8-28-89 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda August 28, 1989
• Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for the 1989 Storm Sewer Improvement Project.
Background:
On August 18, 1989 a bid was opened from one contractor for the
1989 storm sewer project. The firm of F.F. Jedlicki, Inc., bid
$75,092. The engineer's estimate supplied by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
and Associates (OSM) is $66,730.
Staff believes only one bid was received because this is a
relatively small and rather complicated project. Contractors
generally try to wrap up summer projects at this time of year,
rather than begin new ones.
The proposed contract is for storm sewer work at two locations:
1. Newton Avenue north of 66th Street; and
2. The alley south of 66th Street between Fourth Avenue and
Fifth Avenue.
Both sites were identified in the storm water drainage study as
priority areas for which some cost effective relief could be
provided.
i
• The Newton Avenue work includes the installation of two catch
basins about 100 feet north of the 66th and Newton intersection.
The street will be lowered almost two feet at the new catch
basins. The street will then be reconstructed to match into the
new catch basins. The driveway and boulevard elevations in the
area will be adjusted to match the new street surface. This work
will provide some relief from storm water run off but is not a
"cure-all". There has been extensive contact with the neighbors
during the entire design process.
The other project involves the drain in the alley between Fourth
Avenue and Fifth Avenue south of 66th Street. The project calls
for a new pipe to be installed from this drain to Milner Pond. A
30 foot wide crossing of 66th Street will need to be replaced
according to the plan. Since the bid opening, Hennepin County
has denied our permit application to open-trench 66th Street.
The County would rather see the pipe tunneled under 66th Street.
The Newton Avenue project and the alley project were separated in
the bid document. The contractor's bid on the alley project
exceeded the engineer's estimate by $7,305. Considering that
there was only one bid, that the bid exceeds the engineer's
estimate, and that so far Hennepin County has declined to give
permission to open-trench 66th Street in this area,'it may be in
the best interest of all parties that we not proceed with this
• portion of the contract.
The contractor's bid on the Newton Avenue project compares
favorably with the engineer's estimate. Although the bid is
$1,057 over the engineer's estimate, OSM recommends that the City
award the Newton Avenue portion of the contract.
• Finally, since the bid opening it was discovered that Schedule A
(the Newton Avenue project) did not contain a line item unit cost
for curb and gutter. So, a unit cost of $10 for 370 feet of
curb, or $3,700, should be added to the contract by change order.
This cost was negotiated by the contractor and city staff.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and authorize the following:
1. A contract to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. in the sum of $75,092.
2. A change order to deduct $42,735 (Schedule B, the alley
project) from the contract.
3. A change order to add $3,700 for curb and gutter in the Newton
Avenue project, Schedule A.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. was the only bid from a
responsible contractor.
2. The Newton Avenue Project (Schedule A in the bid document) bid
of $32,357 compares favorably to the engineer's estimate of
$31,300.
is 3. The bid of $42,735 for the project at the alley between Fourth
Avenue and Fifth Avenue south of 66th Street (Schedule B) is
too high in relation to the engineer's estimate of $35,430.
4. Hennepin County has denied our request to open-trench at 66th
Street. This trenching is needed to accomplish the work in
Schedule B.
5. The unit cost for curb and gutter in Schedule A can be
established by change order at this time.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could choose to reject the one bid received.
However, by allowing part of the contract to be approved as
outlined above, the storm sewer improvement on Newton Avenue
north of 66th Street can be done this year at a fair price.
0
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• A decision on August 28, 1989 will allow the contractor to begin,
and very likely complete, the work this year. Staff is
requesting approval at this time.
Respectgd ly submitted,
Jame /D. Prosser
Cit M naaer
•
JDP/sae
02-
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
August 18, 1989
11:00 A.M.
Storm Sewer Installation, Street Re-Construction and Appurtenant
Work
Bid No. 89-22
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 storm sewer installation, street
re-construction and appurtenant work, bid no. 89-22, as
advertised in the official newspaper on August 9, 1989.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID TOTAL
SECURITY
F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. 5%
Eden Prairie Bid Bond $ 75,092.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 28, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
?f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 205
Agenda August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Rearrangement of stop signs at 67th Street and Morgan Avenue to
stop 67th Street traffic.
Background:
City ordinance delegates the City Council's statutory right to
place traffic control signs to the City Manager. However, in the
past, the Council has requested review of all situations where
the removal of a stop sign is recommended. This is such a case.
At the direction of the City Council, the Community Services
Advisory Commission reviewed the unusual signing at 67th Street
and Morgan Avenue. The eastbound and southbound traffic is
controlled by stop signs, the other two directions are not. The
Community Services Advisory Commission reviewed the information
(see attached notes) and recommendation of the Traffic Control
Committee (the staff committee that reviews all traffic control
requests) and conducted a neighborhood information meeting prior
to making recommendation to the City Council.
Three neighbors attended the meeting and expressed concern about
traffic in the area, especially in light of the Fairwood Park
• water slide at the corner. They generally wanted more control,
more stop signs, rather than removal or rearrangement of the
existing signs.
The Community Services Advisory Commission recommended the stop
signs at this intersection be rearranged to stop 67th Street
traffic and allow Morgan Avenue the right-of-way. They also
suggested the Traffic Control Committee investigate use of
playground signs here and elsewhere in the City.
The Traffic Control Committee recommended that, first and
foremost, the existing situation be changed and, specifically,
that the stop signs be removed. The existing situation is
nonstandard and could lead drivers to believe that cross traffic
is supposed to stop, when in fact it does not. The traffic
counts of 220 a day on 67th Street and 134 on Morgan Avenue are
low, even for a residential intersection. Speeds are within an
acceptable range. No accidents have been reported for the last
five years. The residential stop sign policy, which was adopted
by the Community Services Advisory Commission, tells us that stop
signs are not warranted. The policy is consistent with the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This Manual, which
was adopted by Richfield by ordinance, serves as a national guide
for signing.
0
Recommended Motion:
• Rearrange stop signs at 67th Street and Morgan Avenue to stop
eastbound and westbound 67th Street traffic and give right of way
to Morgan Avenue traffic.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Traffic Control Committee and the Community Services
Advisory Commission agree that some change is needed related
to the nonstandard sign placement.
2. The neighborhood is accustomed to some control at the
intersection.
3. A two-way stop establishes right-of-way priority. A four-way
stop imposes unnecessary restrictions to traffic in the area.
4. Playground signs may provide some measure of additional
safety here and around our other parks. However, because we
have so many parks, we should move slowly with such large-
scale signing consideration.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Removal all stop signs. The Traffic Control Committee
recommended removal of the signs. The traffic counts, speeds
and accident statistics indicate an intersection no different
that the hundreds of other residential intersections around
• Richfield. In fact, the traffic counts are on the low side.
2. Stop traffic in all four directions. This seemed to be
favored by the three residents attending the informational
meeting. Counts, speeds, accidents and other factors do not,
however, provide sufficient warrant for even two stop signs.
3. Stop Morgan Avenue traffic rather than 67th Street traffic.
However, counts, speeds, accidents and other factors do not
provide sufficient warrant for even two stop signs.
4. Leave as is. However, this is nonstandard situation and it
has been agreed that some change is necessary.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The three residents at the August 8 Community Services Advisory
Commission sponsored informational meeting were informed the item
would be on the August 28 Council agenda. However, ',Council may
postpone a decision on this issue to a future meeting.
Resp u ly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
0 JDP/reb
TRAFFIC CONTROL COMMITTEE
NOTE
67th Street and Morgan Avenue Stop Sian
April 8, 1963 - Village Council ordered installation of stop
signs at 67th Street and Morgan Avenue, stopping southbound and
eastbound traffic. Installation was in response to petition from
Monroe/Fairwood Parks neighbors. The petition cover letter
listed the continued closure of 67th Street from Irving Avenue to
Knox Avenue as the principle concern.
The petition also asked for "through stops" on 67th Street at
Morgan Avenue and Logan Avenue. The Village Engineer and Chief
of Police went along with the 67th Street and Morgan Avenue stop
signs despite the fact that no accidents were recorded in the
four years prior to the request.
1988 Traffic Counts - 67th Street...... 220
Morgan Avenue .... 134
Speed - 50th Percentile.... Less than 25 m.p.h.
85th Percentile.... 29 m.p.h. on Morgan and 67th
Accidents - No right angle accidents in last five years
r?
LJ
0
•
RESIDENTIAL STOP SIGN POLICY
Purpose: The purpose of the residential stop sign policy is to
provide fair and uniform treatment to requests for stop signs in
residential areas by the Richfield Traffic Control Committee.
1. The provision of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices shall be followed.
2. The Traffic Control Committee should look at traffic volume,
relevant speed, accident records and sign obstruction when
considering a stop sign at a particular location.
3. If in the opinion of the Traffic Control Committee the
presence of a sign obstruction is contributing to accidents
at the intersection, staff should seek to remove the sight
obstruction before considering a stop sign.
4. If an intersection experiences five or more right angle
accidents in a five year period, stop signs should be
considered.
5. If 15% of the cars are more than 5 miles per hour over the
speed limit, stop signs should be considered.
0 6. If traffic volumes on one of the streets exceeds 1,000
vehicles per day, stop signs may be considered.
7. Absent engineering data which clearly indicates the need for
a stop sign, a residential intersection should be left
uncontrolled.
8. The Community Services Commission will review all staff
requests for stop sign removal and make recommendations to
the City Council.
Adopted by the Richfield Community Services Advisory Commission
on April 11, 1989.
C7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 204
Agenda, August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an offstreet parking permit application for
Lyndale Professional Center at 7400 Lyndale Avenue South.
Background:
Lyndale Professional Center has requested an offstreet parking
permit at 7400 Lyndale Avenue South. The parcel is located in a
C-2, general commercial zone district. Currently, development on
the site consists of a 9,525 square foot building which houses
dental and professional offices.
An offstreet parking permit was approved on October 25, 1982 by
the Richfield City Council.
Permission was also granted at that time to use the public right
of way with certain stipulations. Those stipulations were as
follows:
1) The applicant must enter into a hold harmless agreement
with the City.
2) The parking spaces on the site will not be leased out to
• uses for persons not directly connected with the
businesses located at 7400 Lyndale Avenue South;•and
3) No parking spaces or other obstructions will be located
in the 50 foot vision triangle, as established by
City ordinance, for the 74th and Lyndale intersection.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the offstreet parking permit request at 7400 Lyndale
Avenue South with the following stipulations:
1) That two boulevard trees be planted along the,east
property line in staff approved locations.
2) That no parking spaces on the site be leased out for
uses other than those associated with the site.
Basis of Recommendation:
1) Adequate provision has been made for parking on the site
based on the anticipated use.
2) Plantings along the east property line would help reduce
the visual impact of the parking on Lyndale Avenue. While
the applicant has indicated to staff that they do not wish
to plant any trees in the boulevard area because it may
block their signage, it is a city-wide policy to require
• plantings combining boulevard trees, shrubs and ground
cover materials in boulevard areas in order to:
0 a) reduce the impact of bituminous surfaces and
parked cars by creating a visual and noise separation;
b) provide shade; and
c) provide aesthetic beauty to the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may deny granting of the offstreet parking
permit at 7400 Lyndale Avenue South based on sufficient evidence
that the request would have a negative impact on the adjacent
properties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council action at the August 28, 1989
City Council meeting.
Respectf ly submitted,
rosser
James f?nager
City JDP:sae
•
0
156.0 ? d ??- I
m
?i
I I '
I
70 -Zi
z d _1 r
G` z
p L, L? s - Cn ?
m
O
UNi Z > I
I ? ..mnn >7NNt ? ?
I M c V' O
I
I z ?m
uww tdwT. m p A
L. 3? + 3
i2. 9 b W _ Z C
?zb : Tvv. s% .vr. Tvr. S_ Syr. r -1
-C i
?'-\?}° 1C fro !!::4
c
4 GAS SPACES LS HANDICAP 'I 2 1111 I -7 GOMPAGt CAR SPA(45 I !?'a £
N -fi SPAGES fi SPAGBS !? ONE WAY L C i
? I
47,- TRAFFIC, ONLy k g 71 r I
5TRIPIN6 K CAR. 15PAG65 t?4sA r v R I
?p h ADD foa bo"Abs 'M
? g L A rwtSLT fw3r,N( stsN Pos* o T W
Epc ay 1 m m
D? - - _ _ m f STtME1 _ / L z
S38 y4N T a
i
D 6'a j of
e
EXIT LY r t
R mo .,NC, kmeK ofa u?4E (J n
m -
f1W1f, NGW 2("
?x8 au'z F
wRe Gt)B C?1T z? z O ct- i x
calf HXi`1fIN6 alDf11
zsA _
LYWDALE AVENJ,' RUTH r
1>1
NOKTH
-N 70?fiz? zZ z'
' Z Z g? ?c Cr 7?y ?C 3 2 30 3 a Z -l =? Z
8 • a v? CV= 5A' ?3 ? ?`?'? 7DC i1` v1 0r
m k m
7DIla c z ro v
m / \ ?p I s S (A c ' y
7o
v I Y Nm
d n _ ?
wo • ?nO i °? ' N N Nm
N G t?? I d p ?i N V?
•I ? 11.3 cv+ ?mm ?= N L k
m cP O 3 i r" m x
?. r
O
-j?z, 3
0
•
LLI
Q
ZW
P.j
Qa
C.)°
Z
o
J
0
O
u
N N
rt YI V
iJ tZ
wslawrls ??
i- -
,Y 3i
to 1. ?L
r l-
v10Z L - JL_
YI{1 JL
M0113l0N01
3At Yro3o ???`
r
l? L
viol
YI LI
Y191 7 ??
N019NIROOV 1 l
YI SI ?(
VI ?1 C(
Y/ SI ?C(
r121 ?
YI II 'CI I?
I
111 01 I I
101113 ' _
00t01N0 II
u
snulnlou ,I
71ytd -
ONt1Mt0 i I
rUlf i
3At ONVII*Od ,
YIS I
YI , I ?I
NolNlla
NS ?-Ij
MAUS
3Ar 1311001N
1130s1t1O (I
wlN0M1N3M I,
ANnOSllld ?•?I}f???`?
1NrSt31d la+-'-
ONrro
1tH
31.4 1! ?
0-1131l
tlt0 I !I
3Ar 31tONAl
wolvolr ?Ill
1NVAYO
xrilooI I'
1NOdn0 II II
NOSI7M
1N0113w \
OYtYIO I
10100wnw
ONIANI I1IC?1
5311.1' ?; CCf
xowN I -- ?(
"wool
"VIVO" O?
"01 43" Y3AIlo
3At NN3d
N33n0
113s5nY --_^,
Nr01Y3N5 r- - -
Srw0111
I
MOldn
1N33NIA
NYnONsvi ? ' ._.
]AV S3xY3x
N N N
=g g <
c?
N
N
g
V
N
z
_
U.
Y LL U
~ =z
?Ud
W
N N N C z
X11 Y P O
N R 1. w?
'S '3AV 31VGNA1 _ 3Ar Jna30
+j',? YJsI
3 --
M ,---i V 1 91
?.=.-- NOlON1110p1O
I vJ SI
AV HOIaa1V
1-7
?I vJ 21
i ??-i: ., YI 11
CI 1 -0,
1 1 .:.= GCCI
AV 1NVAUS i 1101113
Eti+ CCIj ?? ? snannlo3
O ?IF .:::_•: eiSSee eee::ieeE ?? ' 71Y td
ON•lAt0
::::i::::• fl-:w/:: • ..: 3AI ONtllYOd
....:::... •::::::: CG ICS, YIt
??? ?• ?? NO1N113
!??IC` := CMG
P't
???L-= IL? "',ms's = CCII SN3A31S
^ r----I 3AI 1311001N
Ij S1-^^1???I ??-'? 1130SItlY
QC?11^CIL? I[CCC?, AYnsmid
I._.-._.r?.-:-11._:_-_:_: _"_ LNtSt31d
t--r r--r-,
UNT, 1 C? ?? I , - j _ r- - - I
131tlYtN
1 1i \?? ply ??' _y 13At 31VONAl
NOIYOIt
/i 1 CCLL?I' 1Nt/W
xri103
° 1NOdna
O <
-- 31 •+ ??1C NOS<3N3
O 1N0MAU
?CL_lC I '^JC-?yT?•? -jLsr--_ lOIOONnN
ONIAll
???L?JCI_?L_J? ? '.? 53wt1•
7C CCC C?: I L MO001
?Ci?C[CCICC I IOC'
?? CCL?CC? ? ???? NOIJA3N
?C7? ?CCC?
1 J?? ??! (II Y3An0
?C iiCC CCC? JL jj
NN34
1lI?C?c =rte ( I 11 113SSnu
Nt O1tl3NS
CB??`_ ?C7C?C J
r- sw"O"I
. C:L3 ?- .
ry?-•-•-?f-_??y-_ _ _ __ ?1 '_-'I ?1?,I 1N33NU..
NYnOwsrM
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Np
f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Second reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 1, subsection
100.07 to adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes, 1988 supplement
and Laws of Minnesota, 1989.
Background:
The Richfield ordinance code includes, by reference, the
Minnesota Statutes.
The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to adopt the Minnesota
Statutes 1988 supplement and Laws of Minnesota, 1989.
At the July 24, 1989 City Council meeting, the City Council gave
first reading to this ordinance amendment and scheduled the
public hearing for the August 28, 1989 Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an ordinance amendment to Section 1, subsection 100.07 to
adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes, 1988 supplement and Laws
of Minnesota 1989.
• Basis for Recommendation:
1. This action is necessary to incorporate the most current
State statutes and regulations into the Richfield City Code.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the ordinance amendment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The ordinance will become effective 30 days after publication in
the official newspaper.
Respectlly submitted,
Ja sVp. Prosser
Ci v anaaer
JDP:sae
r:
•
BILL NO. 1989-
AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE CITY CODE: STATUTORY
REFERENCES: AMENDING RICHFIELD
CITY CODE, SUBSECTION 100.07
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Richfield City Code, Subsection 100.07 is amended to read
as follows:
100.07 Official statutes, codes, regulations, and
ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutes are to
Minnesota Statutes 1986 1988, Minnesota Statutes, 1987 1989
Supplement and Laws of Minnesota 1988 1989, unless otherwise
provided in this code. References in this code to rules and
regulations of state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other
municipalities are to those documents in effect on July 1, 1988
1989, unless otherwise provided in this code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of August, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
Attest:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
• TABLE
Minnesota Statutes Richfield Location in 1989
Chapter or Section City Code 1989 Legislative Session Laws Chapter,
Referenced in Code Section Action Article and Section
12 900.01, subd. 3 Amended 269; sec 36
900.09, subd. 1
15.0418 1225.31
15.0426 1225.31
16B.59 400.03, Subd. 1
17.037, Subd. 3 615.85
18 910.03, Subd. 2 New 350; Art. 1, Sec. 2, 3
350; Art. 14, Sec. 1
353; Sec. 1
Amended 277; Arta 4, Sec 3
•
18.022 910.01, 910.05 Amended 277; Art. 4, Sec. 2
350; Art. 10, Sec. 1, 4
18.023 910.01
18.46, Subd. 13 910.07(a)
62A.17 310.23, Subd. 2 Amended 330; Sec. 17
105 620.17 Amended 326; Art. 4, Sec. 1-6
325; Art' 1, Sec. 126
356; Sec. 50
209; Art: 2, Sec. 6
Repealed 326; Art. 3, Sec. 48
144.441 - 144.417 1215.01
144.50 - 144.69 605.03, Subd. 4 Amended 282; Art' 2, Sec. 8-10
282; Art 3, Sec. 4, 5
351; Sec'. 15
186, Sec. 1
New 285, Sec. 2
145.01 305.07, Subd. 1
1
•
0 168.055
145.22 - 145.23
145.23
147.10
152
152.02
157
160.26, Subd. 5
160.27, Subd. 6
162
168.011, Subd. 8
168.021
168.056
168.09
168.10
168.11
168.27
168.36
168.39
168.41
168.44
168.83
168C.02
320.15
925.09
1130.05, Subd. 11
2000.03
605.33(b)
605.35(b)
615.83, 1190.25
815.05
805.25, Subd. 2
315.05, Subd. 2
1325.03
1305.25(v)
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.0 IN
1300.01(b)
1300.01(b)
1300.0 IN
1300.0 IN
1335.01
Amended
New
Repealed
Amended
New
Amended
Amended
Amended
Amended
Amended
290; Art.3 Sec. 1-7, 17-18
290; Art. 3, Sec. 8-16
290; Art. 3, Sec. 37
230; Sec. 1
282; Art. 2, Sec. 49
209; Art. 2, Sec. 20
292, Art. 2, Sec. 50
268; Sec. 3, 4
277; Art. 4 Sec. 12, 13
342; Sec. 2
234; Sec. 1,2
342; Sec.. 12
323; Sec. 2-4
2
• 169
1300.01(a) New
Amended
256; Sec. 1
307; Sec. 4, 5
331; Sec. 21
290; Art. 6, Seca 1
321; Sec. 9
290; Art. 10, Sec. 1-6
356; Sec. 58
335; Art. 4 Sec. 62-64
216; Sec. 1
307; Sec. 6-13
204; Sec. 1
331; Sec. 22
342; Sec. 16
307; Sec. 2, 3
250; Sec. 1
169.01 1150.03, Subd. 4 Amended
169.01, Subd. 41 1300.03
169.345 1305.25(v) Amended
169.345(3) 1305.27, Subd. 4 Amended
169.85 815.01, Subd. 7
•
169.87 815.01, Subd. 1
169.974 1160.21
170.52 1170.03, Subd. 2
171.02 1300.01(c) Amended
171.03 1300.01(c) Amended
171.05 1300.01(c)
171.08 1300.01(c)
171.09 1300.01(c)
171.11 1300.01(c)
171.17 1300.01(c)
171.18 1300.01(e) Amended
•
209; Art. 1, Sec. 17
301; Sec. 3
234; Sec. 3, 4
234; Sec. 5
301; Sec., 4, 5
307; Sec. 17
342; Sec., 21
307; Sec. 18
331; Sec. 23
307; Sec. 30
3
• 171.20
171.22
171.23
171.24
179A
192.26
192.261
197.45 - 197.481
210A.081, Subd. 1
221
•
1300.01(c) Amended
1300.01(c) Amended
1300.01(c)
1300.01(c) Amended
310.01, Subd. 2(6) Amended
310.47, Subd. 5
310.09, Subd. 7
310.39, Subd. 2
310.39, Subd. 2
310.01, Subd. 2(b)
310.51, Subd. 1
1170.01, Subd. 3 New
Amended
221.81 845.03, Subd. 2(e)
278 1200.15, Subd. 1 Amended
1225.15, Subd. 1
317 850.01, Subd. 6 Amended
Repealed
325.53 - 325.56 1100.15, Subd. 8
325E.07 1145.03, Subd. 7(b)
326.331 1140.09(d)
326.331 - 326.339 1140.03, 1140.05, Amended
Subd. 1
307; Sec. 31
228; Sec. 3
301; Sec. 10
307; Sec. 32
307; Sec. 33
255; Sec. 3-11
318; Sec. 13, 17
318; Sec. 7-12, 14-16
122; Sec. 1-3
250; Sec. 4,5
356; Sec. 11
118; Sec. 1
356; Sec. 23,24
335; Art.1, Sec. 184
277; Art., 2, Sec.39-42
324; Sec.'' 23,25,26,30
335; Arta' 1, Sec. 202
292; Sec. 10,11
304; Sec.' 139
171; Sec. 3-7
4
• 326.333 1140.07
327.14 1190.03
327.14 - 327.29 1345.05
329.099 - 329.17 1181.03, Subd. 4
340 1225.13(1)
1225.37
340.96 1200.21, Subd. 1
1225.21, Subd. 1
340A 1200.27, Subd. 5 Amended 49; Sec. 1=6
40, Sec. 1
1200.33, Subd. 5 104; Sec. 1,2
334; Art. Sec. 5
209; Art. 1, Sec. 34
301; Sec. 13-15
290; Art. 7, Sec.1,2
1220.39
1210.27, Subd. 1
•
1210.39 Repealed 49, • Sec. 8
351; Sec. 19
1220.01, Subd. 1
1225.13
340A.101 1210.01, Subd. 2
340A.101, Subd. 25 1225.01, Subd. 3
340A.412, Subd. 10 1220.31
340A.414 1205.01 Amended 209; Arta 1, Sec. 34
340A.415 1200.31, Subd. 2
1205.01
340A.503 1200.27, Subd. 1 Amended 301; Sec. 13,14
351; Sec. 19
1210.15
1220.31
• 340A.801 1220.23 Amended 301; Sec.. 15
5
•
I•
349 1100.13 Amended
New
Repealed
349.12 1100.13, Subd. 10(a) Amended
349.12, Subd. 1 1100.13, Subd. 2
349.16 1200.17, Subd. 8 Amended
349.214 1100.13, Subd. 3 Amended
349.30 - 349.33 1100.01, Subd. 8
349.50 - 349.60 1100.01, Subd. 2(b) New
363 305.01, Subd. 1 New
Amended
Repealed
0
305.01, Subd. 5(f)
305.01, Subd. 7
419.01 - 419.18 305.03, Subd. 3
429 315.11, Subd. 1
835.07, Subd. 3 Amended
429.041 315.03, Subd. 1
429.061, Subd. 3 315.11, Subd. 2
429.101 910.19
437.09 : 437.11 1100.11
444.075 715.23, Subd. 2
720.01
334; Art. 2,
Sec.1-26, 28-48
203; Sec. 1-3
209; Art. 1, Sec. 35
149; Sec. 3-5
149; Sec. 1,2
334; Art. 2, Sec.27,52
334; Art.2, Sec.1-15
203; See.1
334; Art. 2, Sec.20-21
334; Art. 2, Sec. 46
149; Sec. 1,5
280; Sec. 21
328; Art. 3, Sec. 1,2
209; Art. 1, Sec. 37
280; Sec. 1-20
144, Art. 2, Sec. 8
356; Sec. 18
329; Art. 9, Sec. 26
335, Art. 1, Sec. 243
329; Art. 8, Sec. 11
280; Sec,. 22
564; Sec. 1
6
444.075, Subd. 3 705.23, Subd. 1
•
705.25, Subd. 5
462.351 - 462.354 305.05, Subd. 4
462.351 - 462.364 500.31
462.354, Subd. 1 305.05, Subd. 1
462.357 500.03, Subd. 2
463.21 800.09, Subd. 5
471.195 315.01, Subd. 1
471.61 310.23, Subd. 3
310.23, Subd. 1
471.62 100.05
471.345 315.03, Subd. 1
•
705.25, Subd. 1
473 1210.31(a)
•
Amended
New
Amended
Amended
Amended
New
Amended
7
82; Sec. 2
200; Sec. 1
196; Sec. 1
200; Sec. 2
82; Sec. 2
328; Art. 3, Sec. 3
352; Sec. ;19,25
9; Sec. 3
355; Sec.12
320; Sec. 2
279; Sec.! 1-5
335; Art. 1, Sec.248
339; Sec., 11-15
146; Sec.' 1-3
277; Art. 1, Sec. 31
326; Art.' 4, Sec. 7
335; Art. 1, Sec. 249
279; Sec. 6
335; Art. 4 Sec.90-96
352; Sec.; 20 -
306; Seca 1-7
325; Sec., 51-66
339; Seca 3-10,16-19
277; Art. 4, Sec.72-78
269; Sec: 47-48
283; Sec. 1,2
355; Sec. 13, 14
209 Art. 1, 56, 38
7?-7 5?,
0
473.121, Subd. 24
514.93
617.23 - 617.299
618.01
624.20 - 624.25
624.42 - 624.54
624.65
624.66
624.711 - 624.717
645
645.44 - 645.45
•
0
705.25, Subd. 1
903.25
2000.05
610.17(b)
920.09
1110.03, Subd. 10
1110.05, Subd. 2
1100.11
1115.07
920.07
105.07, Subd. 2
105.03
Repealed
Repealed
Amended
8
111; Sec. 2
339; Sec. 24
306; Sec. 12
10; Sec. 1
352; Sec.21,25,26
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda, August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit
Development for Richfield Bank and Trust at 6625 Lyndale Avenue
South.
Background:
Richfield Bank and Trust has requested an amendment to a
previously approved Planned Unit Development at 6625 Lyndale
Avenue South. The amendment would allow the construction of two
items:
1. A six story addition, containing approximately 892 square
feet per floor, to the northwest corner of the existing
Richfield Bank and Trust Building at a streetside setback
of 20'-0".
2. A 12'-0" by 48'-0" addition on the west side of the
existing drive-thru service center located along the
south property line of the site.
On October 25, 1982, the Richfield City Council approved a
Planned Unit Development at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South for the
• Richfield State Agency (Richfield Bank and Trust). This proposal
is an amendment to that plan.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Richfield Bank
and Trust at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South with the following
stipulation:
1. That the drainage from the proposed addition to the
existing Richfield Bank and Trust building run underground
into the main catch basin/storm sewer.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed addition would in no way alter the existing
traffic and pedestrian circulation on the site.
2. Existing parking on the site exceeds that which is
required for this type of business operation.'
3. No change in lighting or signage is proposed for the site
due to the amendment.
4. A landscape plan, meeting staff approval, has been
included as part of the proposal.
is 5. Other than the aforementioned drainage concern, no change
in the drainage flow on the site in general will take
place.
• Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may deny the request for the Planned Unit
Development amendment in the event that:
1. The stipulation cannot be met.
2. 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 before the City Council at
7:00 p.m., Monday, August 28, 1989. Legal notice of the hearing
before the City Council was published in the Richfield Sun
Current Newspaper on August 16, 1989.
lly submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City ',Manager
JDP:sae
•
40
•
I
M
yy ?1 N
v w ; ? N ? C O V • r • M ? ? N
•? ? ? N r y 1 r 1 y ? N y ?
[CR[E3 •vE f-_ _z.-:a.r?.?-w T•+ti.... .? .?..._r.It, ¦[NXCs Avg,
••sNeu NM _ _ ?-7?
WASHBURN
VINCENT I^ '°.?=r_ ?f VINCENT
I
UPTON
TMOM• L
THOMAS
LLD
SNCRI-U I f 3MtR10."
Russ
-?•1 RUSSELL
OYEEN
P(NN j PENN AVE.
OL ,JL?J1_J?JLJ T OLIVER
'It "CINTON
Mon a : JOO??JJ
t03 i MORGAN
LO
RM LOG•N
? :• ?0?? Ox
JAMES
JAMES
INVIMG •t
IRVING
HUMBOLDT _• . ?--' u -I ?? MYMeOLOT
GIRARD sR(YONT i {{.. ::::::•?7,. :: _ ??-- P GUARD
EMERSON ?. _-- .•:•Y.;'• __ IL fR(YONT
?? J? '???"?:•:: 'v: ? EMERSON
OUPOIOT ON
DUPONT
COLFAX
IN NO
-OLM.T.At M,
ALORIC"
LYNOAL.
GARFIELD ?-,_ --_y-%?' :: w I ` ?^-?7C LrNO•Lt •vE.
GARFIELD
HARRIET
==4 13.' uARRICT
Gn1M0
GRAND
PLEASANT L:_.r. ?-+..? - _.+•+-- _ _ _ _ I_ . _ _?•?±_=3RI rLEISINT
PILLSBURY ,::_? I• ?_--mss "?.- ,.' ?' .
II = II !i I PILLSBURY
WENTWORTM
WENTWORTM
MICOLLET AVE. NIcoLLtt •vE.
ISO IS,
STEVENS "--J-? ILA--???. _?'••- 1 I
STEVENS
2-0
3,0
CLINTON
• 1A CLINTON
PORTLAND AVE.
OARl1M0 PORTLAND AVE,
11 . 1 I-? •-, '=??_-' J .??.? I 'I OAKLAND
PAR COLUMBUS PARK
COLD YOYi
CMI'r AGO
CHICAGO
ELLIOT - ------_ IN
ELLIOT
Ip
?? ?' ^= ?? III to to
77 lob
It, 121r
1316
I• rII ? ? -- ?? t II
eLOOYIMGTQN t -? ??? ^ ?? ?- L_J
BLOOMINGTON e100YIMGTGN
Ie 16
LONG"EL:OIR CEOA. AVL
_ LOMGf ELLO?
• + •? • o w - Ij-------- iJ`?I ?-- 19101
Y r
's'? s s s s ; e ;?I !ZJL
-,I 2010
21 ,t
=n? 2:..
p 'n STANo1SM
C _ O
Z m w ? _ . 23.0
N
V i -• ? M ? r N
r y ? M
r ? ti y
¦
r r..
O -c
0z
Dv
Or
z M
C
rn
cn
.
,(o --J
_' q e \rh?,C f, E
, t -t t
w
4ft
9=
'•ti ' 3 I .
= J -N oP r a r
°A 'A
? ? ??-? •N' ? yy? N2w - ; U I
I 1? 1
/ . - NARRIET AVENUE SOUTN ?y •[,ia<e\'' - - _ .. L2
go a-
• nw 1 i •- I I' I
70
y .Iy f.. I ..? 1 NII + ? • I ( r
11x1
, I
IL -11 LIT'
w ._ • 'li 1
s
3
- I
r 1
n
•
1 i ?J • I 1 I I I? 1 1 1 ?' I ?, I I I I I+ V -? i I j
I • I
1 a y l `L.l..l 6.1tl iJ. 11 L?11. t (_I,?t.l.?1..1 111? 6J ) I ~•
'•? 4 , l• i GRAND AVENUE'SOUTN • `? 'I e 7 - • `_ ?•? • 1 -'
w<
,•,+?, li• •.•'^^e. ? -tF Si ? f•••• IO ? • M?p Ol1lp 241
St -^..`.•° ? n•R? ee ? tO iiil[ C y? • NwOn=I O 11 1
..• :.`,a 6? ?. i'$iii 7 = 3•- :i !ii•rct•wrn
a,! -Ice
? 1p b ? 3 ? • ^. ? o
• - ? _ ?i A:O? ° ^•?• I> -i1 eO•ap =• i•O n••l pfef •
>• i ? ? is •? D :-j? • _ ?? ?• •'• ww?
w U ? • ? i ' ; • ?w ?
II•• • M • .YY .P•
ice.' E • ••ww••w• • °, N = i Y O?+•?ww
=0-0 0
•? rR eU•^ zM A• r i P wM wPP PP
Ir •y ^ Nw 1A •!1•wA
P U 0 UPOATE AND SPECIAL USE PERMT
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY PHASE I MASTER
RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA PARKING PLAN
N
U) ro!
-I z
ma
r r-
>rn
z>
rn
•
CA
i - -
Or
am
so ,
- t
t
i a
c Co
t o.
A? o L
"Ti
- o t
-4
Cr
w O= i
-4 d
Gs
o
--
o A
d>O
dcnc -dam= n
MDorn
SITE PLAN .?.w„ DISM A"*-RICHRELD BANK & TRUST 1 T?+e
ARC
,
.:. r'?• `,,,,
_
" [
MCDONALDS HITECTURA
•
I SESSIONAL ASS
"? -- -- _?
w??sraaa?-.rrv.awu• L MTXM OFMCES.
OCNTION
wr?wrr.....w.? rrr..?w •.+.r
•
i
.. ? m
Al x
A .0
?j l
v '' s HA MI l E
r
ON
1
0 r-
cn L<
mz
vv
_r
-qm
m>
m<
rm
>`
z CA
A SITE PLAN I AAOKIWt RICHFIELD BANK & TRUST , V- ?
PIIel? y apON • ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES,
4 es? . ?ieri,?,,,,, MCDONALDS .. l PRMSSIONAL ASSOCIAM"
Q ? Y
P
-- J.1UN1
PSIS ?a-/3 NA ?f10hGMGpR ._ ?
• e 18M - Z'ru 5('RENJ ?? 11
\ .J
1
1
CavCPEf$ ?? 9
?1'Dr
Wi4H
_ $?G K
"(fig TO P??hrtN.. ? 9'" ?it+?
s
/ i _t
i
?` ?? 9 1Rf?G`tG-t cv3 `
PKfq
?? ? ? pEryS
1
PLANTING DETA
0
- I'I?YJ f'I cam, ?UN.'?a•i5
2C°GF°BS',
IL
i
•
4
e ,
_ ?.
I wk
•
•
A
1
L 1
.
I
5•
.
a?
o_
Pu
a
t?
n
R ?
••?? ?I it
i?
ILI
PON&Aomm I I'`*l RICHFIELD SANK & TRUST THE
PRO
r?
I '
3
i
H
t
i
I
a
a
IA
I
I
I
I
I I
I li
lyy?
IF]
i
I?
a
R_
I
1
.; ?; I i; i
:l
i
.I
I
I
I
a
i
r
m
r
o ,
z (' -
? - 1
a I
I
? I
a I
? I
I
I
I
17,
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
00
m N
O to
m
vz
m
m r"
<M
n?
Om
/z
V• N
m
A
E ELEVATIONS n MAOMY RICHFIELD BANK & TRUST R HITECTURAL OFFICES
Q
" elm a=
alm
I -a tw e«An.ewlA
""c°011r .
? J MMSIONAL ASSOCN1gM
0
? Z//
I 3 t?
\
i 1 L.--
E
A 1$OA" Aomm RICHFIELD BANK & TRUST
g
era --- ___
. r=? MCDONALDS
DONA cwmcrMA? OFFICES,
/? •J ARMWES ONAL ASSCOATMN
,... w-. ....? .«...?.....
.«
6615 L N Lt AVE. 5.
ZONING .
??..YG1 I INDUSTRIAL
',•.•'•,•?i'•.••.•'•.•.•'• MR MULTIPLE DWELLING
? MR-3 17 OR MORE UNIT RESIDENCES
C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. MR-1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCES
2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
C ooo; PMR PLANNED MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 4
N
-
MR-2 5-16 UNIT RESIDENCES •,'ii PC-2 PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL
IELO
LAKE
i
.H T.
66TH ST. W.
rri
6625 LYNDALE AVE. S.
LAND USE
® COMMERCIAL
El APARTMENT PARK Q
QUASI-PUBLIC
MiXF,D LAND USE DUPLEX VACANT
N
GOTH ST. W.
it-q
6625 LYNDALE AVE. S.
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INSTITUTIONAL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
® Q
PARKS MEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER
66TH ST. W.
•L •Y ' 'Trrw?.wi?q i,ig?r?ir?r4
?.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 201
Agenda August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on adoption of the assessment roll for removal of
diseased trees from private property for the period August 1,
1988 through December 31, 1988.
Background:
The City Council has scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday,
August 28, 1989, for the assessment of the cost for removal of
diseased trees from private property during the period August 1,
1988 through December 31, 1988. City staff has calculated the
proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece
or parcel of land specially benefited. The proposed assessment
was properly filed with the City Clerk, notice was duly published
and notices were mailed to the owner of each parcel described in
the assessment roll.
The cost of diseased tree removal from ten private properties for
this period totaled $3,903.02. City ordinance provides that
special assessments for current services may be certified to the
county auditor for collection along with taxes. This
certification may provide that the assessment be completely paid
in the first year or in annual installments. It is the staff
• recommendation that such payments be due and payable over a three
year period.
The adopted assessment roll for the period August 1, 1988 through
December 31, 1988 would be certified with the county auditor by
October 10, 1989. The City has the right to charge interest on
the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds for the
initial expense. It is the staff recommendation that the
interest rate be established at eight percent, the maximum
allowed by State Law. Payment may be made by the assessed owner
before November 15, 1989 in order to avoid interest ',payments.
Payments made after that date would include the interest payment.
City staff will be available at the hearing to answer questions
about the special assessment that may not have been raised prior
to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for
all interested persons to present their objections, 'if any, to
such proposed assessment.
Recommended Motion:
Following close of the public hearing, approve the attached
resolution adopting the assessment for removal of diseased trees
from private property for the period August 1, 1988 through
December 31, 1988. It is further recommended that such payments
be due and payable over a three year period.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. Each affected property owner has been notified of the
. proposed assessment as required by law.
2. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official
City newspaper as required by State Statute.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may make any changes deemed necessary in the assessment
roll as a result of the hearing by adding the phrase, "and has
amended such proposed assessment as it deems just".
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP/reb
•
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES
FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF
AUGUST 1, 1988 TO DECEMBER 31, 1988
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the City Council has met and passes upon all objections to
the proposed assessment for current services related to removal
of diseased trees from the following private property in the City
of Richfield:
Property Address
6639 Logan Avenue
7501 Xerxes Avenue
7426 Elliot Avenue
7105 Fourth Avenue
6612 Second Avenue
7328 Aldrich Avenue
2832 West 70 1/2 Street
7514 15th Avenue
7220 Morgan Avenue
6512 22nd Avenue
•
Property Identification Number
28-028-24-31-0052
32-028-24-42-0096
35-028-24-31-0117
34-028-24-11-0111
27-028-24-42-0068
33-028-24-14-0023
32-028-24-12-0062
35-028-24-42-0093
33-028-24-23-0034
25-028-24-24-0012
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of $3,903.02,
is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein, and,each tract of
land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed current services in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than three
annual installments and shall bear interest at,the rate of
eight percent from the date of adoption of this assessment
resolution.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior
to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,
pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the
City's Assessing Division, and he may at any time
thereafter, pay to the City's Assessing Division the entire
amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to
is be extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 28th day of August, 1989.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
r1
U
• CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda, August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Enactment of a resolution authorizing signature of the 1989 (Year
XV) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program Subrecipient Agreement.
Background:
Subrecipient Agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County
which provide the basis for implementing the specific activities
of the 1989 (Year XV) Urban Hennepin County Community Development
Block Grant Program. The agreements are required pursuant to the
Community Development Block Grant Program Entitlement Grant
Regulation. Before Hennepin County may disperse any Year XV CDBG
funds, the agreement must be signed between 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 XV CDBG Program has previously been approved by the City
• Council (see Attachment A), and the signature authorizing
enactment of the Subrecipient Agreements would allow Hennepin
County to disperse the funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution must be acted upon at the August 28 „1989 meeting
to meet Hennepin County processing deadlines.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:sae
C]
76'? 70/-
CITY OF RICHFIELD
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF THE YEAR XV
CDBG SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council on March 27, 1989 consented
to the Year XV CDBG Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes
the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreements
which allow Hennepin County to disperse Year XV CDBG funds.
• Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 28th day of August, 1989.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
i
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
L J
ATTACHMENT A
YEAR XV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT
APPROVED FUNDING
1. Housina Improvement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 62,809
b. Scattered Site $ 65,000
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 14,100
b. Day Care $ 20,000
• 3. Economic Development:
ILN Revolving Fund $ 10,000
TOTAL $171,909
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda August 28, 1989
• Issue Statement:
Award of contract for concrete joint cleaning and resealing of
concrete alleys and streets, specifically 65th Street from
Pillsbury Avenue up to and including Rae Drive.
Background:
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, 65th Street from Pillsbury Avenue
up to and including Rae Drive, is the last area with concrete
joints under the City's jurisdiction to receive maintenance
attention. Some alleys in the City will also have this work done
with property owners specially assessed for this work. This is
the first year alleys have been included in this project.
Bids were opened August 18, 1989 from three contractors for the
1989 concrete joint cleaning and resealing project with the
following results:
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $47,621.75
is Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 65,853.20
D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. 110,725.80
Recommended Motion:
Award a contract for the 1989 concrete joint cleaning and
resealing project to Progressive Contractors, Inc. in the sum of
$47,621.75.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid from Progressive Contractors, Inc. is the lowest
submitted by a responsible bidder.
2. Funding for the work on City streets is budgeted at $55,000
in the 1989 street maintenance operating budget. $10,000 was
the estimated cost for work on seven or eight City alleys and
was included in the 1989 alley maintenance special assessment
project calculations.
3. Progressive Contractors, Inc. is a well-known and reputable
company.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may choose to reject all the bids and direct
staff to readvertise. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/reb
•
0
?y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
August 18, 1989
11:15 A.M.
Joint Cleaning and Resealing of Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavement
Bid No. 89-21
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 joint cleaning and resealing of
non-reinforced concrete pavement, bid no. 89-21, as advertised in
the official newspaper on August 9, 1989.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID
SECURITY TOTAL
Butuminous Roadway, Inc. Mpls. 5% Bid Bond $ 65,853.20
D. H. Blatner & Sons, Inc. Mpls. 5% Bid Bond $110,725.80
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 47,621.75
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 28, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
r1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda August 28, 1989
0
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the 1989 sidewalk, curb and gutter repair.
Background:
Repair of concrete sidewalks, and concrete curb and gutter work
is performed each year as a safety precaution. The maintenance
program consists of removal and replacement of deteriorated
concrete sidewalks sections and curb and gutter in various areas
of the city.
Bids were opened on August 11, 1989 from six contractors with the
following results:
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $28,398.25
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. 29,652.50
AdCon, Inc. 32,756.00
Arrigoni Bros. 35,078.25
Northern N Contracting 38,142.50
Gunderson Bros. 44,953.50
•
The 1989 revised street maintenance budget contains $26,500 for
this work. The quantities bid are estimated quantities only.
Other work, such as joint cleaning and sealing, has received very
favorable unit bid prices. Staff will monitor the sidewalk, curb
and gutter work in order to keep the work performed within the
total budgeted amount for various concrete and asphalt work
within the City.
Recommended Motion:
Award the 1989 sidewalk, curb and gutter repair project to
Progressive Contractors, Inc. in the sum of $28,398.',25.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Progressive Contractors, Inc. submitted the lowest
responsible bid.
2. Progressive Contractors, Inc. is a well-known and
reputable contractor in the Twin City area.
3. Sufficient funding is available for this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to
readvertise. However, the bids received are in line with the
amount of work needing to be completed and staff does not believe
a better price could be obtained from a reputable contractor.
C7
76,,y -/
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 28, 1989 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.
Respectfull ubmitted,
James TDross-er
City Manager
JDP/sdr
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Bid Opening
August 11, 1989
11:00 A.M.
Concrete Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Repair
Bid No. 89-20
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for concrete sidewalk and curb and
gutter repair, bid no. 89-20, as advertised in the official
newspaper on August 2, 1989.
Present: Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID
SECURITY TOTAL
Progressive Contractors Osseo 5% Bid Bond $ 28,398.25
Northern Rock Creek none $ 38,142.50
Arrigoni Brothers St. Paul 5$ Bid Bond $ 35,078.25
Adcon, Inc. Andover 5$ Bid Bond $ 32,756.00
Gunderson Brothers Mpls 5$ Bid Bond $ 44,953.50
Standard Sidewalk,Inc. Lindstrom 5$ Bid Bond $ 29,652.50
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 28, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 to install buried cables at Veterans
Memorial Park of Richfield.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
State grant funding received for Veterans Memorial Park of
Richfield stipulates converting the current overhead electrical
cables which supply power to the well near 64th Street and
Portland Avenue to underground cables. Northern States Power
Company (NSP) will perform this installation at a cost of $5,700.
In addition to burying the well house power cables, it will also
be necessary to install electrical service to the site of the
Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield picnic shelter building. NSP
has also agreed to perform this work for the sum of $5,700.
• Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the sum of $11,400 to Northern States
Power Company for the installation of the two underground cables.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Converting the overhead power supply to underground cable for
the well house is a stipulation for receiving state grant
funding.
2. As parks are redeveloped, staff policy has been to bury
electrical cables, as well as utilities.
3. Electrical service to the picnic shelter building is
necessary for construction and later occupation.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 28, 1989 City Council
agenda. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
avoid delays in construction.
Respectfu ly submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:reb
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda August 28, 1989
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for additional aggregate for
construction purposes at Rich Acres Golf Course.
Background:
Prior to paving the overflow parking lot at Rich Acres Golf
Course, City crews graded and prepared the surface. This
overflow parking lot was also expanded about ten feet to the
north, which allowed another whole row of parking. The granular
material needed to expand and level off the parking lot amounted
to approximately 1400 ton, or $7,184.51 of material.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the sum of $7,184.51 to Edward
Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Additional material was needed to properly construct the
project.
2. The request for this expenditure was supported by Golf Course
personnel based on increased revenues of $20,000 this year.
• Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 28, 1989 City Council
agenda. Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to
facilitate payment to Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
submitted,
RespeVager
James sser
City JDP/reb
LJ