10-23-89 agendaI//
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.24
Agenda October 23, 1989
•
Issue Statement:
Council Confirmation of Mayor's Appointment of Commissioner to
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Background:
The term of HRA Commissioner Ivan Ludeman will expire on October
27, 1989. Commissioner Ludeman was appointed to the HRA in 1976
and is serving his third five-year term.
Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to
confirmation of the City Council. Mayor Quam has indicated that
he will make an appointment to the HRA for a five-year term at
the October 23, 1989 City Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Confirm the Mayor's appointment
and Redevelopment Authority for
expire October 27, 1994.
of a Commissioner to the Housing
a five-year term which will
Basis for Recommendation:
1. An appointment needs to be made for a term which expires in
October, 1989.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Continue the appointment to a future Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the October 24, 1989 City
Council meeting so that the appointment may be made prior to the
November 20, 1989 HRA meeting. Making an appointment at this
time will ensure a full compliment of members on the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
J?/ 0\
JDP:eja
Respectfully submitted,
4z?o
James Prosser
Execu ive Director
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 240
Agenda October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Approval of the 1989 Labor Contract with the Richfield Police
Officers Federation.
Background:
City staff •has completed negotiation and arbitration with the
Richfield Police Officer Federation on a labor agreement for the
year 1989, subject to Council approval. The bargaining unit is
represented by Law Enforcement Labor Services, a state-wide
Police Labor Union.
The Police Officers Federation represents the positions of Police
Officers and Investigator/Agents. There are presently 35
employees represented within the unit.
The 1989 contract is the second year of a two-year agreement.
Contract articles open for negotiations were limited to wages,
insurance contributions, and college incentive rates.
These issues were certified to proceed to arbitration by the City
and the Union after an impasse was reached in negotiations over
wages, health insurance contribution, and college incentive
• contribution. A hearing was held on August 23, 1989, at which
both parties had the opportunity to present their case.
The Arbitrator rendered his award dated October 10, 1989. The
award was as follows:
- A 4.0% increase for a top Patrol Officer monthly figure of
$2,873.52.
- A $10.00 monthly increase in the City's contribution for
dependent health insurance for a maximum of $182.00/month.
- No increase in the current payment per credit for college
incentive.
During the arbitration hearing, the Union accepted the City's
proposal for a $.50 per month increase in the City's contribution
for single dental insurance.
The City does not agree with the rationale offered by the
Arbitrator as the basis for his decision on wages. The result of
this award has a negative impact on the City's implementation of
the comparable worth plan.
Recommended Motion:
IS Approve the Labor Agreement with the Richfield Police Officers
Federation.
Basis for Recommendation:
• 1. The City is bound under the Public Employers Labor
Relations Act by the Arbitrator's decision on wages,
health insurance, and college incentive pay.
2. The Union has accepted the City's offer on dental
insurance.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City could challenge the Arbitrator's decision in court based
on the Comparable Worth Law. The problem with any court
challenge is the unclear legislative intent of the relationship
between the Public Employers Labor Relation Act and the
Comparable Worth Act. A court challenge would unfairly penalize
our Police Officers by withholding any pay increase.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify
payroll records in a timely manner for 1989 wages and benefits,
it is recommended that the City Council act on October 23, 1989
to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes
effective January 1, 1989.
•
JDP:ff
Respectfu y submitted,
osser
Jame fanager
City 0
RESOLUTION NO._
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE
RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS FEDERATION
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 1989
WHEREAS, the.City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers
Federation have reached an understanding concerning hours and
other conditions of employment for the year 1989;
WHEREAS, the Arbitrator has rendered an award on wages and
insurance benefits;
WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize Police
Federation members who have negotiated in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented
by Council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield
and the Police Officers Federation Bargaining Unit for the year
1989 under the provisions of the Labor Agreement and Arbitration
. Award to be implemented, effective January 1, 1989.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of October, 1989.
Steven Quam Mayor
ATTEST
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
i
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 239
Agenda October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Approval of a resolution authorizing execution of a "Right of
Entry Agreement" allowing installation of a ground water
monitoring well on 76th Street at Lyndale Avenue South.
Background:
The Amoco Oil service station at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
South has experienced leakage from one or more of its underground
storage tanks. In response, Amoco has hired Delta Environmental
Services, Inc. to manage the underground cleanup of Amoco's
leaked product. The old storage tanks have now been removed and
replaced.
Delta is now installing a pumping well and water/gasoline
separator on the Amoco site. Ground water and spilled gasoline
will be pumped out of the ground. In order to monitor the extent
of underground movement of the leaked gasoline, Delta is
installing several ground water monitoring wells in the area
around the service station. All but one of these monitoring
wells will be installed on private property. Delta has
determined that in order to best monitor the progress of its
pumping operation, one well should be located in the south
. boulevard of 76th Street, just east of Lyndale. Delta has
requested permission to place a monitoring well on City owned
right-of-way.
The City attorney has prepared the appropriate right-of-way and
hold harmless agreement. We have reserved the right to have the
well removed at any time.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing Richfield to enter into
an agreement authorizing the installation of one ground water
monitoring well on City owned right-of-way per the attached map.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Clean up of the Amoco Oil Company's gasoline leak is in the
best interest of the City of Richfield and its residents.
2. Installation of a monitoring well at the proposed location
will not significantly affect vehicular or pedestrian
traffic, snow storage or other city services.
3. As per the attached agreement, Amoco has agreed to remove
the monitoring well from City right-of-way upon 30 days
written notice by the City.
• 4. All costs incurred as a result of this installation will be
borne by Amoco.
• Alternative Recommendation:
Denial of the attached "Right of Entry Agreement" would result in
the placement of the proposed monitoring well in a less
advantageous location.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Installation of the monitoring well is in the best interests of
the community. Staff is requesting approval of the Right of
Entry Agreement at this time.
Respe y submitted,
James Prosser
City alter
JDP/sdr
•
0
r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
ALLOWING THE INSTALLATION OF A GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL
ON 76th STREET AT LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, The Richfield City Council has determined that it
is in the best interest of the City to aid in the cleanup of an
underground gasoline leak by allowing the installation of a
ground water monitoring well on City owned right-of-way, and
WHEREAS, Amoco Oil Company, Inc., the owners of the property
from which the underground gasoline leak emanated, will bear all
costs associated with the cleanup of said gasoline leak,
including the installation, sampling and removal of the proposed
monitoring well, and
WHEREAS, Amoco has agreed to remove the proposed monitoring
well and restore the area upon 30 days written notice by the
City, and
WHEREAS, Amoco has agreed to hold harmless the City of
Richfield from any claims or legal action arising out of the
installation of the proposed monitoring well,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Right of Entry Agreement allowing the installation
of a ground water monitoring well on City right-of-way
is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Richfield are
hereby authorized to execute said Right of Entry
Agreement on behalf of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 23rd day of October, 1989.
Attest:
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
0
•
0
0
i
3
AlddnS 3OH-40 MW1S
14134 MOHO S3d011
3liNVW 8 IIom
13dWO 30NY
NOWIS 010"
s8oi Vl r any O
zs
Y V;
z
o ¢Q i
i n.
3 ?
J C
® Y
J
eWnin Wol
M31N3O
SNOINDINnWWOo -
3NI413tlW nNIM3S
2f31N3O W
SNOI1voINOWWOO - oz
J m
W
t
". .
w
n
vZ?Q
cc?0-
Wm 09
?0WW? C
?03 ? In 1
oFNi mm
OEOR
-M0
a YI w
t; o
O A O
O
J
J
Q
a
N
I
I
I 5
a
I z
o
a
WI
° I in I
s
G>ti ?
a
I
133NIS 419L
n
1
O _? A O?>a27 3
U ? I W
z
? 2
.--t F
O
? 5 Wzu 3 ?,, W- rn J
u(/O? z a z ,
C 3 - Og F 3
z atnt;m
ooirW - :°_
1 C, - 1 IT Z o ? R a Np
Q' 3 I tvWOO NNIW $ Z 4p
N A 3 W y 0.
N? q
r-) C-) o 4D m
'v 6
C z
0- O o w
c?
IJ
J
O
N Cn
Z
O
?--? W
F- ?
Q Q
U
O W
J J
Q
J ?
J Z
W >--
3 J
C) Z¢
Z F-
CD LLJ
C? ?
Z Cn
CD 4-)
n
J
?--? Z
O O
F-
M F¢-•
O V)
a O
? O
a¢
l •
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 241
Agenda of October 23, 1989
• Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider a request for a replat of Market
Plaza.
Background:
E. J. Plesko and Associates, Inc. - representing both the housing
and commercial limited partnerships of Market Plaza - have
requested the replat of Market Plaza at 66th and Lyndale.
The applicants have proposed two Registered Land Surveys of the
Market Plaza property. The first plat is designated as
Registered Land Survey A; the second, Registered Land Survey B.
The purpose of Registered Land Survey A is to create a simplified
legal description to replace the existing lengthy and cumbersome
description.
Registered Land Survey B will subdivide Tract A into layers for
simplified descriptions of the garage, retail and residential
areas. A color coded map identifying each parcel has been
attached.
Recommended Motion:
Grant preliminary and final approval of the Registered Land
• Surveys, marked "A" and "B", of Market Plaza, subject to the
condition that before such Surveys are executed on behalf of the
City, the applicant shall furnish the City with proof that the
real estate taxes due and payable in 1989 have been paid in full.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Surveys would simplify a lengthy legal description
without affecting any type of development on the property.
2. The City attorney has reviewed the proposed registered
land surveys.
3. The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommends
approval of the Surveys.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request on the basis of a finding of fact that the
proposal would have a negative impact on the area.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October
23, 1989 in the City Council Chambers. Legal notice was
published in the Richfield Sun-Current on October 11, 1989.
RespectfulVy submitted,
• James Prosser
City nager
JDP:sae
OCT 20 '89 08:20 HOLMES & GRAVEN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has been requested to approve a
P. 2 /??
Registered Land Survey (RLS") which covers the land lying generally between West
66th Street on the South, West 65th Street on the North, Lyndale Avenue on the
East, the entire legal description for such area being fully described in the
proposed RLS; and .
WHEREAS, the request was duly considered by the Planning Commission and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission has been presented to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the
• proposed RLS.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
The proposed RLS, referred to in the application as
Tract A, RLS No. and Tract 139 RLS No. Is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions precedent.
1. That the approval is expressly made subject to, and the RLS may not be
executed on behalf of the City until evidence is furnished to the City
establishing that the real estate taxes for the property covered by the RLS
which are due and payable in 1989 and prior years have been fully paid.
2. The owner of the property covered by the RLS shall furnish the City with
evidence that such owner consents to the execution of the RLS by the City.
3. If the above conditions precedent have not all been met and satisfied by
December 31, 1989, this approval shall automatically terminate and be of no
further force and effect.
OCT 20 189 08:27 HOLMES & GRAVEN
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
is this day of .: 1989.
Steven Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
RC160-005
•
P. 1
2
7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 238
Agenda, October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public Hearing and consideration of approval of Modification
Number 2, Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax
Increment Financing Plan (ILN Plan).
Background:
On September 18, 1989, the HRA approved Modification Number 2.
They requested the City Council to hold a public hearing and
approve the modification as well.
The ILN Plan was adopted by the HRA on October 21, 1985 and
approved by the City Council November 12, 1985. At the time, it
was formulated to facilitate not only the upgrading of public
rights-of-way but also the development proposed by C.D.R. It
thus focused on 77th Street and the "Cloverleaf site".
Staff review indicates there may a need to acquire additional
property to facilitate redevelopment within this area.
Modification Number 2, places all of the property between 77th
Street and 1494 from Lyndale to Emerson Avenues in the
acquisition category. This identification would indicate that
the acquisition of this property by a developer would be in
• conformance with the ILN Plan. Such identification would also
permit the HRA to acquire the property.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which approves the ILN Plan
Modification Number 2.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The ILN Plan was approved in late 1985.
2. Staff review indictes there may be a need to acquire
additional property to facilitate redevelopment within this
area.
3. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun
Current on October 11, 1989.
4. The Planning Commission found the modification to be in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan on September 26,
1989.
5. The School Districts and Hennepin County were notified of
the public hearing.
6. The HRA approved the modification and has requested approval
• by the City Council.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. Refuse to modify the ILN Plan.
2. Delay modifying the ILN Plan.
3. Request the HRA to modify the ILN Plan in a different way.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval of the modification at this time would permit staff and
the developer to continue the redevelopment process.
Respect
JDP:eja
•
ly submitted,
Prosser
0
Zf
RESOLUTION NO.
40 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield (HRA) adopted a redevelopment plan
(Redevelopment Plan) in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sections
469.001 through 469.047 (Redevelopment Act) and a tax increment
financing plan (TIF Plan) (collectively, the Plans) in accordance
with Minn. Stat. Sections 469.174 through 469.179 (TIF Act) for
the Interstate/Lyndale Nicollet/area (Project Area) on October
21, 1985, and said Plans were approved by the City on November
• 12, 1985.
1.02. The Plans for the Project Area were first modified in
1985 and the modified Plans were approved by the HRA on November
18, 1985, and by the City on November 25, 1985.
1.03. Changes in the nature of the public and private
improvements to be constructed in the Project Area have again
prompted the HRA to prepare modified Plans.
1.04. The modified Plans are contained in a document
entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and Tax
Increment District Plan, Modification No. 2" dated September 18,
1989, now on file with the city clerk.
1.05. The modified Plans have been referred to the
Richfield Planning Commission which on September 26, 1989, found
that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general
plans for the development or redevelopment of the City as a
whole.
1.06. On September 18, 1989, the HRA approved the modified
Plans for the Project Area and referred them to the City Council
for public hearing and consideration as provided by the Acts.
1.07. Copies of the modified Plans have been forwarded to
• Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District
No. 287 and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public
hearing as required by the TIF Act.
. 1.08. The City has fully reviewed the contents of the
modified Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing
thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard.
Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Project.
2.01. It is hereby found and determined that within the
Project Area there exist conditions of economic obsolescence,
physical deterioration, underutilization and inappropriate uses
of land.
2.02. It is further determined that physical deterioration
of buildings and structures in the Project Area is so extensive
to meet the standards of a redevelopment tax increment financing
district set forth in the TIF act.
2.03. It is further specifically found and determined that:
a) the land in the Project Area would not be made
available for redevelopment without the public
intervention and financial aid described in the
modified Plans;
b) the modified Redevelopment Plan for the Project
Area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for
• the redevelopment of the Project Area by private
enterprise;
c) the modified Redevelopment Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City as set
forth in the comprehensive municipal plan.
2.04. The findings in this section are made in compliance
with the Redevelopment Act for the purpose of showing the City's
intent to exercise, in conjunction with the HRA, the powers
granted to the City and the HRA by the Act in order to achieve
the objectives of the Act.
Section 3. Findings; Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and
desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment
of the Project Area and the City as a whole, and for the
protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and
general welfare, that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised
by the HRA and the City to provide public financial assistance to
the Project Area.
3.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the
reasoned opinion of the HRA and the City, that redevelopment of
• the Project Area as outlined in the modified Plans could not
reasonably be expected within the reasonably foreseeable future
and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is
r necessary.
3.03. The proposed public improvements to be financed
largely through tax increment financing are necessary to permit
the City to realize the full potential of the Project Area in
terms of development intensity, employment opportunities and tax
base.
3.04. The modified TIF Plan conforms to the general plans
for development of the City as a whole.
3.05. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a
whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area by private
enterprise.
Section 4. Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan Adopted.
4.01. The modified Redevelopment Plan is approved.
4.02. The modified TIF Plan is approved.
4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Project Area and the
TIF District are not coterminous but are as described in the
modified Plans, which documents are hereby adopted by reference.
Modification No. 2 will not result in any change in the
boundaries of the Project Area of TIF District.
4.04. The HRA is requested to file a copy of the modified
Plans with the Minnesota commissioner of revenue as required by
the TIF Act.
4.05. The City may at the appropriate time and at the
request of the HRA take action to issue and sell its general
obligation bonds pursuant to the TIF Act to finance public
redevelopment costs identified in the modified TIF Plan.
4.06. The city clerk is authorized and directed to transmit
a certified copy of the resolution to the HRA.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of October, 1989.
Steve Quam
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
?J
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 237
Agenda of October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider a request to transfer CDBG Year XIV
Section 312 Loan Program funds to the Rehabilitation Deferred
Loan Program.
Background:
Staff has found it difficult to successfully generate Section 312
Program loan activity because of HUD requirements. Clients who
have desired to participate thus far have had insufficient equity
in their homes and household debt in excess of lending standards.
Those clients that have appeared qualified financially have had
few code related problems to correct. Simultaneously, the
Deferred Loan Program is in continuing demand and it households
cannot be assisted until summer, 1990 given anticipated funding
levels. The Deferred Loan Program operates under different
guidelines, but serves the same basic purpose.
The Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program was implemented in
August, 1988, to provide rehabilitation loans of up to $33,500
for eligible, owner-occupied, single family properties. The
annual interest cost is 3%. Initial screening of applications to
determine eligibility is completed by HRD staff. The HRA has a
service agreement with the City of Saint Paul for the complicated
• loan origination and closing process. Applicants who appear
eligible based on initial screening are referred to the City of
Saint Paul on a continuing basis.
0
Since initiated, the program has been advertised regularly in the
Your City/Your School publication. Additional advertising
efforts included a direct mailing to below average condition
properties identified by the County Assessor and an advertising
flyer supplement to the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper.
The many persons inquiring about the program in response to
advertising were screened by phone prior to receiving an
application. Approximately 87 applications were mailed to those
that appeared eligible. Twenty (20) applications have been
returned and carefully reviewed by HRD staff in consultation with
HUD and the City of Saint Paul. Of those applications, 16 were
determined ineligible and four withdrew for personal reasons
while undergoing loan processing. No applications are presently
being processed.
A total of $15,258 in CDBG YR XIV funds was allocated to the
Section 312 program for loan processing services in 1989. After
subtracting minor processing expenses to date, the unexpended
balance of YR XIV funds is $15,202. These funds must be expended
by December 31, 1989 or be forfeited to Hennepin County.
It is unlikely that any additional YR XIV funds will be committed
before the end of the year.
. While it has been difficult to successfully generate 312 loan
activity, continuous demand for the Rehabilitation Deferred Loan
Program provides an opportunity to commit the $15,202 prior to
year end and help waiting lower income households in need of home
improvement assistance.
An action to shift Year XIV 312 funds to an alternative use does
not lead to.the demise of the 312 program initiatives. CDBG YR
XV funds of $10,000 are budgeted and available for Section 312
loan activity during the rest of 1989 and 1990.
A public hearing notice has been published in the Richfield Sun
Current and the hearing scheduled as prescribed by CDBG
regulations.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the transfer of remaining CDBG YR XIV Section 312
funds, in the amount of $15,202, to the Deferred Loan Program for
commitment prior to December 31, 1989.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. All CDBG YR XIV funds must be expended prior to December
31, 1989.
2. It is unlikely that any additional YR XIV funds could be
committed to the 312 program prior to year end given the
• lengthy processing time required.
3. Approximately 3 of 11 households could benefit from the
available CDBG funds through the Deferred Loan Program; the
housing rehabilitation objective would still be achieved.
4. There is sufficient time to process Deferred Loans prior to
year end.
5. The transfer of funds has been discussed with and supported
by Hennepin County.
6. A public hearing has been scheduled to provide for discussion
and determination.
Alternative Recommendation:
Return $15,202 in CDBG funds to the County.
Decision Mode:
Authorization •by the Council at the October 23rd meeting will
enable a timely transfer of funds for expenditure prior to years
end.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP/ej a
RESOLUTION NO.
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF REMAINING YR XIV
SECTION 312 FUNDS TO REHAB OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
WHEREAS, CDBG YR XIV funds in the amount of $15,258 have been
allocated to the City of Richfield for the Richfield HRA's
Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program; and
WHEREAS, $15,202 of these funds remain unexpended; and
WHEREAS, expenditure of remaining funds must be completed by
December 31, 1989; and
WHEREAS, restrictive program eligibility requirements have
presented challenges in identifying qualified applicants; and
WHEREAS, there are no applicants currently waiting for
assistance to expend remaining funds prior to December 31, 1989;
and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient applicants waiting to expend
these funds within the Richfield HRA's Deferred Loan Program; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing must be conducted to consider this
• matter, proper notice having been published for the October 23rd
meeting of the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, that remaining CDBG YR XIV Section
312 funds in the amount of $15,202, be transferred to the
Richfield HRA's Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program for
commitment prior to December 31, 1989.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 23rd day of October, 1989.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 236
Agenda October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Approval for the Public Safety Department to purchase one (1) car
from National Car Sales.
Background:
The Public Safety Department has a unit of officers that
specialize in narcotic and vice investigations, this unit is
known as the Special Investigation Unit (SIU).
Specialized investigations s,
that the officers drive cars
type cars. SIU officers are
purchasing narcotics, and if
unmarked police vehicle they
officers.
zch as narcotics and vice require
that are not identifiable as police
required to drive cars for
they use the traditional type
would easily be identified as police
Therefore we need to equip these officers with non-traditional
type police vehicles. In the past, we have successfully utilized
vehicles that have been seized and forfeited in drug arrests.
However, many of these cars have proven to be mechanically
deficient and cannot be depended upon for constant use.
• The SIU car we propose to purchase will cost $9625.00. This car
would be purchased with monies from the forfeited drug fund.
This money fund is from narcotic cases where the police
department has seized property or money and it has be forfeited
to the department. State statute requires that the money from
these forfeitures be used in narcotic enforcement. The purchase
of this car for SIU would meet the State requirements for
expenditure of these funds.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the Public Safety Department to purchase a 1988 Pontiac
from National Car Sales.
Basis of Recommendation:
This vehicle is essential for the operation of a special
investigations unit where equipment reliability is of paramount
importance for officer safety.
National Car Sales has been awarded the Hennepin County vehicle
bid.
Alternative Recommendation:
Reject or defer purchasing the car from National Car Sales.
0
7 -e/
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the Consent Calendar of the October
23, 1989 city council agenda.
Respect lly submitted,
4/1
James . Prosser
City Vanager
CJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 235
Agenda October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Storm drainage improvements in excess of $5,000 at 6733 Lakeview
Avenue and 6745 Lakeview Avenue.
Background:
A storm drainage study was completed following the July, 1987
super storm. As a result the City Council directed staff to
improve the drainage at the boundaries between Monroe Park and
properties abutting the park on the south end of Lakeview Avenue.
Staff obtained quotations from two landscaping companies for this
work as follows:
Sunram Landscaping $13,185
Du-Al Construction Co. $13,629
It should be noted that Du-A1 did not include an additional $300
for any damage to the park trail, and also quoted an additional
$1.50 per yard for any sod which would need to be replaced in the
park. This brings their quotation to $13,929 plus $1.50 per yard
for sod replacement at Monroe Park.
• Sunram Landscaping did not have any such stipulations in their
quotation.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Sunram Landscaping in the sum of
$13,185.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sunram submitted the lowest quotation with no stipulations.
2. Staff would like to see the work accomplished before the
winter season begins.
3. Sunram is qualified to perform the work.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item appears on the October 23, 1989 Council agenda. Staff
is asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate
completion of the work in 1989.
Resp lly submitted,
• Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP/sdr
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 234
Agenda of October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute 1989 (Year XV) Urban Hennepin County
Community Block Grant (CDBG) Third Party Agreements.
Background:
HUD has initiated a new policy requiring specific third party
agreements between subgrantees and grantees, in this instance the
Richfield HRA and City. In the past there have only been
agreements between the County and the City. The Third Party
Agreements spell out the procedures to be followed when expending
the CDBG funds which formalize on paper the procedures which have
been followed during the last several years by staff. The Third
Party Agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County and must
be executed before Hennepin County will disperse any Year XV CDBG
funds.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize execution of the Third Party Agreements.
Basis of Recommendation:
• The Year XV CDBG Program has,previously been approved by the City
Council, and the HRA has approved the execution of the Agreement.
The signature authorizing execution of the Third Party Agreements
would allow Hennepin County to disperse the funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The agreement must be acted upon at the October 23, 1989 meeting
to meet Hennepin County processing deadlines.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
Jame fa?naager
City JDP/eja
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 233
Agenda October 23, 1989
Issue Statement:
Adoption of updated Master Park Plan for the City of Richfield.
Background:
A contract •for Master Park planning services by The Brauer Group,
Inc. was approved by the City Council on September 26, 1988, as
part of the park planning process. The Community Services
Advisory Commission hosted the first Community Forum on February
1, 1989. Particular areas of discussion at the forum included 1)
Open Space Resources and Urban Shaping Elements, 2) Special
Recreation and Park Facilities, 3) Parks and Playfields, 4)
Recreation Programs, 5) Park Maintenance and Operations and 6)
Park and Recreation Funding. A preliminary plan was then
prepared and presented for critique and comments at Community
Forum II on April 27, 1989.
The Community Services Advisory Commission has been reviewing the
proposed update of the Master Park Plan throughout the process.
This review has included joint meetings with the Planning
Commission. Commissioners have met with Donald Brauer and other
consultants and advisors on such topics as Richfield park and
recreation perceptions and desires as well as funding
• possibilities.
On October 10, 1989 the Community Services Advisory Commission
recommended approval of the updated Richfield Master Park Plan, a
draft of which is attached for City Council review and action.
The Planning Commission has also recommended adoption of the
Master Park Plan. A summary of the plan is included in the first
five pages of the attached document.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the Master Park Plan for the City of Richfield as dated
October 23, 1989.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It was deemed to be in the best interest of the community
to update Richfield's Master Park Plan.
2. Residents of the community have been extensively included
in the preparation of the new Master Park Plan.
3. The Community Services Advisory Commission, Planning
Commission and city staff are in accord with recommendation
of the Master Park Plan dated October 23, 1989.
4. The updated Master Park Plan will serve as a basis for
• future park and recreation considerations.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not adopt any updated Master Park Plan for Richfield.
2. Make amendments to the Richfield Master Park Plan dated
October 23, 1989.
3. Request the Community Services Advisory Commission to give
further consideration to all or part of the Richfield
Master Park Plan dated October 23, 1989.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the October 23, 1989 City Council
meeting. Donald Brauer, members of the Community Services
Advisory Commission and city staff will be available to answer
questions and make comment. It is suggested the Council take
action at this time because the Master Park Plan will have an
impact on the 1991 Capital Budget and the 1992/1996 Capital
Improvement Program currently being considered by the Planning
Commission and the Community Services Advisory Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
JameYanager
City 0 JDP/sdr