised in the official newspaper on July
18, 1990.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL
Lindahl & Carlson, Inc. St. Paul
Bid
Bond
$33,048.50
Thomas & Sons
Rogers
Bid
Bond
$29,790.00
Progressive Contractors, Inc.
Osseo
Bid
Bond
$33,700.00
Adcon, Inc.
Andover
Bid
Bond
$26,500.00
G.C. Strasburg Co.
Burnsville
Bid
Bond
$26,200.00
Standard Sidewalk Inc.
Lindstrom
Bid
Bond
$29,820.00
DNCON, Inc.
Lakeville
Bid
Bond
$32,230.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 13, 1990 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading on consideration of an
amendment to the zoning ordinance increasing lot coverage in
residential areas.
Background:
A zoning ordinance provision, which restricts lot coverage to 25%
of a residential lot, has been the topic of several variance
applications in the recent past. The City Council, in granting
the variances, has requested the Planning Commission to review
the standards. The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed
the issue and has found the provision to be unduly restrictive.
The current ratio prevents many homeowners from upgrading their
homes by adding the space necessary to make such homes more
livable.
Recommended Motion:
Approve second reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
increasing lot coverage for residential uses to 35% for lots of
up to 7,000 square feet and 25 %, or 2,500 square foot coverage,
whichever is larger, for lots over 7,000 square feet and 35%
coverage of the rear yard for accessory buildings.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the amendment.
2. The City Council expressed concern when granting variances
that the existing requirement is unduly restrictive. The
proposal would allow all but one of the variance requests
that the Council has granted over the last three years.
3. The lot coverage variances that were granted do not appear
to have negatively impacted the neighboring properties.
4. A housing goal of the City is to expand the availability of
larger homes.
5. Much of the existing housing was built in the post World War
II period and the lot size and housing type does not meet the
current market demand. This is especially evident in the
scarcity of move up type larger family homes. Similarly, a
two car garage would be considered a necessity for a new
home. Many lots in the City are only 6750 square feet and
the ordinance prevents the addition of desirable and
necessary features.
s - I
6. The City Building Inspector suggested that it is difficult to
meet the existing standards and also meet market
expectations. He stated that many homeowners approach the
City to expand their homes only to be told that it is not
allowable without a variance.
7. If the City were to discourage housing upgrade, it might
result in long term deterioration of the housing stock in
the City.
8. Setback provisions retain necessary control and have more of
an obvious effect on neighboring properties than lot coverage
controls. Similarly, a two car garage rather than a one car
garage provides greater storage and the opportunity for less
visual clutter of motor vehicles in,driveways.
9. Surveys have indicated that the City has a reputation for
being a starter home community with families moving out of
the City when they want to move up to a larger home.
10. The proposed amendment gives more latitude to those
homeowners most severely impacted while keeping overall
control.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to adopt the amendment on
the basis that the existing provision has been effective in
controlling the use of property.
2. The City Council could modify the amendment setting a
different lot coverage limitation.
3. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the
Planning Commission with instructions.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on August 13, 1990.
The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of
Richfield,City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Notice of
hearing was published in the Sun - Current.
JDP:ds
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
B[LL NO.
AMENDMENT TO S€CTIOR 515, OF
APPENDIX D TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 515 of Appendix n to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning:
residence districts" is hereby amended by amending subdivision 4 of subsection
515.09 thereof to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Lot coverage. For resrdentin4 rises; maximum ;ot eoverage sha}} he
25%; of efher uses,; 69%-. No aeeessory bangs may eeetspy more than a9%
of the area of any rear yard.
Maximum lot coverages:
Residential uses:
Lots of 7,000 square feet
or less
Lots of over 7,000 square feet
Other uses:
Accessory buildings in rear
yard area:
35%
the greater of
257 or 2,500 sq. ft.
50%
35% of
rear yard areas
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1990.
teven J.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
RC 160 -5
s -z
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a preliminary plat to allow a subdivision of
the vacant lot at 7201 Penn Avenue South. This item is continued
from the July 23, 1990 City Council meeting.
Background:
Applicant John Oksness is requesting a preliminary plat in order
to subdivide the vacant parcel at 7201 Penn Avenue South into two
lots. The subdivision would allow the applicant to construct an
attached twinhome and sell each unit separately on an individual
lot.
On June 11, 1990, the City Council granted lot area and zero lot
line setback variances contingent upon the following:
• Approval of the subdivision request for this property.
• Submittal and approval of an acceptable drainage plan.
• The proposed structure be a one story rambler style
dwelling that is compatible with the character of the
neighborhood.
The property is zoned R- residence district.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the preliminary plat for 7201 Penn Avenue South.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The preliminary plat is consistent with the plan submitted
to and reviewed by the Council at the variance hearing on
June 11, 1990.
2. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the plat by a
5 -3 vote based on adverse impact to the neighborhood,
drainage problems and a twinhome being at odds with the
single family area. A number of neighbors appeared at the
hearing and voiced objections. Subsequent to the meeting,
the petitioner met with the neighboring property owners,
changed the design and location of the property and developed
a berm and swale system to handle water on his property. At
subsequent hearings, the neighbors did not object but still
raised concerns over drainage.
3. At the variance hearing and previous preliminary plat
hearing, there was substantial discussion relating to
drainage of this parcel and within the context of the
neighborhood. The applicant has received a signature
on the drainage plan from the surveyor, and the City
Engineer's office has reviewed the drainage plan. A
memorandum dated August 7, 1990 from the City Engineer
indicates that drainage will be adequate.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the preliminary plat if a finding of fact determines
that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the
surrounding properties.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on August 13, 1990 in
the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland
Avenue South.
This item was continued from the July 23, 1990 City Council
meeting.
JDP:ds
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City kfinager
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
` pLLON
INC ,
L=A
_
,.ALA
LAND SURVEYORS —
a
o w
m
o_
x
Zt" R, eoa&u. ;Du4.
8713 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55420
888.2084
IN
�%�//' cn7^' //J A/ W
-3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Memorandum
DATE: August 7, 1990
TO: Byron Wallace, Community Development Director
FROM: Mike Eastling, City Engineer P, f%
SUBJECT: Drainage Plan for 7201 Penn Avenue
I have reviewed the revised drainage plan for the above address
and find the following:
o This drainage plan will adequately provide drainage on
this site. The berm and swale system is designed to
carry storm waters from the south portion of the lot
eastward to the east property line, and then northward
onto 72nd Street.
o This drainage plan will not have an adverse impact on
neighboring properties. This drainage plan will not
solve all of the drainage problems on the block, however,
it will provide some relief to the adjacent properties
which currently experience drainage problems.
o This is an acceptable drainage plan for the subject
property,
cc: George Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor
Address File
MJE:rb
P90 -2 -0117
x
il-
D
0
W
D Z
z 0
,a 4
V
z 0
z
uj
CL
r
O
N
t t
ws +o «rat --•�
ON u�L
N It
YI Oi r
•,fl l —J.• �L
Ja01,7JON0, _�. _
L�J; 1L
YI C1 1 Ii
• 1 t i
11 1.
I�..J
YI
101,l) Ii C r
QOr >IN7 41 Y •
tnfwn,o� .liy' �
>rw• 1� "-1 r
ON•1rr0 �, r�1" 1 f"
-SAT ONr,CNO•
.I C 11
YI • 1
Yet (1
t M7A7yG ;pJ
1.1
-7A• a7110 >IN
n7oslnf !11 �'�•
`11
014,1111041,11131111,
Arnft„la
yN•tr71r '-
ow•ro IiiiJ
y)1rr•M I�
o,surro 1 1 ;JIIL
')A• 71.ONIl
« >W61• �11 ��
yN•Arf � 1 "� : •
i
yM0•n0'I �\s
7W
Or•rlo �PH
lO,OfMnN 1
X0_11 �Jly 1
w.901 iii ^�C
r-
wrorow 1
MOIr)N ::�-JJ
11)ttnr • i L._
1 I
aZ
G—L4
C� k
�V4
W
I �� I � T � >r >r > • .
r-- -1`-�� rl ♦1
li Y+
I Y111•
00r01N0
4 I;:
I
NOaNIY
1 �I•���J 11
tw ;i3at
•SAr a711011N
t �� -�a��� 1170ftI1t
3Ab NN3d
�1M MafOrCM)M
'' 1- ' -''uj arnfs,ll•
_ _ _ _ -r�L�� CM•fIJ1a
C ^� I a71rr•M
. II I, (rill o1A,r•>
PAT 113WONA'i
:1i: II 11 �Il��i! yM.ANt
..........
I ����. v'�a�7i! r::7srr.'. • -__ ,I � V ` �V fN1Ar1
.......... I I .I, ' f7w•r
� r-"^ �l'�••+ • �� ... I iii �' N Y OYOw
y)Ano
•7Ar NN74
111isnY
NOIr7NG
,- . _ — ' 1 STWOMIL t•wONA � — t ^_J •O�t.L- ��� ^ ~_.� — 1�-'_'1�_li �� � -r. MOyan
yM7iM1A r'^ •' ��_ _ ;I{���t� � %`• t ^_�� _�_ -___J� Il..�..`.tt\�.I MYrUMt•Ir
MNMNC•N --' � .�� �1t,,,���- des -�;.+� 7A• f7><Y7x
I .n �....r'ti- >i_'++•sz: �•>.r ti +.. � +. .war:. -- -
M ~ ` • t t
^1j r Y r r r Y rt � ► r
V
anN3AV M3AI10
3NIl1S3M
� 1
1
ac
C) cv
-4
1
AIVM3AIUa
'ld 6l
i
i -
,0O' ZOI
01.1 I --
N
II
«z W
J
Q
C.)
N
t
LL. 10 I
I � I
- - - -- m
cn
I
• I
'yj
N o
� J
o
-9Z C I
CM
of oC
3NIl iol
X00' Zol — — —
I �
Hinos 3nN3Ad NN3d
W
D
Z
LLI
H
OQ
N
a
Z
N
ZH
W
N
3
W
cn
t
W
ZW
ZO
a
.W
CL
T
o
a.
anN3AV M3AI10
3NIl1S3M
� 1
1
ac
C) cv
-4
1
AIVM3AIUa
'ld 6l
i
i -
,0O' ZOI
01.1 I --
N
II
«z W
J
Q
C.)
N
t
LL. 10 I
I � I
- - - -- m
cn
I
• I
'yj
N o
� J
o
-9Z C I
CM
of oC
3NIl iol
X00' Zol — — —
I �
Hinos 3nN3Ad NN3d
I
0
I-]
m
m
00000
00o Illoc
C,
0
�:��CC�CC��C�Cm
CEMETERY
I=
00000
00o Illoc
C,
0
CEMETERY
I=
om
CC :
C:
�
:C
CC
1�
�C
'C�:C:
:�CCCCCCf
00000
00o Illoc
C,
0
0
mm
s
Is
%�
11 1 .0 ........
-- -- -- mm MM
9011. m
mw mm mm �m �� ��. ml mm ��
mo mm �m mm mm mm �m im IN
-m ms mm m� mo � mm mm mm
ms mm m mm .- MM � MM MM
IN mm ®m a� mm �m m� MIN mm
IN
mm MM-MM Mil IN mm mm WIN mm
mm.mm-mm mm-m mm mm IIIIIIIIIIIIII-Milm
M-MM - mm--Mm mm-
-awn Mil mmmm
mm m Mil mm
-------------------- ____
--------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
- - ---------------------------------------------------------
---------
•-
-
--
--
--
--
-- -- -- mm MM
9011. m
mw mm mm �m �� ��. ml mm ��
mo mm �m mm mm mm �m im IN
-m ms mm m� mo � mm mm mm
ms mm m mm .- MM � MM MM
IN mm ®m a� mm �m m� MIN mm
IN
mm MM-MM Mil IN mm mm WIN mm
mm.mm-mm mm-m mm mm IIIIIIIIIIIIII-Milm
M-MM - mm--Mm mm-
-awn Mil mmmm
mm m Mil mm
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
0
NUE 501
IELOPMI
--,
PCIOOOA
0 0
°0 00
M.-O
o Cll—�
ERA
--------------- Pwp� A..
t ------- -----------------
--------------- ------
m WIN
mm mm IN
MIN mm mm MIN W.M.
m mm mm ma
mm mm IN
m
m m F IN IN I IN
IN IN Ell
mom= m mm
w7i INIM! MON mm W
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
m-
- -
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
ii
mm
MIN
mm
mm
mm
MM
MM
INK
mm
mi
mm
MMI
Mm
mm
mm
WIN
IMIN
MIN
IMIN
=M
Ell
Mm
Mm
Mm
Mm
mm
M1=1
MM
I IN
IN
IN
ii
mm
MM"
wmaM Malawilil "
IIIIIIIIIN 19 1
mm IN
----------
mm
mm MINI
mm IIIIIIIII!
------- ---------
MIMIMIMI — ------------ - ----- -- MW
. .14A
>
N
CLui
wmaM Malawilil "
IIIIIIIIIN 19 1
mm IN
----------
mm
mm MINI
mm IIIIIIIII!
------- ---------
MIMIMIMI — ------------ - ----- -- MW
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 205
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on consideration of an amendment to Off - Street
permit #65 -16 at 1740 1/2 West 76th Street.
Background:
Colony at Richfield apartments is requesting an amendment to the
off - street parking permit at 1740 1/2 West 76th Street. They are
proposing to construct two parking structures with a total of 28
garage stalls and one maintenance shop. The two structures would
be approximately 44' x 85' each, and positioned in -line with a
ten foot wide separation where enclosed garbage dumpsters would
be located. The structures would be situated in the parking area
at the southeast portion of the complex. The property is zoned
C -2 general commercial. This proposal requires an amendment to
the original off - street parking permit issued in 1965.
The structure would replace 38 current parking spaces with 28
garage spaces, resulting in a net loss of ten parking spaces.
Current parking available: 325 spaces (plus 34 garages) 359
Proposed parking available: 287 spaces (plus 62 garages) 349
Parking requirement (based on 212 units): 318
Colony at Richfield also plans to regain at least ten spaces by
restriping the entire parking lot at 8.5 foot stall widths.
Currently, many stalls are striped at nine and ten foot widths.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the off-street parking permit amendment for 1740 1/2 West
76th Street with the following stipulations:
1. A ten foot space separate the two structures.
2. All building and fire codes be met for the structures,
including -a one -hour fire rating for both walls between the
ten foot separation ( dumpster area).
3. The entire parking lot be restriped at 8.5 foot stall widths.
4. The dumpster area between the structures be enclosed.
5. The garage design and construction materials be consistent
with that of the existing apartments.
6. Handicap parking spaces be provided as per Code requirement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. With the construction of these garages, the parking
requirement would remain to be met, as 318 spaces are required
and 349 would be provided.
2. Restriping the entire parking lot would create additional
outdoor parking spaces for peak hours.
3. The structures are proposed to be approximately 3,740 square
feet each. The Senior Housing Inspector indicates that one
hour rated fire walls and a ten foot separation space would
be required between the structures. Structures of this nature
which are 5,000 square feet or larger are required to be
sprinkled.
4. The garages will offer an amenity to the property.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request if a finding of fact determines that this
proposal would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on August 13, 1990 in
the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue
South.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Sun - Current and
mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
Z
LU
� _3-,L
"All C14
au
%l.t
4A 91
vor
� ,��� ��•- - '--,moo t --�flL� ,
rru
."T'INVO
)AV ON.,1r0r ,r- `-- ..��,•_,.,� -..- -� KO1K11i
3AV l3"11021"
SN3A31S .'�_' M30S {.1t
ON.rO
f 14 •' �' ,'� Y.
IYML,bd
o1)I,rr9
O«trO
)Ar
'c rJ �, j' Kp1r0 TOO r �
...., yMOInO Q ��
"OSY3«3
«OSr)") •r �� I �__� _ 1 ' ' t"�.:.1..:::: 10'02. "nM N
t/t7!Lilf t•'°__s =-��r_ •� °,�--- `r• -��' ��•_•: -�•. _r? - -- - '' MtArt
^ _ __
ouvatt 10 MwnN l '--_'! C___: `'!-_"'} -- —j r--^^ O� L---'' r----� 17,
- `I tOMtt V
tin^ ".to, V
lOKy �,��"•' �,t�,OL- .� -J�1�' ,�It�,i� NOy.3«
"Oi MM) I r .�. ,"1 r C-. T_O— - r—l� Jri ---•— = ^— ^r�,,ii l:�i �1{ f �) 1N33no soon
r3At,0 13ftN1 � }' �1 '+••
NO�n
"•Otr3NL i"`-- ^_'.$•��L -, ^`•�r ~�-'r'��' �,�_ _ i= ��r+'- �'r��'l 1")i"1A
mignOWIT
"Oyu �; -� - ,i +� �- =. - Y � .::••�f" -!,, i )A. t3><r3x
N
Yj + +
0
0
Q 41 i
bl 1V 0 :-
` d odd a
It
Cy
uj
1 - N
cr
•� 0 Z
Z T vo
d r a
11
a
d ,
5 � �
�, `
°a a
�tl %fop
_
t 6
O P 1
IL
a t r
d
lid
lie , t
{ t- • Q t. t o � -� • L a i
Ott Iq g
a a
1 r
1 • (t�l i r ��
« ttti
CAS
a<
r I
0
lu
v '
b, I ti
� I
N
� = d
O
_ Iq
s Q
p � z
t
h
�� LU
w
a
J
1
4
tLiIL.
d
Z
Li
2
O
«Z
�y
0
M
II
r
!1J
J
Q
U
N
Z
Q
ui
t
cn
I--
W
W
W
N
TOM
O
To"
Doil
ui
a
KEY
SITE CONTEXT
Zoning
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING &ZONING
1740 1/2 WEST 76TH STREET
�_m_
mm
mm
INDUSTRIAL =R SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENCE
C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR -1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
® C•3 HGti DENSITY COMMERCIAL Q� o °o °o °o MR -2 TMEE TO 17 UNIT RESIDENCE
MR MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENCE N • • MR -3 OVER 17 UNIT RESIDENCE
'JMMENTS:
0 200 400 600 800 1000
SCALE FEET
IM1
im
IM
I IIw Imm
MI
r■
41
S1 E
a
❖ot �
4210*23
uw
'a
,y
'e i
'i i
i'i
•••
■ • •
■ • •
• �'
�•'s
KEY
s
s
n
h
SITE CONTEXT
Comprehensive Development Plan
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING &ZONING
1740 1/2 WEST 76TH STREET
'i • FREEWAY STRIP D SMILE FAMILY RES.
a0000 MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER ® INSTITUTION
MULTI FAMILY MS. 4 PARK i OPEN SPADE
N
JMME NTS:
0 200 400 600 800 1000
SCALE FEET
-7`-7
• i
'•'i i ii'
'ii • •ii
ii/ 'ii
'i • i'i
'• J%1
� • 1
c
v
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
First reading regarding consideration of an ordinance
establishing holiday pay for 911 Dispatchers.
Background:
The City's dispatch center is staffed by full -time and part -time
911 Dispatch personnel. As a necessary aspect of providing a
year around Public Safety service for the community, it is
essential that the dispatch center be staffed 24 hours per day,
everyday. That means that 911 Dispatch personnel must work on
holidays. Certain of the holidays worked each year are normally
considered more of a family oriented holiday, such as
Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day, while others are more
typically associated with vacations such as Memorial Day, 4th of
July and Labor Day. As a result, it is difficult to schedule
employees to work on these holidays, especially when the only
extra compensation now granted those employees is that they
receive eight hours of holiday leave to be taken at another time.
This holiday leave is granted whether they are scheduled to work
during the particular holiday or if it falls on their normal days
off.
In an effort to provide a greater incentive for 911 Dispatchers
to work on holidays and to provide a holiday benefit that
recognizes work on certain normal holidays, more similar to that
of Police personnel who work similar schedules, an ordinance
change in recommended which pays employees one and one -half times
for hours worked on six named holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial
Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
The cost to the City for implementing this change is
approximately $1,368 for the first full year.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the first reading of an ordinance amendment to Ordinance
Section 310.31 Holidays to provide for holiday pay for 911
Dispatchers.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The 911 Dispatchers are required to work on a schedule which
encompasses 365 days per year, 24 hours per day.
2. With such a schedule, 911 Dispatchers are required to work on
all holidays.
3. While equal time is given for holidays, it would be desirable
to pay time and one -half for certain normal holidays in order
to provide incentive to work such days.
4. It would be desirable to treat the 911 Dispatchers similar to
the Police Officers who work the same type of 365 day
schedule.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve such holiday pay for 911 Dispatchers.
2. Approve holiday pay for a different number of holidays,
either fewer or greater.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Action is requested at the August 13, 1990 City Council meeting
so that a second reading and public hearing may be scheduled for
the first City Council meeting in September.
ly submitted,
Jams . Prosser
Cit anaaer
JDP:ff
J -z
BILL NO. 1990-
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled "Section 310.31. Subd 6 - Holidays for shift employees;
is hereby amended in the following respect:
Subd. 6. Holidays for shift employees. Employees engaged
in shift work who are unable to observe a holiday will be
permitted to take equivalent time off within twelve months of the
designated holiday. Permanent and probationary permanent
employees who are classified as .911 Dispatchers and who work on
the followings named holidays at the expressed authorization of
the City Manager will be compensated at time and one half (14) o_f_
the emolovee's regular base rate of pay for all hours worked in
addition to the holiday leave granted:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
4th of July
Labor Day
Thanksgiving
Christmas.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 27th day of September, 1990.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Steven J. Quam Mayor
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 207
Agenda August 13, 1990
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance deleting
the hearing examiner sunset provision.
Background:
The City Council established a hearing officer procedure in 1985
to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal
provisions of the zoning ordinance. The procedure was set up on
a year -to -year basis so that it could be reviewed before making
it permanent. It has been reviewed annually and found to be an
appropriate procedure.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of a proposed amendment to delete
Subsection 545.31 of the zoning ordinance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Planning Commission recommended approval of deleting the
sunset provision on July 24, 1990.
2. The hearing officer procedure has been reviewed annually since
1985 and found to be appropriate and beneficial.
3. A hearing examiner is most appropriate for this quasi - judicial
function.
4. Five years is an adequate review time to determine the
effectiveness of the hearing examiner procedure.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may consider the existing provision adequate and
recommend that the hearing examiner procedure be extended for
another year.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Public hearing and second reading are scheduled for September 10,
1990.
Respe t lly submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
AUG 08 '90 07:51 HOLMES 8 GRAVEN
BILL NO. 1990
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 545
OF APPENDIX B TO THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
P.2
9-1
Section 545 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled: Zoning:
adjustment: appeals: administration. is hereby amended by repealing Subsection
545.31 thereof which is entitled: Sunset.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day
of 11990.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RC145 -038
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Steven J. Quam - Mayor
c�_ Z
545.13. Hearing examiners: purpose. It is the purpose of subsections 545.13
to 545.31 to establish the coa:mittee of hearing examiners and an administrative
hearing process to expedite the review of certain matters involving requests for
variances.
545.15. Committee of hearing examiners. There is hereby created and continued
the committee of hearing examiners. The committee is a special committee of the
board of adjustments and appeals to be administered by the director of community
development. The committee shall assist the board in all matters within the
jurisdiction of the board. The committee is appointed by the manager subject to
confirmation by the council and members serve at the pleasure of the manager.
Hearing examiners may be city employees and shall have experience in municipal
administration and procedures of law.
545.17. Powers and duties. Hearing examiners may hear and decide requests for
variances from the literal provisions of this code. The hearing examiners shall
approve variance requests only when it is demonstrated that such actions are
consistent with the standards of this code and Minnesota Statutes, section
462.357, subdivision 6, which is incorporated herein by reference. A hearing
examiner may not permit, as a variance, any use which is not permitted by the
zoning regulations applicable to the property under consideration. A hearing
examiner may impose conditions on variances to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties.
545.19. Application and fees. Application for a variance shall be made to the
director. Applications for variances shall be accompanied by the fee set by
appendix D of the city code. No application shall be deemed to be filed until
It is complete in .ill respects. Upon filing, the director shall refer the
application to a hearing examiner designated by the director to hear the matter.
545.21. Hearing procedures. Subdivision 1. Time limits. The hearing shall be
conducted at least 15 -1/2 working days but not longer than 30 working days after
filing. Except in cases involving serious hardship to the applicant, bearings
shall be conducted only in the evenings.
a-
9_,__1'
Richfield City Code (Zoning) 545.21, Subd. 2
Subd. 2. Notice. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed by first class
mail to the property owners within 350 feet of the subject property at least ten
days prior to the hearing. Evidence of the giving of such notice shall be
provided to the hearing examiner at the beginning of the hearing. The notice
shall also state that individuals wishing to appear at the hearing should.
contact the department prior to the hearing date. The failure to give mailed
notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not inval-
idate the proceedings, provided a good faith attempt to_comply with this subdi-
vision has been made.
Subd. 3. Report. The director shall provide a written report to the
hearing examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for
a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written
report shall be filed with the hearing examiner at least 72 hours prior to the
date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the
applicant and shall be furnished to others upon request.
Subd. 4. Parties. Parties of record shall be:
(a) the applicant and representative of the applicant;
(b) any interested person who has notified the department of an intent to
appear;
(c) city staff; and
(d) the planning commission.
Subd. 5. Testimony. A hearing examiner may call witnesses, and accept any
evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the examiner is relevant to the
issues being heard. Parties of record shall have the right to cross - examine
witnesses and present testimony and evidence. The hearing examiner may impose
limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimo-
ny.
Subd. 6. Record. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape
will be transcribed on request of the council. The tape will also be tran-
scribed at the request of any party of record upon the payment of all costs of
transcription. The tape recording shall be preserved until the time for appeal
has expired.
Subd. 7. Determination. The hearing examiner shall, within 30 days
following the close of the hearing render a written decision supported by
findings specifically related to the applicable standards contained in this code
and law. The hearing examiner's decision shall be transmitted to all parties of
record and filed with the city clerk. The hearing examiner's decision shall be
final, subject to appeal. If the hearing examiner fails to render a written
decision within such period the applicant may present its application to the
city council for consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting not less
than ten days after filing of a decision.
(t -y
545.23. Appeals. A party aggrieved by the decision of the hearing examiner may
appeal the decision by delivering to the director a notice of appeal within ten
days of the date the decision is filed. The appeal shall be to the board of
adjustments and appeals.
545.25. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing
of the examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied
by the hearing examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case
not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The
request for a rehearing shall state with particularity the nature of the new
evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehear-
ing is timely made, the time to appeal will be tolled until the decision on
granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the exam-
iner's decision shall be withdrawn.
545.27. Time limit. Variances granted pursuant to subsections 545.13 to 545.31
shall lapse and terminate if the structure requiring the variance is not com-
pleted within one year of the date the variance is granted.
545.29. Reports. The committee shall annually prepare a report for the council
and the planning commission outlining the activities of the hearing examiners
and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite
the processing of land use requests currently treated as variances.
545.31. Sunset. Subsections 545.13 to 545.31 shall expire on September 1, 1986
unless the council shall, by resolution, extend its effect for an additional
period or periods. (Extended, Resolution No. 7205, August 11, 1986; Extended,
Resolution No. 7340 September 14, 1987; Extended, Resolution No. 7450,
September 12, 1988.) ,., 4 9, q Fg