Loading...
09-12-88 agendaWA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 231 September 12, 1988 Agenda Issue Statement: Designation of a Council member as liaison to the PASSS Advisory Committee. Background: The HRA recently authorized staff to pursue the preparation of a strategy for improving the Penn Avenue /66th Street area. At their August 29, 1988 meeting, they established an Advisory Committee composed of 27 business and residential representatives. A survey of the membership is in progress to determine a day and time for meetings. The HRA has determined that there should be liaison members from the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council. Recommended Motion: Designate a Council Member to serve as liaison to the PASSS Advisory Committee. Alternative Recommendation: Not have a liaison person. Decision Mode: The liaison appointment should be made prior to the first meeting of the committee. It is likely that the first meeting of the committee will be held in early October. , Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP:sae CITY OF RICHFIELD, MININESOTA Council Letter No. 230 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Release Certificates of Completion for residential development that occurred in the New Ford Town Area in 1978. Background: In March, 1978, the City Council authorized the sale of 14 lots in the New Ford Town (NFT) area. NFT is the name of the plat for an area generally bounded by 66th Street on the south, Longfellow Avenue on the west, and Metropolitan Airport property to the north and east. The basis for the Council action was to: - Return 14 lots acquired by the City as a result of tax forfeiture to the property tax roll. - Minimize the blighting influence of these vacant lots by developing the lots quickly with average priced or better housing. - Utilize the sale proceeds to fund New Home Program activities of the HRA. In May, 1978, developers were identified and the lots were sold. To ensure performance, the City Council required a deed restriction which specified the maximum length of the construction period and a minimum sales price upon completion. All developers have complied and the homes have been owner occupied for approximately nine to ten years. It is not clear why "Certificates of Completion" were not issued when the properties were originally sold to homeowners. In most instances, a "cloud" remains on the title as the certificates have not been executed and recorded. Original owners are discovering that their properties cannot be sold without the certificate from the city. (Two of the 14 lots were utilized by the HRA for Vo -Tech projects and were not subjected to the same conditions). Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor Completion for the and City Manager to following properties: -6517 21st Ave. -6521 21st Ave. -6523 21st Ave. -6527 21st Ave. -6531 21st Ave. -6533 22nd Ave. -6516 Standish Ave. execute Certificates of -6521 Standish Ave. -6431 Standish Ave. -6329 21st Ave. -6332 22nd Ave. -6328 22nd Ave. Basis of Recommendation: 1T-Development requirements have been met. 2) A "Certificate of Completion" is the appropriate city action. 3) One action to release all properties is preferred to returning to the City Council several times to resolve this issue on a property by property basis. Alternative Recommendation: 1) Not take action at this time. However, the sale of one property is pending the authorization of a Certificate of Completion. There is no legal basis for withholding "Certificates of Completion." 2) Take one action per property. However, this requires repetitive City Council and staff attention. Decision Mode: Following City Council authorization, the Mayor and City Manager will execute the Certificate of Completion for all properties and staff will make them available for recording purposes. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:sae /r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 229 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: City Council adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of $4,465,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1988 and a resolution awarding the sale of $3,450,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Refunding Bonds of 1988. Background: On August 22, 1988, the City Council authorized the sale of $7,915,000 Advanced Refunding Bonds. These bonds were issued to complete the advanced refunding of the following issues: $6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980 $ 825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983 $4,445,000 Refunding Redevelopment Bonds of 1983 The resolutions awarding the sale of the refunding bonds are extremely complex. Thus, the exact text of the resolutions will not be available until after the sale of the bonds. The resolutions will not only provide authority for awarding the sale of the bond issues, but will also give authority to fix the form and specification of the bonds, direct their execution and delivery, and provide for payment. After completing all necessary presale procedures, including legal notice of bond reading information, interviews and legal opinion, the bond sale is ready to take place on September 12, 1988 as authorized and advertised. Bids and relevant data will be compiled by representatives of Evenson- Dodge, Inc. for presentation to the City Council at the regular City Council meeting of September 12, 1988. In order to have the most current bond quotation possible prior to the bid award, it is customary practice to open bids the day of the award. The bond sale opening will take place at 1:00 p.m. on September 12. Sale results, plus recommendations, will be reported at the City Council meeting of September 12, 1988. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions awarding the sale of $4,465,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1988 and $3,450,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Refunding Bonds of 1988. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bond sale was authorized by the City Council on August 22, 1988. 2. The bond sale has been conducted pursuant Minnesota Statutes and Internal Revenue Code. '/ / -i 3. Advanced refunding of the bond issues will provide a net present value savings for the City of Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: 1. There is no alternative recommendation if the City wishes to continue with the bond sale. 2. The City may decide to not sell these advanced refunding bonds if the interest rate is an unfavorable one. Discussion /Decision Mode: The City Council should act immediately to confirm the bond sale, if it is decided favorable, and a bid opening was conducted earlier on September 12, 1988. JDP:eja Respectfully submitted, Jam D* Prosser Cit Manager EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on Monday, the 12th of September, 1988, at 7:00 P.M. The following members of the City Council were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consider- ation of offers for the purchase of $4,560,000 General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988, of the City, in accordance with the terms of the Official Statement and Notice to Bidders dated as of September 1, 1988. The Clerk then presented the offers submitted prior to 1:00 P.M. on this day, as specified in the Official Notice of Sale, and which had been opened and tabulated by the Finance Manager thereafter in the presence and with the assistance of representatives of Evensen- Dodge, Inc., financial advisers to the City. The offers were examined and found to be as follows: After consideration of the offers for the Bonds, it was deter- mined upon advice of the City's Financial Advisers that the maturity schedule of the Bonds and minimum purchase price should be adjusted in accordance with the terms of the Official Notice of Sale of the Bonds as follows: The following resolution was then presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption the reading of which had been disbursed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988; PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ESCROWING AND INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS REFUNDED THEREBY. BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City), as follows: Section 1. Sale of Refunding Bonds. 1.01. The bid of (Purchaser) to purchase $ General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988 (Refunding Bonds), bearing interest as follows: Year of Maturity Interest Rate (% per annum) 1993 % 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 (Net effective interest rate: %) is hereby accepted, said offer being to purchase the Refunding Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery. Of the purchase price the sum of $ shall be deposited in the Debt Service Account established by Section 3. The Mayor and the Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City. 1.02. The City shall forthwith issue the Refunding Bonds pur- suant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) which Refunding Bonds shall be initially numbered R -1 upwards, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, originally dated October 1, 1988, bearing interest as above provided, payable February 1, 1988, and semiannually thereafter on August 1 and February 1 in each year. The Refunding Bonds shall mature serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount 1993 $ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1.03. In order to comply with the provisions of Section 475.54, Subdivision 1 of the Act, the maturity schedule of the Refunding Bonds is hereby combined with the 1988 through 1994 maturities of the Refunded Bonds (as hereinafter defined) as permitted by Section 475.54, Subdivision 2 of the Act. 1.04. The City may elect on February 1, 1997 and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 1998. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Refunding Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Refunding Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Refunding Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Refunding Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. 1.05. The Refunding Bonds shall be issuable only in fully regis- tered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Refund- ing Bond, the principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 1.06. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Refunding Bond shall be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made avail- able for payment, in which case such Refunding Bond shall be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date in which case such Refunding Bond shall be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Refunding Bonds shall be payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 1988, to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 1.07. Registration. Pursuant to the Act the City shall appoint, and shall maintain, a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Refunding Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Refund- ing Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Refunding Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satis- factory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Refunding Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and matur- ity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever Refunding Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Refunding Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. Refunding Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) groper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Refunding Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on the Refunding Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Refunding Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Refunding Bond, whether such Refunding Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Refunding Bond and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such regis- tered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectu- al to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or ex- change of Refunding Bonds, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Refunding Bond shall become mutilated or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar shall deliver a new Refunding Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substi- tution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Refunding Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any such Refunding Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reason- able expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection there- with; and, in the case of a Refunding Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Refunding Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. All Refunding Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Refunding Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Refunding Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Refunding Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) not more than 60 and not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Refunding Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing said notice in the manner required by law. Failure to give such notice by publica- tion or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any proceeding for the redemption of Refunding Bonds. All Refunding Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. 1.08. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby ap- points , Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Refunding Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Board, the Finance Manager shall transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 1.09. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Refunding Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the Clerk and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Refunding Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Refunding Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Refunding Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or enti- tled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Refunding Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on each Refunding Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. 1.10. Delivery. When the Refunding Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the Finance Manager shall deliver the same to the Purchaser thereof upon payment of the purchase price in accor- dance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 1.11. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Refunding Bonds, one or more typewritten temporary bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 2 with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive bonds the temporary bonds shall be exchanged therefor and cancelled. Section 2. Form and Execution. 2.01. The Refunding Bonds shall be printed in substantially the following form: [Face of the Bond] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BOND OF 1988 Date of Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP ZZJL October 1, 1988 No. The City of Richfield, a duly organized and existing munici- pal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) , acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to or registered assigns, the principal sum of THOUSAND DOLLARS ($_,000) on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 1988, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presenta- tion and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by , Minnesota, as Transfer Agent, Bond Registrar, Authenticating Agent, and Paying Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. The City may elect on February 1, 1997, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds of this issue due on or after February 1, 1998. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remain- ing unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest to date of redemption. Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth in this place. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been exe- cuted by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its author- ized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (facsimile) (facsimile) City Manager Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolu- tion mentioned within. Bond Registrar By Authorized Representative [Reverse of the Bond] This bond is one of an issue of bonds in the total principal amount of $ , all of like original issue date and tenor except as to interest rate, maturity and redemption privilege, all issued by the City pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 12, 1988 (Resolution) for the purpose of provid- ing money to refund, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, in advance of their maturity and at their first redemption date, a portion of the outstanding principal amount of certain general obliga- tion bonds of the City. The Bonds of this issue have been issued for the purpose of providing money sufficient for a crossover refunding pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 13, on their respective first redemption dates, bonds of the following issues of general obligation bonds of the City (Refunded Bonds): a) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980, and b) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983. This bond is payable out of the Escrow Account and Debt Service Account in the City's Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988 Fund, to which have been duly pledged special assessments for various assess- able local improvements financed by the proceeds of the Refunded Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the City and, to provide moneys for the prompt and full payment of its principal and interest as the same become due, the full faith and credit of the City is hereby irrevocably pledged, the City Council will levy ad valorem taxes, if required for such purpose, which taxes may be levied on all of the taxable property in the City without limitation as to rate or amount. The bonds of this series are issued in denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, of single maturities. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limita- tions set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the regis- tered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly author- ized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instru- ment of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surren- dered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause anew Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the charter of the city and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issu- ance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness. (Form of certificate to be printed on the reverse side of each Refunding Bond, following a full copy of the legal opinion.) I certify that the above is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion rendered by bond counsel on the issue of Bonds of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which includes the within Bond, dated as of the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds. (Facsimile Signature) City Clerk The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription of the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian in common (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties under Uniform Gifts or Transfers to Minors JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights there- under, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, with- out alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee 2.02. The Clerk shall obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Profes- sional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which shall be complete except as to dating thereof and shall cause the opinion to be printed on each Refunding Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the Clerk in substantially the form set forth in the form of bond. The Clerk is hereby authorized and direct- ed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. Section 3. Refunding Bonds: Security. 3.01. Refunded Bonds. The outstanding bonds of the City to be refunded by the Refunding Bonds are referred to in this Resolution as the "Refunded Bonds" and are as follows: a) $6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980, dated September 1, 1980 (1980 Refunded Bonds) of which $3,960,000 in principal amount is subject to redemption on February 1, 1993; and b) $825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, dated December 1, 1983 (1983 Refunded Bonds), of which $475,000 in principal amount is subject to redemption on February 1, 1992. 3.03. Fund and Accounts. For the convenience and proper admin- istration of the moneys to be borrowed and repaid on the Refunding Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, and to make adequate and specific security to the Purchaser and holders from time to time of the Refund- ing Bonds and Refunded Bonds, there is hereby created a special fund to be designated the "Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988 Fund" (Fund) to be administered and maintained by the Finance Manager as a book- keeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be main- tained in the manner herein specified until all of the Refunded Bonds have been paid and until all of the Refunding Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund two separate accounts, to be designated the "Escrow Account" and "Debt Service Account ", respectively. (i) Escrow Account. The Escrow Account shall be maintained as an escrow account with , (Escrow Agent) in Minnesota, which is a suitable financial institution within the State whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and whose combined capital and surplus is not less than $500,000. All proceeds of the sale of the Refunding Bonds shall be received by the Escrow Agent and applied to fund the Escrow Account and to pay costs of issuing the Refunding Bonds. Proceeds of the Refunding Bonds not used to pay costs of issuance are hereby irrevocably pledged and appropriated to the Escrow Account, together with all investment earnings thereon. The Escrow Account shall be invested in securities maturing or callable at the option of the holder on such dates and bearing interest at such rates as shall be required to provide sufficient funds, together with any cash or other funds retained in the Escrow Account, to (i) pay when due the interest to accrue on each Refunding Bond to and including February 1, 1992, and a portion of the interest on the Refunding Bonds to and including Febru- ary 1, 1993, which represents the interest on the Refunding Bonds which refunded the 1983 Refunded Bonds and the 1980 Refunded Bonds, and (ii) to pay when due upon the respective redemption dates the principal amount of each of the Refunded Bonds subject to redemption prior to maturity. The Escrow Account shall be irrevocably appropriated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds until the proceeds of the Refund- ing Bonds therein are applied to prepayment of the respective Refunded Bonds. The moneys in the Escrow Account shall be used solely for the purposes herein set forth and for no other purpose, except that any surplus in the Escrow Account may be remitted to the City, all in accordance with an the Escrow Agreement (hereafter defined) by and between the City and the Escrow Agent. Any moneys remitted to the City upon termination of the Escrow Agreement shall be deposited in the Debt Service Account. (ii) Debt Service Account. To the Debt Service Account there is hereby pledged and irrevocably appropriated and there shall be credited: (1) any balance remitted to the City upon the termination of the Escrow Agreement; (2) the following amounts: (i) the balance as of February 2, 1993, in the Debt Service Fund heretofore created for the 1980 Refunded Bonds; and (ii) the balance as of February 2, 1992, in the Debt Service Fund heretofore created for the 1983 Refunded Bonds. (The Resolutions above are referred to herein as the Prior Resolutions, and the various series of Refunded Bonds are defined in Section 3.02); (3) any collections of all taxes hereafter levied for the payment of the Refunding Bonds and interest thereon; (4) all investment earnings on funds in the Debt Service Account; (5) all tax levies made by the Prior Resolutions collected after the respective redemption dates of the Refunded Bonds; (6) accrued interest (if any) received upon delivery of the Refunding Bonds to the extent not required to fund the Escrow Account; and (7) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the City Council to the Debt Service Account. The amount of any surplus remaining in the Debt Service Account when the Refunding Bonds and interest thereon are paid shall be used as provided in Section 475.61, Subdivision 4 of the Act. 3.04. Use of Debt Service Account. The moneys in the Debt Service Account shall be used solely to pay the principal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds or any other bonds hereafter issued and made payable from the Fund. No portion of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except (1) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Refunding Bonds were issued, and (2) in addition to the above, in an amount not greater than the lesser of five percent of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Refunding Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Fund (or any other City Accasnt az _ r. 7. _ . t E. L E..0 EC pay principal and interest to become due on the Refunding Bonds) in excess of amounts which under the applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard as to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by the arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. In addition, the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds and money in the Fund shall not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code). 3.05 General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Refunding Bonds, as the same re- spectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged, together with all special assessments heretofore levied for the assessable public improvements financed by the proceeds of the Refunded Bonds. If the balance in the Escrow Account or Debt Service Account is ever insuffi- cient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Refunding Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Escrow Account or Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 3.06. Filing. The Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Section 475.63 of the Act. 3.07. Pledge of Existing Tax Levies. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Refunding Bonds, there is hereby pledged to the payment of the Refunding Bonds all taxes col- lected after the respective redemption dates of the bonds of each series of Refunded Bonds called for redemption pursuant to this resolution. Said levies were for the years and in the amounts as follows: a) For the 1980 Refunded Bonds: Year Amount Year Amount b) For the 1983 Refunded Bonds: Year Amount Year Amount The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of investment earnings (and until the redemption date of the last series of Refunded Bonds, all amounts in the Escrow Account) and special assessments herein pledged for the payment of the Refunding Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Refunding Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Refunded Bonds and Refunding Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Section 475.61, Subdivi- sion 3 of the Act. The Refunded Bonds subject to redemption shall be redeemed and prepaid as provided in Section 4.05. 3.06. Refunding Bonds: Security. Until retirement of the Refunded Bonds all provisions made for the security thereof by the Prior Resolutions shall be observed by the City. The Prior Resolutions are hereby supplemented to the extent necessary to give full effect to the provisions of this Resolution. Section 4. Refunding: Findings: Escrow: Redemption of Refund- ed Bonds. 4.01. It is hereby found and determined that based upon infor- mation presently available to the City the issuance of the Refunding Bonds will result in a reduction in interest cost to the City on the Refunded Bonds as follows: Net Effective Net Effective Interest Rate: Interest Rate: Date of Refunded Bonds Refunded Bonds Refunding Bonds 1980 Refunded A, September 1, 1980 % 1983 Refunded Bonds Decemberl, 1983 The dollar value of such interest cost savings (Reduction) is $ , and the present value of the Reduction is $ 4.02. As of the date of delivery of and payment for the Refund- ing Bonds the proceeds (Proceeds) of the Refunding Bonds, in the amount of $ , are hereby pledged and appropriated and shall be deposited in the Escrow Account and used as provided in the Escrow Agreement. The City shall pay the reasonable charges of the Escrow Agent for its services. 4.03. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Proceeds available and appropriated to the Escrow Account will be sufficient, together with the permitted earnings on the investment of the Escrow Account to pay at redemption all of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if any) on the Refunded Bonds. 4.04. Securities purchased from the monies in the Escrow Account shall be limited to securities specified in Section 475.67, Subdivi- sion 8 of the Act. Securities purchased for the Escrow Account shall be purchased simultaneously with the delivery of and payment for the Refunding Bonds. The Mayor and Manager are authorized and directed to purchase such securities on behalf of the City. 4.05. The Refunded Bonds subject to redemption shall be redeemed and prepaid as follows: a) 1980 Refunding Bonds on February 1, 1993; b) 1983 Refundinig Bonds on February 1, 1992. The Refunded Bonds shall be redeemed and prepaid in accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the form of Notice of Call for Redemption attached to the Escrow Agreement as Exhibits D -1 and D -2 which terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The Clerk and Escrow Agreement are hereby authorized and directed to forthwith publish the Notices of Call for Redemption in publications qualified under Section 475.54 of the Act and to send written notices of call to the registrar for the Refunded Bonds, provided that published notice alone shall be effective. 4.06. On or prior to the delivery of the Refunding Bonds, the Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the City an escrow agreement (Escrow Agree- ment) with the Escrow Agent in substantially the form now on file with the Clerk. All essential terms and conditions of the Escrow Agreement are hereby approved and adopted and made a part of this resolution, and the City covenants that it will promptly enforce all provisions thereof in the event of default thereunder by the Escrow Agent. 4.07. When all Refunding Bonds and all interest thereon, have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the Refunding Bonds shall cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the princi- pal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds shall remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Refunding Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; if any Refunding Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also at any time discharge and defease the Refunding Bonds in their entirety by complying with the provisions of Section 475.67, Subdivisions 4 to 13 of the Act, except that the funds deposited in escrow in accordance with said provisions may (to the extent permitted by law) but need not be, in whole or in part, proceeds of refunding bonds as therein provided without the consent of any Bondholders. Section 5. Authentication of Transcript. 5.01. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and direct- ed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, cer- tified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Refunding Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Refunding bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. 5.02. The Mayor, Manager and Finance Manager are hereby author- ized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate represen- tation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement. Section 6. Tax Matters. 6.01. Tax Covenant. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Refunding Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Refunding Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Code, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take, or cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative actions within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Refunding Bonds. 6.02. Tax - Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code and within the City's legal authority to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Refunding Bonds, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. E:R2:00550988.RAW STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on September 12, 1988, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $ General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988, of the City. WITNESS My hand officially as such Clerk this day of September , 1988. City Clerk (SEAL) E:R2:00550988.RAW STATE OF MINNESOTA DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION'S CERTIFICATE AS TO COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND REGISTRATION I, the undersigned Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on Monday, September 12, 1988, levying taxes for and relating to General Obliga- tion Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988 in the amount of $4,560,000, dated September 1, 1988, has been filed in my office and said obliga- tions have been registered on the register of obligations in my office and that the taxes have been levied as required by law. WITNESS My hand and official seal this day of , 1988. (SEAL) Director of Property Taxation Hennepin County, Minnesota By Deputy REFUNDING ESCROW AGREEMENT GENERAL OBLIGATION IIWROVEKENT BONDS OF 1980 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1983 THIS AGREEMENT, made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67 (Act) and executed by and between the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) , and Minnesota, a banking corporation whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and whose capital and surplus is not less than $500,000 (Agent): WITNESSETH: That the parties hereto recite and, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City, in accordance with resolutions adopted by its governing body on September 12, 1988, entitled "Resolution Awarding the Sale of $4,560,000 General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988; Providing for their Form and Specifications Directing Their Execution and Delivery; Providing for Their Payment; Providing for the Escrowing and Investment of the Proceeds Thereof; and Providing for the Redemption of Bonds Refunded Thereby" (Resolution), a certified copy of which has been filed with the Agent, has provided for the refunding of certain outstanding general obligation bonds (Refunded Bonds) of the City, described in the Resolution, by the issuance and sale of refunding obligations, designated as "General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds of 1988" (Refunding Bonds). 2. The City has also, in accordance with the Resolutions, issued and sold the Refunding Bonds in the principal amount of $4,560,000, and has simulta- neously invested the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds in the amount of $ , in securities which are general obligations of the United States, securities whose principal and interest payments are guaranteed by the United States, and securities issued by agencies of the United States (collectively, the Federal Securities), as described in the schedule which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, and has irrevocably deposited all such securities with the Agent on the date of this Agreement, together with the sum of $ from funds of the City legally available therefor (City Contribution), which sum shall be applied by Agent to payment of costs of issuance as specified in paragraph 3 hereof. It is understood and agreed that the dates and amounts of payments of principal and interest due on the securities so deposited are as indicated in Exhibit A, and that the principal and interest payments due on such securities together with other funds so deposited by the City are such as to provide the funds required to pay all interest payable on the Refunded Bonds, on and prior to their respective maturity dates, or to the date on which any of the Refunded Bonds have been directed to be prepaid, as stated in the Resolutions. The Refunded Bonds are the following: a) $6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980, dated Septem- ber 1, 1980, of the City, of which $ in principal amount is subject to redemption and prepayment on February 1, 1993 (Redemption Date); and b) $825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, dated December 1, 1983, of which $ in principal amount is subject to redemption and prepayment on February 1, 1992 (Redemption Date). 3. The Agent acknowledges receipt of the securities described in paragraph 2 hereof and agrees that it will hold such securities in a special escrow account (Escrow Account) created by the Resolutions in the name of the City, and will collect and receive on behalf of the City all payments of principal and interest on such securities and will remit from the Escrow Account (i) to the paying agent for the Refunding Bonds the funds required from time to time for the payment of interest on the Refunding Bonds to the respective Redemption Date for each issue of Refunded Bonds; and (ii) to the Paying Agent for the Refunded Bonds the funds needed for the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Refunded Bonds on the respective Redemption Dates. After provision for payment of all remaining Refunded Bonds, with interest accrued thereon, the Agent will remit any remaining funds in the Escrow Account to the City. Of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds the sum of $ plus the City Contribution shall be used by the Agent for the payment and disbursement of the costs of issuance of the Refunding Bonds and payments to the City as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 4. In order to insure continuing compliance with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively the Code), the Agent agrees that, it will not reinvest any cash received in payment of the principal of and interest on the Federal Securities held in the Escrow Account. This prohibition on reinvestment shall continue unless and until an opinion is received by Agent from nationally recognized bond counsel that reinvestments, as specified in said opinion, may be made in a manner consistent with the Code. Reinvestment, if any, of amounts in the escrow account made pursuant to this paragraph may be made only in direct obligations of the United States of America which mature prior to the next date on which either principal or interest on the refunded bonds is pay - able. 5. Agent expressly waives any lien upon or claim against the moneys and investments in the Escrow Account. 6. If at any time it shall appear to the Agent that the money in the Escrow Account allocable for such use hereunder will not be sufficient to make any payment due to the holders of any of the Refunded Bonds, the Agent shall immediately notify the City. The City thereupon shall forthwith deposit in Escrow Account from funds on hand and legally available to it such addi- tional funds as may be required to meet fully the amount to become due and payable. The City acknowledges its obligation to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City to the extent required to produce moneys necessary for this purpose. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a statement from , certified public accountants, dated 1988, certifying that such cash and securities are sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Act. 7. The City will not repeal or amend the Resolution which calls the Refunded Bonds for redemption on their Redemption Dates. The Agent shall cause the Notice of Call for redemption attached hereto as Exhibit D -1 and D -2 to be 2 published in accordance with law not more than 90 days nor less than 45 days before said redemption date, and to give mailed notice not less than 30 days prior to the respective Redemption Dates to the registered owners of the Refunded Bonds to be redeemed, at their addresses appearing in the bond register and also to the bank at which the principal and interest on the Refunded Bonds are then payable; but failure to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the call for redemption. 8. On or before April 1, 1989, and on or before April 1 of each year thereaf- ter until termination of the Escrow Account, the Agent shall submit to the City a report covering all money it shall have received and all payments it shall have made or caused to be made hereunder during the preceding twelve months. Such report shall also list all obligations held in the Escrow Account and the amount of money on hand in the Escrow Account on January 1 of each year. 9. It is recognized and agreed that title to the Federal Securities and cash, if any, held in the Escrow Account from time to.time shall remain vested in the City but subject always to the prior charge and lien thereon of this Agreement and the use thereof required to be made by this Agreement. The Agent shall hold all such money and obligations in a special trust fund and account separate and wholly segregated from all other funds and securities of the Agent, and shall never commingle such money or securities with other money or securities; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require the Agent to keep the identical monies, or any part thereof, received for the Escrow Account on hand, but moneys of an equal amount (except to the extent such are represented by investments permitted under this Agreement) shall always be maintained on hand as funds held by the Agent as trustee, belonging to the City, and a special account shall at all times be maintained on the books of the Agent, together with such investments. In the event of the Agent's failure to account for any money or obligations held by it in the Escrow Account, such money and obligations shall be and remain the property of the City, and if for any reason such money or obligations cannot be identified, all other assets of the Agent shall be impressed with a trust for the amount thereof, and the City shall be entitled to a preferred claim upon such assets. It is understood and agreed that the responsibility of the Agent under this Agreement is limited to the safekeeping and segregation of the funds and securities deposited with it in the Escrow Account, and the collection of and accounting for the principal and interest payable with respect thereto. 10. This Agreement is made by the City for the benefit of the holders of the Refunded Bonds, and is not revocable by the City, and the investments and other funds deposited in the Escrow Account and all income therefrom have been irrevocably appropriated for the payment of the Refunded Bonds and interest thereon in accordance with this Agreement. 11. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the City and the Agent and their respective successors and assigns. In addi- tion, this Agreement shall constitute a third party beneficiary contract for the benefit of the holders of the Refunded Bonds and said third party beneficiaries shall be entitled to enforce performance and observance by the City and the Agent of the respective agreements and covenants herein contained as fully and completely as if said third party beneficiaries were 3 parties hereto. Any bank into which the Agent may be merged or with which it may be consolidated or any bank resulting from any merger or consolida- tion to which it shall be a party or any bank to which it may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business shall, if the City approves, be the successor agent without the execution of any document or the performance of any further act. 12. The Agent may at any time resign and be discharged of its obligations hereunder by giving to the Administrator of the City written notice of such resignation not less than 60 days before the date when the same is to take effect and by publication of a copy of such notice in a daily or weekly Minnesota newspaper published in a Minnesota City of the first class, or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as part of its service, not less than 30 days prior to such date; provided that the full costs of securing a successor shall be paid by the Agent; and provided further that the successor shall also serve as the Agent without cost to the City. Such resignation shall take effect upon the date specified in the notice, or upon the appointment and qualification of a successor prior to that date. In the event of such resignation, a successor shall promptly be appointed by the City, and the Administrator of the City shall immediately give written notice thereof to the predecessor agent and publish the notice in the manner described in this paragraph 12. If, in a proper case, no appointment of a successor agent is made within 45 days after the receipt by the City of notice of such resignation, the Agent or the holder of any Refunded Bond may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a successor agent, which appointment may be made by the Court after such notice, if any, as the Court may prescribe. Any successor agent appointed hereunder shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to its predecessor agent and to the City a written acceptance of such appointment, and shall thereupon without any further act, deed or convey- ance become fully vested with all moneys, properties, duties and obliga- tions of its predecessor, but the predecessor shall nevertheless pay over, transfer, assign and deliver all moneys, securities or other property held by it to the successor agent, shall execute, acknowledge and deliver such instruments of conveyance and do such other things as may reasonably be required to vest and confirm more fully and certainly in the successor agent all right, title and interest in and to any property held by it hereunder. Any bank into which the Agent may be merged or with which it may be consolidated or any bank resulting from any merger or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any bank to which it may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business shall, if the City approves, be the successor agent without the execution of any document or the performance of any further act. 13. The Agent acknowledges receipt of the sum of $ as its full compen- sation for its services to be performed under this Agreement. 14. Any notice, authorization, request or demand required or permitted to be given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and sent by registered or certified mail addressed: 4 If to the City: If to the Agent: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attn: City Manager 15. The exhibits which are a part of this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit A Federal Securities Exhibit B Costs of Issuance Exhibit C Cash Flow and Yield Verification Report Exhibit D Notice of Call for Redemption IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly executed by their duly authorized officers, in counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original agreement, on this day of , 1988. (SEAL) (SEAL) R5:00550988.EA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its Manager By Its k, EXHIBIT A FEDERAL SECURITIES Principal Amount Interest Rate Payment Date Payment Amount COSTS OF ISSUANCE LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz (bond counsel) Ehlers and Associates Financial Advisory $ Official Statement Printing (Accountant) (Escrow Agent) City of Richfield EXHIBIT B Paying Agent /Registrar $ Bond Printing Bond Rating Misc. $ TOTAL 7 EXHIBIT C CASH FLOW AND YIELD VERIFICATION REPORT Exhibit D -1 NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $6,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA R5:00550988.EA Exhibit D -2 NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $825,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1983 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA R5:00550988.EA 10 REFUNDING ESCROW AGREEMENT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING RF.DEVELOPMM BONDS OF 1983 THIS AGREEMENT, made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67 (Act) and executed by and between the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) , and , Minneso- ta, a banking corporation whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and whose capital and surplus is not less than $500,000 (Agent): WITNESSETH: That the parties hereto recite and, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City, in accordance with resolutions adopted by its governing body on September 12, 1988, entitled "Resolution Awarding the Sale of $3,270,000 General Obligation Refunding Redevelopment Bonds of 1988; Providing for their Form and Specifications Directing Their Execution and Delivery; Providing for Their Payment; Providing for the Escrowing and Investment of the Proceeds Thereof; and Providing for the Redemption of Bonds Refunded Thereby" (Resolution), a certified copy of which has been filed with the Agent, has provided for the refunding of certain outstanding general obligation bonds (Refunded Bonds) of the City, described in said Resolu- tion, by the issuance and sale of refunding obligations, designated as "General Obligation Refunding Redevelopment Bonds of 1988" (Refunding Bonds) . 2. The City has also, in accordance with the Resolutions, issued and sold the Refunding Bonds in the principal amount of $3,270,000, and has simulta- neously invested the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds in the amount of $ , in securities which are general obligations of the United States, securities whose principal and interest payments are guaranteed by the United States, and securities issued by agencies of the United States (collectively, the Federal Securities), as described in the schedule which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, and has irrevocably deposited all such securities with the Agent on the date of this Agreement, together with the sum of $ from funds of the City legally available therefor (City Contribution), which sum shall be applied by Agent to payment of costs of issuance as specified in paragraph 3 hereof. It is understood and agreed that the dates and amounts of payments of principal and interest due on the securities so deposited are as indicated in Exhibit A, and that the principal and interest payments due on such securities together with other funds so deposited by the City are such as to provide the funds required to pay all interest payable on the Refunded Bonds, on and prior to their respective maturity dates, or to the date on which any of the Refunded Bonds have been directed to be prepaid, as stated in the Resolutions. The Refunded Bonds are the following: a) $4,500,000 General Obligation Refunding Redevelopment Bonds of 1983, dated May 1, 1983, of the City, of which $ in principal amount is subject to redemption and prepayment on February 1, 1993. 3. The Agent acknowledges receipt of the securities described in paragraph 2 hereof and agrees that it will hold such securities in a special escrow account (Escrow Account) created by the Resolutions in the name of the City, and will collect and receive on behalf of the City all payments of principal and interest on such securities and will remit from the Escrow Account (i) to the paying agent for the Refunding Bonds the funds required from time to time for the payment of interest on the Refunding Bonds to the date of the redemption of the Refunded Bonds which is February 1, 1993 (Redemption Date); and (ii) to the Paying Agent for the Refunded Bonds the funds needed for the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Refunded Bonds on the Redemption Date. After provision for payment of all remaining Refunded Bonds, with interest accrued thereon, the Agent will remit any remaining funds in the Escrow Account to the City. Of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds the sum of $ plus the City Contribution shall be used by the Agent for the payment and disbursement of the costs of issuance of the Refunding Bonds and payments to the City as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 4. In order to insure continuing compliance with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively the Code), the Agent agrees that, it will not reinvest any cash received in payment of the principal of and interest on the Federal Securities held in the Escrow Account. This prohibition on reinvestment shall continue unless and until an opinion is received by Agent from nationally recognized bond counsel that reinvestments, as specified in said opinion, may be made in a manner consistent with the Code. Reinvestment, if any, of amounts in the escrow account made pursuant to this paragraph may be made only in direct obligations of the United States of America which mature prior to the next date on which either principal or interest on the refunded bonds is pay- able. 5. Agent expressly waives any lien upon or claim against the moneys and investments in the Escrow Account. 6. If at any time it shall appear to the Agent that the money in the Escrow Account allocable for such use hereunder will not be sufficient to make any payment due to the holders of any of the Refunded Bonds, the Agent shall immediately notify the City. The City thereupon shall forthwith deposit in Escrow Account from funds on hand and legally available to it such addi- tional funds as may be required to meet fully the amount to become due and payable. The City acknowledges its obligation to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City to the extent required to produce moneys necessary for this purpose. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a statement from certified public accountants, dated 1988, certifying that such cash and securities are sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Act. 7. The City will not repeal or amend the Resolution which calls the Refunded Bonds for redemption on their Redemption Dates. The Agent shall cause the Notice of Call for redemption attached hereto as Exhibit D to be published in accordance with law not more than 90 days nor less than 45 days before said redemption date, and to give mailed notice not less than 30 days prior to the Redemption Date to the registered owners of the Refunded Bonds to be redeemed, at their addresses appearing in the bond register and also to the 2 bank at which the principal and interest on the Refunded Bonds are then payable; but failure to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the call for redemption. 8. On or before April 1, 1989, and on or before April 1 of each year thereaf- ter until termination of the Escrow Account, the Agent shall submit to the City a report covering all money it shall have received and all payments it shall have made or caused to be made hereunder during the preceding twelve months. Such report shall also list all obligations held in the Escrow Account and the amount of money on hand in the Escrow Account on January 1 of each year. 9. It is recognized and agreed that title to the Federal Securities and cash, if any, held in the Escrow Account from time to time shall remain vested in the City but subject always to the prior charge and lien thereon of this Agreement and the use thereof required to be made by this Agreement. The Agent shall hold all such money and obligations in a special trust fund and account separate and wholly segregated from all other funds and securities of the Agent, and shall never commingle such money or securities with other money or securities; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require the Agent to keep the identical monies, or any part thereof, received for the Escrow Account on hand, but moneys of an equal amount (except to the extent such are represented by investments permitted under this Agreement) shall always be maintained on hand as funds held by the Agent as trustee, belonging to the City, and a special account shall at all times be maintained on the books of the Agent, together with such investments. In the event of the Agent's failure to account for any money or obligations held by it in the Escrow Account, such money and obligations shall be and remain the property of the City, and if for any reason such money or obligations cannot be identified, all other assets of the Agent shall be impressed with a trust for the amount thereof, and the City shall be entitled to a preferred claim upon such assets. It is understood and agreed that the responsibility of the Agent under this Agreement is limited to the safekeeping and segregation of the funds and securities deposited with it in the Escrow Account, and the collection of and accounting for the principal and interest payable with respect thereto. 10. This Agreement is made by the City for the benefit of the holders of the Refunded Bonds, and is not revocable by the City, and the investments and other funds deposited in the Escrow Account and all income therefrom have been irrevocably appropriated for the payment of the Refunded Bonds and interest thereon in accordance with this Agreement. 11. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the City and the Agent and their respective successors and assigns. In addi- tion, this Agreement shall constitute a third party beneficiary contract for the benefit of the holders of the Refunded Bonds and said third party beneficiaries shall be entitled to enforce performance and observance by the City and the Agent of the respective agreements and covenants herein contained as fully and completely as if said third party beneficiaries were parties hereto. Any bank into which the Agent may be merged or with which it may be consolidated or any bank resulting from any merger or consolida- tion to which it shall be a party or any bank to which it may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business shall, if 3 the City approves, be the successor agent without the execution of any document or the performance of any further act. 12. The Agent may at any time resign and be discharged of its obligations hereunder by giving to the Administrator of the City written notice of such resignation not less than 60 days before the date when the same is to take effect and by publication of a copy of such notice in a daily or weekly Minnesota newspaper published in a Minnesota City of the first class, or its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as part of its service, not less than 30 days prior to such date; provided that the full costs of securing a successor shall be paid by the Agent; and provided further that the successor shall also serve as the Agent without cost to the City. Such resignation shall take effect upon the date specified in the notice, or upon the appointment and qualification of a successor prior to that date. In the event of such resignation, a successor shall promptly be appointed by the City, and the Administrator of the City shall immediately give written notice thereof to the predecessor agent and publish the notice in the manner described in this paragraph 12. If, in a proper case, no appointment of a successor agent is made within 45 days after the receipt by the City of notice of such resignation, the Agent or the holder of any Refunded Bond may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction to appoint a successor agent, which appointment may be made by the Court after such notice, if any, as the Court may prescribe. Any successor agent appointed hereunder shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to its predecessor agent and to the City a written acceptance of such appointment, and shall thereupon without any further act, deed or convey- ance become fully vested with all moneys, properties, duties and obliga- tions of its predecessor, but the predecessor shall nevertheless pay over, transfer, assign and deliver all moneys, securities or other property held by it to the successor agent, shall execute, acknowledge and deliver such instruments of conveyance and do such other things as may reasonably be required to vest and confirm more fully and certainly in the successor agent all right, title and interest in and to any property held by it hereunder. Any bank into which the Agent may be merged or with which it may be consolidated or any bank resulting from any merger or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any bank to which it may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business shall, if the City approves, be the successor agent without the execution of any document or the performance of any further act. 13. The Agent acknowledges receipt of the sum of $ as its full compen- sation for its services to be performed under this Agreement. 14. Any notice, authorization, request or demand required or permitted to be given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and sent by registered or certified mail addressed: If to the City: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 554236283 Attn: City Manager 4 If to the Agent: 15. The exhibits which are a part of this Agreement are as follows: Exhibit A Federal Securities Exhibit B Costs of Issuance Exhibit C Cash Flow and Yield Verification Report Exhibit D Notice of Call for Redemption IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly executed by their duly authorized officers, in counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original agreement, on this day of , 1988. (SEAL) (SEAL) R5:00552D88.EA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its "Manager By Its 5 EXHIBIT A FEDERAL SECURITIES Principal Amount Interest Rate Payment Date Payment Amount COSTS OF ISSUANCE LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz (bond counsel) Ehlers and Associates Financial Advisory $ Official Statement Printing (Accountant) (Escrow Agent) City of Richfield EXHIBIT B $ Paying Agent /Registrar $ Bond Printing Bond Rating Misc. $ TOTAL 7 $ EXHIBIT C CASH FLOW AND YIELD VERIFICATION REPORT Exhibit D NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $4,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING REDEVELOPMENT BONDS OF 1983 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA R5:00552D88.EA 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 228 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Resolution to adopt a pay rate progression for the position of Community Services Worker I. Background: The Metropolitan Area Management Association.(MAMA), represents a group of 22 municipalities that jointly negotiate with Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Local 49 represents the City's maintenance employees. On January 1, 1984, MAMA and Local 49 negotiated a new entry level position classification, Maintenance Worker I. Workers hired in this classification currently start out at $8.72 per hour, 28% below the wages of Maintenance Worker II. Maintenance Worker I's do receive Maintenance Worker II pay for time spent operating certain types of equipment named in the labor agreement. However, for general labor assignments, they are paid at the $8.72 rate. The City currently has 6 employees in the Maintenance I classification out of 42 total Local 49 represented employees. Since 1984, the City has hired employees at both levels of I and II. The City maintained that some vacancies required more experience than the entry level I position, thereby, continued to hire at level II. Most Maintenance Worker I's, after experience and training, become trained in all aspects of the maintenance work. Under the proposed step plan, the City would fill all vacancies in the classification of Maintenance Worker at the Maintenance Worker I starting rate of $8.72. Thus, initially effecting a cost reduction in wage costs. However, based upon satisfactory completion of service, job performance and training requirements, the employee could progress through five salary steps to the Maintenance II pay rate. This progression would take at least four years. The Community Services Department has developed performance requirements for step advancement. These requirements include: -cross training in the various public works divisions, - obtaining appropriate licenses, i.e. Class B driver's license, pesticide and herbicide license, - training courses, i.e. heavy equipment school, tree trimming course. u � The requirements will insure that all employees will be fully trained by the time they would have progressed to Step 5. Progression has been coupled with a performance level of "Satisfactory" for Step 1, 2 and 3, "Above Satisfactory" for Step 4 and "Outstanding" for Step 5. The establishment of formal objective performance criteria will ensure that all employees are rated consistently using the same standards for all. Creating a step plan for our Maintenance classification will assist the City in treating the Maintenance Workers like all other unionized and non - unionized classifications for the purpose of comparable worth. All other pay plans have a step progression. The City used a midpoint in the step progression for our analysis of these groups. The Maintenance classification has no midpoint requiring the City to use their set wage of $12.10 in drawing and placing them on our all employee line. The ability to use a midpoint step will have a long -term favorable impact on comparable worth costs. Several other jurisdictions have unilaterally adopted a similar step progression plan. They are Burnsville, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Cottage Grove and Golden Valley. Recommended Motion: Approve the step pay plan for the position of Community Services Worker I. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The step system will insure the continued provision of quality maintenance services by providing a formal training program for our public works employees. 2. Maintains a relationship with other Metropolitan Area Management Association cities who have provided for a step system (Burnsville, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Cottage Grove). This will enable Richfield to remain competitive. 3. The City will see an initial cost savings by hiring all new Maintenance Workers at the Community Services Worker I level. 4. Provides for comparable worth by allowing the City to use a midpoint (as it did for all other employee classifications) in determining its all employee line for the City's Maintenance Workers. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the proposed step pay plan and retain the present system of separate Maintenance I and II classifications. 2. Approve the progression plan but vary the number of steps or criteria for movement to the next step. Discussion /Decision Mode: Approval at the September 12, 1988 City Council meeting is advised, so that this plan could become effective as of July 1, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:e ja Attachment /0 °-'- ,. /O'er RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A PAY RATE PROGRESSION FOR THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES WORKER I WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that compensation plans shall be implemented by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the pay rate progression plan for the position of Community Services Worker I effective July 1, 1988 subject to the terms and conditions of the labor agreement between the City and Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ,r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 227 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Extension of Hearing Examiner process for reviewing variances. Background: In July, 1985, the City Council passed an ordinance which changed the way the city reviewed zoning ordinance variance requests. The ordinance created a Committee of Hearing Examiners which constituted a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The hearing examiners were given the power to make variance decisions, although a denial could be appealed to the City Council. Prior to this ordinance change, variances were reviewed by the Planning Commission and then granted or denied by the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Connie Murray and Vern Luettinger were appointed by the Council to act as hearing examiners. In the past year, the hearing examiners have considered six variance requests: two have been denied and four granted. One of the two denials was appealed to the Council, in that case a determination was made that a variance was not necessary. The ordinance creating the hearing examiner process indicates that the process "will expire one year from its effective date unless the City Council shall by resolution, extend it for an additional period or periods." In August, 1986 the City Council extended the hearing examiner process an additional year in accordance with this provision. The process was again extended through August 31, 1988. A resolution providing for an extension through August 31, 1989 is attached to this Council letter. At the end of the year, the Council should evaluate the matter again and consider further extensions. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution extending the hearing examiner process to August 31, 1989. Basis of Recommendation: The hearing examiner process has worked well from staff's perspective, allowing routine variance matters to be handled expediently. Alternative Recommendation: Not pass the resolution and allow the process to revert back to the previous process requiring Planning Commission and City Council approval. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for Council action on September 12, 1988. The previous extension expired on August 31, 1988. Without Council action, the variance process will revert back to the previous process requiring Planning Commission and City Council action. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:sae r " l / - `_. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXTENDING HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE REVIEW WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota established a hearing examiner process for zoning ordinance variance review; and WHEREAS, this process expired on August 31, 1988; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has reviewed the process and determined that the hearing examiner process has worked well and it is desirable to continue it. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the hearing examiner process established in Section 545.01 - 545.07 of the ordinance is hereby extended for an additional one year period and will expire at the end of this additional year unless the City Council, by resolution, extends it for an additional period or periods. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 226 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance destruction. Background: There is aresolution on the September 12, 1988, City Council agenda certifying a special assessment for nuisance abatement to Hennepin County. This assessment is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain -' properties in the City which are not properly maintained by their owners. In each case the owner of the subject property was notified by the City to correct the nuisance and failed to do so within a timely limit. Property owners were notified that if the nuisance is not abated by the property owner within the proper time limit, the City would take corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. When the cost of the nuisance abatement provided by the City is not paid by the property owner, it can be assessed against the property tax for a one year period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against three properties in the total amount of $6,100.00. One assessment is for the amount of $5,460.00. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement against the listed property owners in the total amount of $6,100.00. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. 2. Minnesota State Statues provide that the City may levy a special one -year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution, and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 12, 1988 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:sae RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expenses incurred by the city in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.23, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT 33- 028 -24 -14 -0002 456o6 7312 Lyndale $ 625.00 27- 028 -24 -32 -0080 45740 6745 Harriet 15.00 28- 028- 24 -21- 0004 45340 6345 Irving 5,460.00 $ 6,100.00 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steve Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 225 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction. Background: Each year the City of Richfield hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not properly maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and bills the property owner for the service. If the cost of the weed destruction is not paid by the property owner it may be assessed against the property for a one year period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against the property for a one year period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against four properties in the total amount of $2,956.66. In addition, the resolution provides for an 8% penalty also. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction against the listed property owners in the total amount of $2,956.66. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. 2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one -year assessment for these costs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution, and have the costs absorbed by the City. Discussion /Decision.Mode: This item has been placed on the September 12, 1988 agenda so that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments. Respectful submitted, James Fage osser City M r J DP:sae RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City of Richfield in connection with abatement for weed destruction pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1984, 18.271, Subd. 4, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT 28- 028 -24 -33 -0159 46950 6941 Penn Ave. $ 250.00 27- 028 -24 -21 -0095 44827 62 -77th Pleasant Ave. 2,469.66 28- 028 -24 -23 -0010 44828 6500 Oliver Ave. 85.00 33- 028 -24 -43 -0017 44833 7600 Fremont Ave. 152.00 Total $2,956.66 2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steve Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk CITE' OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 224 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. Background: Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owners's annual property tax bill. The ordinance code also authorizes a $20 certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes of the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 1987 the City Council certified $75,085.90 of delinquent charges for 381 properties, an average of $197.08 per account. The 1988 certification currently under consideration totals $68,558.99 for 388 properties, an average of $176.00 per account. Property owners owing water and sewer charges are notified on their summer quarter water bill that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners taxes and result in a $20.00 certification fee. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the county auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties. Basis for Recommendation: 1. State statute and City ordinance provide that delinquent utility charges may be collected in this manner. 2. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the county auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent charges. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the September 12, 1988 City Council agenda to allow sufficient time for the charges to be certified to the County Auditor. Respectfully submitted Jame Prosser City anager JDP:sae RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, subd. 3, provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property, and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water and sanitary sewer service of $ 68,558.99 . 2. That a $20.00 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totalling $7,760.00 3. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 4. That a copy of this Resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ,-.01 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 223 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: First reading approval of an ordinance amendment correcting grantee on transfer of City cable television franchise ordinance. Background: On June 13, 1988, the City Council approved the second reading of an amendment to the cable franchise ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance amendment was to transfer the franchise to a new grantee (name change). In the process of adopting the ordinance, a technical error developed which has flawed the transfer process. The ordinance amendment furnished by the law firm of Herbst & Thue contained an incorrect name for the grantee. Thus, the ordinance amendment listed the grantee as "Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc." while the correct title should have been "Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc." This error in the ordinance must be corrected in order for the transfer to proceed as originally approved. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt first reading approval of the attached ordinance amending the name change of grantee for the cable television franchise. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The transfer of the franchise to the new grantee was previously approved on June 13, 1988. 2. Within that approval process, there was an inadvertent error in the actual name of the grantee. 3. This error must be corrected to complete the name change process. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to approve this corrected ordinance. However, that would impair the transfer process previously approved. Discussion /Decision Mode: This ordinance should be completed as quickly as possible so that Rogers may proceed with the transfer as scheduled. Respectfully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP :eja ADRIAN E. HERBST DANIEL D. THuE GARY R. MATZ TOM TOGAS REESE E. CHEZICH JOEL D. RATH PAUL D. DOVE RICHARD A. EMERICE KATHLEEN A.HEANEY `v HERBST, THUE & MATZ, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 950 NORTHLAND PLAZA 3800 WEST 80TH STREET BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE (612) 893 -6711 TELECOPIER (612) 893 -6991 August 17, 1988 Mr. John Dean City Attorney City of Richfield LeFevere & Lefler 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Our File No. 88 -0141G Dear Mr. Dean: ,% / LEGAL ASSISTANT CATV ANN M.MATHEWS We have discovered that the enclosed Ordinance previously sent to you had an error. Also, I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Notice of Public Hearing on the Ordinance that was sent to each City. The Notice had the correct name on it. However, we've learned that the Ordinance when it was sent to each of the cities had the incorrect name of the new grantee. Please call me with regard to this. I believe that because the advertisement for the hearing on the Ordinance was correct the Ordinance could be corrected without having to readvertise the hearing process on it again. However, I would appreciate knowing your thoughts on this. Rogers is anxious to conclude this because the end of their fiscal year is coming up at the end of August. Please get in touch with me after you have had a chance to look at this so we can talk about getting it corrected. Thank you very much for your cooperation with regard to this. Very truly yours, OA44---- �7- 4��— Adrian E. Herbst AEH : j s Enclosures CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 222 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing to consider specially assessing the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet (ILN) area for current maintenance services for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1989 - City Project No. 846. Background: The Council has scheduled a public hearing for September 12, 1988 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in'the ILN redevelopment area, that area approximately bounded by Lyndale Avenue, the railroad tracks, 77th Street and 78th Street including that property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34- 028 -24 -33 -0073. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of multiple residential and commercial property in the area and published in the official newspaper as required bylaw. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes landscape maintenance of common properties through tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging; irrigation maintenance; painting and repair of wood furniture; trash removal and general maintenance through repair and replacement of lights, sidewalks, curbs, furniture and plantings; and performance of other specialized maintenance functions. These items are extra services provided directly to the ILN project area and do not include services provided to the entire City. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 is $6,700. All multiple residential and commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas. 1988 is the first year, and a partial year at that, of this special assessment for current maintenance services. Cost comparisons with previous years are, therefore, not available at this time. Recommended Motion: Following the close of public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the ILN maintenance work for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 (City Project No. 846) to be performed and the costs to be specially assessed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of proposed assessment official newspaper. 2. Each affected property owner proposed assessment. 3. Continued maintenance service order to sustain the current has been published in the has been notified of the for this area is recommended in standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years in another redevelopment area. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount. However, due to variables such as weather and accidents, staff believes the redevelopment area could suffer if maintenance were to be limited. 2. Council may choose to have individual property owners perform maintenance of the common areas. This may, however, involve the city to a great extent to work out the details of the maintenance program. The special assessment as proposed does provide the coordination which may not be available through this possible alternative. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 12, 1988 City Council meeting. City staff will be available to answer any questions which may arise before or during the hearing. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja i vim. cam_ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT FOR INTERSTATE /LYNDALE /NICOLLET (ILN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1989 CITY PROJECT NO. 846 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Area, the boundaries of which approximate Lyndale Avenue, 78th Street, the railroad tracks and 77th Street including the property known as Hennepin County Property Identification Number 34- 028 -24 -33 -0073, and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7430, adopted by the City Council on August 8, 1988, fixed a date for a public hearing on the undertaking of such current maintenance service project for that area referred to as the ILN and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, the owner of each multiple residential and commercial property within the area proposed to be assessed for the service described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two weeks advance publication of the required notice was given as required by law, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on September 12, 1988 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the ILN district, which area constitutes the special assessment district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited multiple residential and commercial property within the district: Landscape maintenance of common properties; including, but not limited to, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing, edging; Irrigation maintenance; Painting and repair of wood furniture; Trash removal and general maintenance; including, but not limited to, repairs and replacement of lights, sidewalks, curbs, furniture, plantings. 2. That the work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. That the designated period of the project 'shall be from January 1 through December 31, 1989. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Af- / / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 221 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing to consider specially assessing current maintenance services for city alleys for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1989, City Project No. 845. Background: On August 8, 1988, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for September 12, 1988 concerning the 1989 alley maintenance project. In order to implement the alley maintenance policies previously passed by the City Council, it is necessary for the Council to initiate this specific alley maintenance project. The maintenance functions to be financed through special assessments include rough grading, cleaning and sweeping, cold patching and snow plowing. Because the vast majority of alleys have now been paved, the primary maintenance function is anticipated to be snow plowing. Some of the alleys resurfaced in the early 1980's are now approaching the time when concrete joint sealing will need to be done. Community Services Department personnel estimate the total cost of this project for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 to be $20,000. Routine maintenance costs common to all alleys; i.e., sweeping and plowing, are charged at an even amount per abutting foot. $7.50 per average fifty foot lot, whether on a concrete or unimproved alley, is the estimate for sweeping and a normal winter of snow plowing. To initiate a concrete joint sealing maintenance program on a paved alley as a part of routine maintenance, $3.25 per average fifty foot lot on all alleys of concrete is an estimate of the shared cost for joint sealing. Estimates of additional costs for cold patching on those alleys not of concrete has been about $15.50 per average fifty foot lot. Costs have varied depending on the amount of patching required in a particular alley. The costs for this type of repair of an alley will be charged to the property owners abutting the alley. In summary, the estimated 1989 assessment per average fifty foot lot breaks down as follows: Improved Alley Sweeping, Plowing $ 7.50 Concrete Joint Sealing $ 3.25 Cold Patching $ -- Total Estimated Assessment $10.75 T ' // i Unimproved Alley $ 7.50 $15.50 $23.00 For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to alley maintenance special assessment for current services: 1985 Actual $15,141.97 1986 Estimated $23,600 1986 Actual $11,834.29 1987 Estimated $ 7,000 1987 Actual $ 92977.18 1988 Estimated $17,000 1989 Estimated $20,000 Recommended Motion: Close the public hearing and adopt the resolution ordering City Project No. 845, 1989 Alley Maintenance project and special assessment of current services. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the proposed assessment was published in the official city newspaper. 2. Each property owner within the area proposed to be assessed was mailed a notice as required by State law. 3. It has been the Council policy for seven years to assess for alley maintenance. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: The current alley maintenance project will lapse at the end of the year. A new project should be established by January 1, 1989 so the Council may defer the decision to a future meeting before the end of the year if desired. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja Attachment RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICES PROJECT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1989 CITY PROJECT NO. 845 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 8th day of August, 1988, fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed maintenance of the following alleys: Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th - 67th 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th - 68th 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68�h - 69th 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th - 70th 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th - 67th 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67th - 68th 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th - 69th 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th - 70th 1009 Vincent - Upton 66th - 67th 1010 Vincent - Upton 67th - 68th 1011 Vincent - Upton 68th - 69th 1012 Vincent - Upton 69th - 70th 1013 Upton - Thomas 66th - 67th 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th - 69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th 1029 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 2015 Dupont - Colfax 2016 Colfax - Bryant 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 2019 Graham - Lyndale 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 3007 Garfield - Harriet 3008 Garfield - Harriet 3009 Garfield - Harriet 3011 Harriet- Grand 3012 Harriet - Grand 3013 Harriet - Grand 3014 Harriet - Grand 3015 Grand - Pleasant 3016 Grand - Pleasant 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 3025 Nicollet - lst Avenue 3026 Nicollet - lst Avenue 3027 Nicollet - lst Avenue 3028 lst - Stevens 3029 lst - Stevens 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 3035 3rd - Clinton 3036 3rd - Clinton 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 4004 15th - Bloomington 4005 15th - Bloomington 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 4012 22nd - Standish 7�. / /'a 65th - 66th 64th - 65th 65th - 66th 63rd - Mildred 63rd - Mildred 63rd - Mildred 66th - Lk Shr Dr 75th - 76th 76th - 77th 68th - 69th 70th - 71st 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 73rd - 74th 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 73rd - 74th 67th - 68th 68th - 69th 72nd - 73rd 73rd - 74th 68th - 69th 72nd - 73rd 67th - 68th 72nd - 73rd 73rd - 74th 74th - 75th 75th - 76th 68th - 69th 70th - 71st 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 66th - 67th 71st - 72nd 72nd - 73rd 66th - 67th 73rd - 74th 66th - 67th 73rd - 74th 66th - 67th 73rd - 74th 65th - 66th 62nd - 63rd 62nd - 63rd 65th - 66th 65th - 66th 63rd - 64th 64th - 65th 65th - 66th 65th - 66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th and WHEREAS, the owner of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed for the current maintenance services described in said resolution was mailed a copy of the required notice, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and at least two weeks advance publication of the required notice was given as required by law, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on this 12th day of September, 1988, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed by resolution adopted August 8, 1988. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES ®TA Council Letter No. 220 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing to consider specially assessing the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) area for current maintenance services for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1989 - City Project No. 844. Background: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for September 12, 1986 to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for current maintenance service costs in the LHN redevelopment area. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all owners of commercial property in the area and published in the official newspaper as required by law. The higher level of maintenance proposed to be provided in the area includes the trimming and watering of trees and plants, operation of a special street lighting system, removal of snow and ice from sidewalks and performance of other specialized maintenance functions. The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 1989 is $48,796. All commercial properties would be r assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. There is an agreement between the City and the businesses that the business shall maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City must perform this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given property. For comparison purposes, the following is provided related to the LHN maintenance special assessments for current services: 1985 Actual $35,726 1986 Estimated $52,900 1986 Actual $40,110 1987 Estimated $49,936 1987 Actual $43,645.43 1988 Estimated $50,142.40 1989 Estimated $48,796 Recommended Motion: Following the close of the public hearing, adopt the resolution ordering the LHN maintenance work for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989 (City Project No. 844) to be done and the costs to be specially assessed. F7-%D -/ Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of proposed assessment has been published in the official newspaper. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the proposed assessment. 3. Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Rode: A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 12, 1988 City Council meeting. Respectfu ly submitted, James 4. Prosser City Manager JDP /e j a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1989 CITY PROJECT NO. 844 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a. special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on September 12, 1988 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water service lines; e. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; h. Operation of the street lighting system; i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; j. Maintenance of civic plaza; k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; 1. Painting and repair of wood furniture; and m. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31,1989. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 219 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public Hearing to Adopt the Special Assessment Roll for City Project No. 830, 1987 Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) Maintenance for the Period January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987. Background: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 12, 1988 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance services performed in the LHN Redevelopment Area for the period January 1 through December 31, 1987. The 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 current maintenance services for this period totaled $45,694.16. Of that total, $114.59 was work performed for and charged to the Soo Line Railroad; $1,934.14 was extra work performed for businesses and specially assessed to those particular businesses. In net, the total assessment spread on the assessment roll was $43,645.43. The 1986 total for this work was $40,110. Estimated 1988 costs for the current maintenance services is._$50,142.40. The current maintenance services for this period included, but were not necessarily limited to, one or more of the following, including labor, equipment and materials: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in the summer; 3. Snow removal in the winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement 8. Irrigation maintenance. The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the county auditor for collection along with taxes. It is recommended that payment be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The adopted assessment roll for the period January 1 - December 31, 1987 would be certified with the county auditor by October 10, 1988. The City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of the City staff that the interest rate be established at eight percent. Payment may be made by the assessed owner before November 15, 1987, in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date would include the interest payment. Recommended Motion: Close the public hearing and approve the resolution adopting the assessment on City Project No. 830, LHN Maintenance for the period January 1 through December 31, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official city newspaper as required by state statute. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by law. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County by October 10, 1988 so the Council can defer the decision one meeting if it deems necessary. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /e j a Attachment RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 830 LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1987 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area, which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 1989 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 year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through 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 be extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessment 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 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITE' OF RICHFIELD, MINNES ®TA Council Letter No. 218 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public Hearing to Adopt the Special Assessment Project No. 831, 1987 Alley Maintenance for the 1987 through December 31, 1987. O Roll for City Period January 1, Background: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 12, 1988 on the assessment for the cost of current maintenance services on alleys for the period January 1 through December 31, 1987. The City staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. The alley between 19th Avenue and 20th Avenue, 65th & 66th Streets was mistakenly left on the assessment roll for 1987. This alley was vacated August 20, 1986. The property owners have been notified, and the alley removed from the assessment roll. 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 current maintenance services January 1 - December 31, 1987 totaled $9,977.18 and included labor, material and equipment related to alley patching and snow plowing. Due to the length of the list, the assessment roll is not included in the Council packet, but a copy of the assessment roll for alley maintenance January 1 through December 31, 1987 will be available for Council reference and review at the September 12, 1988 public hearing. The cost of maintenance services in 1986 totaled $11,834.29. The estimated cost of maintenance services for 1988 is $17,000. 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. The City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with current taxes. It is recommended that the certification adopted by the City Council provide that payments be due and payable within the first year, rather than in installments. The City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds initially for the current services. It is the recommendation of staff that the interest rate be established at eight percent, the maximum permitted by law. A property owner may make.payment before November 15, 1988 in order to avoid interest payments. Payments made after that date, up to December 31, 1989 would include the interest charges. Recommended Motion: Following the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution, adopting the assessment roll of City Project No. 831, Alley Maintenance for the period January 1, 1987 - December 31, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the assessment has been published in the official City newspaper as required by state statute. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified as required by law. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision lode: The City Council may make changes as deemed necessary in the assessment roll as a result of the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." The assessment roll must be submitted to Hennepin County by October 10, 1988 so the Council can defer the decision one meeting if it deems necessary. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 831, ALLEY MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 21, 1987 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the following alleys in the City of Richfield: Number Surrounding Avenues 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 1005 Washburn - Vincent 1006 Washburn - Vincent 1007 Washburn - Vincent 1008 Washburn - Vincent 1009 Vincent - Upton 1010 Vincent - Upton 1011 Vincent - Upton 1012 Vincent - Upton 1013 Upton - Thomas Surrounding Streets 66th - 67th 67th - 68th 68th - 69th 69th - 70th 66th - 67th 67th - 68th 68th - 69th 69th - 70th 66th - 67th 67th - 68th 68th - 69th 69th - 70th 66th - 67th Y i�j 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th - 69th 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th - 70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th - 67th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th - 68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th - 69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th - 70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th - 67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th - 68th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th - 69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th - 70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th - 67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th - 68th 1026 Russell —Queen 68th —69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th - 70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th - 67th 1029 Queen - Penn 67th - 68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th - 69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th - 70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd - 64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd - 64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd - 64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd - 64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd - 64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd - 64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd - 64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd - 64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th - 65th 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th - 66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th - 65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th - 66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th - Lk Shr Dr 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th - 76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th - 77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th - 69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th - 71th 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st - 72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd - 73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd - 74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st - 72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd - 73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd - 74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th - 68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th - 69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd - 73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd - 74th Ted- -� 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th - 69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd - 73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th - 68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd - 73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd - 74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th - 75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th - 76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th - 69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th - 71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st - 72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st - 72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd - 73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st - 72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th - 67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st - 72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd - 73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th - 67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd - 74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th - 67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd - 74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th - 67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd - 74th 4 --�V,o 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th - 66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd - 63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd - 63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th - 66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th - 66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd - 64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th - 65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th - 66th 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65th - 66th 4012 22nd - Standish 65th - 66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th - 67th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment roll is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, 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 before or during 1989 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 year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 217 Agenda: September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for City Project No. 832, 1987 Alley Paving. Background: The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to be held September 12, 1988, concerning the adoption of the proposed assessment roll for City Project No. 832, the 1987 Alley Paving. The affected alleys are listed in the attached resolution. Staff is recommending several changes to the assessment roll which was accepted by the Council at their August 8, 1988 meeting. The costs for the 1987 Alley Paving Project are $17.68 per assessable foot. The estimated assessment rate used at the project hearings was $20.50 per foot. The total cost for a typical fifty foot lot is $884. In 1986, the cost for alley paving was $18.36 per assessable foot with the total cost for a typical fifty foot lot at $918. The property owner may make prepayment in full, make partial prepayment, apply for deferment if qualified, or have the balance spread over a period of twenty years at an interest rate of 8 percent. Errors were discovered on the assessment rolls for the following four alleys: 1. Penn Avenue to Queen Avenue between 66th & 67th Streets The property owners on this alley were mistakenly charged the commercial rate. This results in total assessments in the alley which are more than the paving costs. Since the residential rate will cover the cost of paving the alley, staff recommends that council accept the change in the assessment for this alley. 2. Nicollet Avenue to Second Avenue between 68th & 69th Streets and 3. Logan Avenue to Morgan Avenue between 63rd & 64th Streets The property owners on these alleys were assessed under the assumption that the alley was constructed across the entire length of the lots, when, in fact the alleys were constructed across only a portion of each lot. Again, staff recommends that council accept the change in the assessment roll. 4. Penn Avenue to Oliver Avenue between 63rd & 64th Streets The property owner at 6321 Penn Avenue was assessed the commercial rate for his alley, when the property is a T � / residence. Staff recommends reducing his assessment to the residential rate. The attached "Recommended Changes to City Project 832 Assessment Roll" lists the recommended changes. The total dollar reduction for the assessment roll for the above alleys is $12,210.96. City staff will be available at the public hearing to answer questions related to the special assessment that may not have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for all interested persons to ask questions or raise objections, if any, to the proposed assessment. Recommended Motion: Following the hearing, adopt the attached resolution, as amended by the attached list of recommended changes, adopting the assessment roll for City Project No. 832, 1987 Alley Paving. Council will note the added phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just" to the resolution. Action must be taken on any amendments in addition to those outlined above. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the proposed assessment has been published in the official city newspaper. 2. Each affected property owner has been notified of the special assessment to the property as required by law. 3. Property owners affected by the recommended changes have been notified. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: In order to get this assessment to Hennepin County in a timely manner, a decision to adopt the attached resolution should be made at the September 12, 1988 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 832, 1987 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment, and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just, for the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving: Alley Between From To E. 65th Street & E. 66th Street 15th Avenue Bloomington Ave E. 66th Street & 67th Street 13th Avenue 14th Avenue Nicollet and First Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Harriet and Grand Avenues 67th Street 68th Street Harriet and Grand Avenues 73rd Street 74th Street Lyndale and Garfield Avenues 73rd Street 298' South 63rd Street and Mildred Drive Colfax Ave. Bryant Avenue 63rd Street and Mildred Drive Dupont Ave. Colfax Avenue Humboldt and Girard Avenues 63rd Street 64th Street Irving and Humboldt Avenues 63rd Street 463' South Logan and Knox Avenues 63rd Street 223' South Morgan and Logan Avenues 63rd Street 243' South Penn and Oliver Avenues 63rd Street 443' South Queen and Penn Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Russell and Queen Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Washburn and Vincent Avenues 67th Street 68th Street /-2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City Project No. 832,1987 Alley Paving, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during said period. 2. That the City Council has heretofore established City Project No. 832, and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares that each and every lot, piece or parcel of land included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction of said City Project No. 832 and has been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the attached assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city treasurer and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. Such assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 832, 1987 Alley Paving. 5. The assessment with accruing interest shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty years unless prepaid or deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1989. All assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 8% per annum. 6. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to extend on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessments and interest thereon 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 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 216 Agenda August 8, 1988 Issue Statement: Approval of Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Removal of Diseased Trees from Private Property for the Period August 1, 1987 to July 31, 1988, and Setting Date of Hearing. Background: The costs incurred for the removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for the period of August 1, 1987 to July 31, 1988 have been determined to be $10,500.93. The property owner of a diseased tree has four options available: 1. Remove the tree themselves. 2. Hire and pay their own contractor. 3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 days, or 4. Use the City's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. In the period from August 1, 1987 to July 31, 1988, 29 property owners chose the fourth option. The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The property owner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before October,10, 1988, for the 1988 taxes, the interest rate is eight percent with payment spread over three years. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 12, 1988. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. 2. Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. Alternative Recommendation: Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. Discussion /Decision Node: All work was performed with prior approval from homeowners. Council may delay a decision until August 22, 1988, keeping in mind the October 10, 1988 deadline for City certification. Respectfully submitted, James D Prosser City Manager JDP /eja — C-41,/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1, 1987 TO JULY 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 2832 West 70 -1/2 Street 6507 Bloomington Avenue 6608 Second Avenue 6629 Morgan Avenue 6314 Standish Avenue 7333 Tenth Avenue 6625 Second Avenue 6244 Aldrich Avenue 6844 Newton Avenue Property Identification Number 32- 028 -24 -12 -0062 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 27- 028 -24 -42 -0067 28- 028024 -32 -0010 25- 028 -24 -21 -0029 35- 028 -24 -24 -0043 27- 028 -24 -42 -0082 28- 028 -24 -11 -0023 28- 028 -24 -33 -0140 7101 Penn Avenue 33- 028 -24 -22 -0127 6625 Lynwood Avenue 28- 028 -24 -41 -0030 6836 Upton Avenue 29- 028 -24 -43 -0034 7601 Morgan Avenue 33- 028 -24 -33 -0090 7609 Xerxes Avenue 32- 028 -24 -43 -0055 6305 Bloomington Avenue 26- 028 -24 -11 -0031 6327 13th Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0147 6326 14th Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0140 6630 Humboldt Avenue 28- 028 -24 -31 -0084 7500 Girard Avenue 33- 028 -24 -42 -0067 6609 Girard Avenue 28- 028 -24 -42 -0029 6840 Washburn Avenue 29- 028 -24 -43 -0083 7321 Oliver Avenue 33- 028 -24 -23 -0071 6946 Irving Avenue 28- 028 -24 -34 -0095 6932 Fourth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -44 -0105 6244 Aldrich Avenue 28- 028 -24 -11 -0023 6421 14th Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0069 6639 Logan Avenue 28- 028 -24 -31 -0052 7021 Fifth Avenue 34- 028 -24 -11 -0083 6328 21st Avenue 25- 028 -24 -22 -0055 6633 Lynwood Boulevard 28- 028 -24 -41 -0032 to -%- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment roll 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 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 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHEIELD,.MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 -5- Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Continuation of the public hearing on an amendment to the conditional use permit for Walser Buick facility at 2100 West 78th Street and 7745 Penn Avenue South. Background: Walser Automotive has requested an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for their Buick facility at 2100 West 78th Street and Isuzu /Sterling (old Mazda) site at 7745 Penn Avenue South. The amendment would change the previously approved plan in the following ways: -A 1,363 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom instead of the approved 1,950 square foot addition to the southeast corner. - Elimination of the approved 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office. - Raising the roof on the northerly 35 feet of the existing Buick building from 14 feet to 18 feet to match the roof line of the remainder of the building. This would provide for a uniform roof line of 18 feet in the Buick facility. - Elimination of the ramp and the rooftop storage area which will reduce the proposed inventory parking. -New lighting plan for the site. -New concept for designated area car inventory parking rather than individual parking stalls. The City Council continued the public hearing on August 22, 1988 at the request of the applicant. The proposal has been scaled back since the Planning Commission meeting by eliminating the second story mezzanine addition to the Buick facility. As a result, the building height would not have to be increased to 26 feet from 18 feet and less designated parking would be required. The property is zoned C -2 general commercial district. Auto dealership /service garage use is allowed with a conditional use permit. A summary of the previous approval and stipulations is attached for your information. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit amendment with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant provide a detailed sign plan for staff review and approval, to include signage designating stalls for customer and employee parking. 2. All the existing and new signs conform with the city's sign regulations by December 31, 1988. This includes the three billboards and the time /temperature sign. 3. No inventory cars to be parked in the area designated for employee /customer (sales, service and parts) parking. 4. The fire protection plan be approved by staff. 5. All landscaped areas be maintained free from car overhangs at all times. 6. The applicant provide a cash escrow in the equivalent amount of the cost of any incomplete improvements for the sites. 7. The existing and new curb cuts meet the City requirement of a minimum of 26 feet. 8. The occupancy permit not be issued until all other approved improvements are completed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission recommended (4 -1) approval of the amendment. 2. The effect of the amendment is to require 11 additional designated parking spaces summarized as follows: Designated Inventory Total Approved 191 P.S. 218 p.s. 409 p.s. Proposed 206 p.s. N/A 206 p.s. Required 202 p.s. N/A 202 p.s. The proposed amendment relating to area parking of inventory cars could potentially reduce the existing parking problem on the surrounding streets provided the applicant implements the site plan. If the designated parking stalls are used for customers, employees, service and parts cars and not for inventory cars, there should be adequate parking and no spill over parking in the neighborhood. The City has served notice on Walser that the entire operation is currently in noncompliance and that they show cause as to why their conditional use permit should not be revoked. 3. The revised site plan indicates that the curb cuts would not be brought to conformance with the city's minimum width requirement of 26 feet for curb cuts. However, this should be made part of the conditional use permit stipulation as recommended by the Planning Commission. 4. The applicant has agreed to bring the time /temperature sign into conformance with the sign regulations, but proposes to retain the three billboards within the lot. These existing non - conforming billboards are larger than currently allowable and the Planning Commission recommended that they be brought into conformance as a stipulation in the conditional use permit.. 5. The landscaping plan appears to be adequate. 6. Staff has continued to receive complaints from residents regarding the glare from existing lighting. The applicant has submitted a detailed lighting plan for the Buick site. The lighting plan appears to be adequate. However, the full impact of the new lighting plan will not be known until it is implemented. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to deny the conditional use permit amendment. Decision /Discussion Mode: This item is scheduled as a continued public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 12, 1988. Appropriate notices were previously mailed to property owners within the surrounding area and legal notice was published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:sae ATTACHMENT 1 *Parking Requirement Based On The Following: Showroom: 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area Office: 1 space for every 250 s.f. of gross floor area Service: 1 space for every bay and 1 space for every employee Parts: 1 space for every 1000 s.f. of gross floor area or 1 space for every 1 -1/2 employees whichever is greater APPROVED PROPOSED I I Parking I Parking Area /Emp /Bays I Parking j Area /Emp /Bays I Required I Shown 1. Buick Facility I I I I I I I I I I Showroom 4,550 s.f. ( 23 I 6,594 s.f. I I I 33 I Office I 2,324 s.f. I 10 I 4,758 s.f. I I 19 I Service 41 Emp, 26 Bays I 119 125 Emp, 29 Baysl 112 I 87 service I I 1 I 74 employees Parts /Retail 11,144 s.f. I 12 I 9,667 s.f. I 12 I 25 customers 13 Emp Used Car Sales 2,220 s.f. I 9 I l 1,340 s.f. I 6 1 173 1 I 182 I 186 Inventory I 218 I I N/A I N/A Total I 391 1 1 182 I 186 2. New Isuzu /Sterling I I I I I I I Office /Showroom 4,343 s.f. I 18 I 2,000 s.f. I 10 I 15 Emp I I (showroom) I ( 6 customer I I I I 14 employees 2,343 s.f. I 10 I I I (office) Inventory I 41 I I N/A I I I N/A I N/A Total I I 20 20 I I 59 GRAND TOTAL OF DESIGNATED PARKING 11 191 I II 11 I I 202 11 1 206 *Parking Requirement Based On The Following: Showroom: 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area Office: 1 space for every 250 s.f. of gross floor area Service: 1 space for every bay and 1 space for every employee Parts: 1 space for every 1000 s.f. of gross floor area or 1 space for every 1 -1/2 employees whichever is greater t F" Do ti C.. z a J m J NSZ OCR NSIONr1S r4zz JY Iz 1--111 __JI 11 410a —H I Vi 61 `�i-` �LF M0113lON01�` €�C 3nr aro33 v1 el �00� 4111 COO C 4191' NolON1NOOle OOC�IC YJ 51 OCOOC 41,1 OOC�7Q 4141 flOC�OC �;Z� �IOOOC I 4101 II C 101113 i W C OOr01N0 u < snommoo ,j C Xtlrd ONr1Xr0 3Ar ONrlltlOd 410 I 0 VII NO1N110 SN3A31S �00 1311001N IN / 00 '3" 1130SIr16 I I C]O I NlaOM1N3A1 11 AtlneS111d �� 0 1NrSr3ld ONrtlO 131tlarN �I � I 0131ltlrO -3Ar 31WONA1 El N01tl01r LNtAtle Xrl100 u 1NOdn0 �j �� I F '• I ae NOSa3n3 •I \� \� L OtltYIO I __- __ - - -- LoloonnN I; �BOOC DNIAVI S3Nrr �II�OC�C�C OOCO XONX,I 1fj'-'•��� Nr001 NrOtlOw N01M3N ifi000OC a3A110 3Ar NN3d II� N 3nO j Ur 11355ntl SWAONI.. T r"I- NOldn dam_._ _— 1 Iv= 1N33NIA Nanomsvm i __�• L+- N N N y1 C V 1 H p ce u u u .o N N O u N � N N N N vt u �o Z o� T � V r Z u rJ a W t� t G N In I" Ir a � � r S w w ° 3Ar IIr033 Y /11 ^—'11 4191 7� COj�1�C000 I' NolON111oo1e �COCO ! DD JOOG�� �CJI —J VI ►I 70000000 '' "` `I � 9 OOCOO�O ;' YI zI �;i VI It 00 11 i C� li 10011113 TOOr01N0 SnB1Vn100 �' Xard ��I oNrlX10 3Ar OU'r UlOd 3 VI S NO1NIl0 co P� 5 vs = i MAUS 131100IN 'p1l naa$lvlg I� NL°OM11N31A Ad NN3d Aanes111d "' ��i INrsr314 �I' ONVVO 1 13tatlrN ' it 0131ltltO •� :�:•:•:•: •i:•: '' .3At 31VONAl • `� Nolvair INVAUS xviloo iNOdno ouvulo < 111 LaloennN JO 3MO {Q; ONlntll JC�Oj� S3wtr JO_O ^�I 1 j •••' I N 00 J�JO`_�� I� •• }�•.;. � Nt OtlOA N1 tl3An0 il 3Ar NN3d N33nO 113SSna i Nroltl3Ns srwo Nl NOldn LN30NIA 3Ar S3Xa3X Np O O Ga W J Na > W W I�m ti O Oi--A C/) Go r N W VJ 0L r U o 0 0 0 Z to 2 m in o et o Q O Q Aga Y 3 a U_ w W e j Y 1� 1 FT in cc U u <•. 9 � O Q •• ; � i Z p 0 C7 Q r` L Y� > 1-- X ' I''I' �' I• I I I I • 1 ZW •1• - fr' ---� . . i. L'. I..�. �.i tunes � ayo+wiw.► �;.�f:,'.; ;r il±3 El . I•!.I � - :.t J'! "Iil.::. �_': Vii. •' `\\ fir'` .'�Y`Y�•.''•;j':. .0'oo9 I / \•• S `• ifs,` �''%i. �!. "i` \�: .r. ^, ^:�' •_ I • I • I • I • I • I • I • • � • • Y `•.— Vin. :_ .Y .,Mf. _ •\ ! +:r�.ir � is =1s•y .q ^ l 3 .� �Qro. ys 'tY,� Sr_ � ;.�� ^K:, if -� � `'...tiff. +'�:i:� ...:i;1. _ -YC�I• i W ! JI �' �ti �� � �•E' A f. J � J 0L r W Z to 2 s�F111108 3� ay 3l1N3AV PN3d Q O Q Aga Y 3 a U_ w W e j Y 1� 1 FT in cc U u <•. 9 � O Q •• ; � i Z p 0 C7 Q r` L Y� > 1-- X ' I''I' �' I• I I I I • 1 ZW •1• - fr' ---� . . i. L'. I..�. �.i tunes � ayo+wiw.► �;.�f:,'.; ;r il±3 El . I•!.I � - :.t J'! "Iil.::. �_': Vii. •' `\\ fir'` .'�Y`Y�•.''•;j':. .0'oo9 I / \•• S `• ifs,` �''%i. �!. "i` \�: .r. ^, ^:�' •_ I • I • I • I • I • I • I • • � • • Y `•.— Vin. :_ .Y .,Mf. _ •\ ! +:r�.ir � is =1s•y .q ^ l 3 .� �Qro. ys 'tY,� Sr_ � ;.�� ^K:, if -� � `'...tiff. +'�:i:� ...:i;1. _ -YC�I• i W ! JI �' �ti �� � �•E' A f. J � J u s W Q .I 4 s K5a ;�a Yui ice° art t Cy a s�F111108 3� ay 3l1N3AV PN3d 0 Aga Y 3 u s W Q .I 4 s K5a ;�a Yui ice° art t Cy a N U N C) W ro ro �' U, cO ro ro -4 N N n cx0 -V, -0 � U) fyLh' W �•� {itL} fir) t.- i JAI c "'13 M co U� N U N C) W ro ro �' U, cO ro ro -4 N N n cx0 a CO CF) N c) 0 I V� a Hl. to cD '0 0 0 co � U) fyLh' W C) f .- c "'13 n co U� t� co N a CO CF) N c) 0 I V� a Hl. to cD '0 0 0 _13 � U) C C) f .- c "'13 n co U� a CO CF) N c) 0 I V� a Hl. to cD '0 0 0 0 o 0 ..�•; r S.t cv u h C) f .- c "'13 n 0 o 0 3- w � I to r rn � N a m mLO rn co N J Ln Q co co N 3- w � I to r rn � N a m mLO rn GRADING PLAN AS PER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CITY SUBMITTAL DES] Co:"IN DATA AREA 1 20 0 2 -F 3 9 S .3 4 7 2 S �oo. qLm ID F= IrNtH+N+'rt+'�I 01 A� � 1 10 { y ;, v v ail Il �a Myrw w • � u' o �• o� r D I o ns? r • � � • � I� 06 r a D _r w w i Mi n a r • 1 "ao ' n i.l .l .l.l. •�.i •i .�.l.�.' �� —� 13 I ' 4 ° �I�I�i• i � i • I gyToYAll•MRM6 •I •�.N.L�a.�.r s..��iarl la HIOifliH�eUH�eiff�On�flfliHA - r. =R Yee o'-rt' . -- -0 fl 6114 IF S■■ aY A V E . R S cc's o; 'Q. mom aa•no awr CUT �' i , .. :i _ a•r.a Cr. on c Y� -11,� N O� O' CD -a z cnD ITI �O r< Dm z a - - fill g A � so. B g o �oo. qLm ID F= IrNtH+N+'rt+'�I 01 A� � 1 10 { y ;, v v ail Il �a Myrw w • � u' o �• o� r D I o ns? r • � � • � I� 06 r a D _r w w i Mi n a r • 1 "ao ' n i.l .l .l.l. •�.i •i .�.l.�.' �� —� 13 I ' 4 ° �I�I�i• i � i • I gyToYAll•MRM6 •I •�.N.L�a.�.r s..��iarl la HIOifliH�eUH�eiff�On�flfliHA - r. =R Yee o'-rt' . -- -0 fl 6114 IF S■■ aY A V E . R S cc's o; 'Q. mom aa•no awr CUT �' i , .. :i _ a•r.a Cr. on c Y� -11,� N O� O' CD -a z cnD ITI �O r< Dm z a zo +�D f/ . Is A� PENN AVE, S. ��O�• =�G � \iIIIIlilii�' IN • r' ,7 -7 M \ 1 L.. r L� .II!il�ll l� `�W m Z �E • i i i ._J C/) m -+x m � ID )> z z� _ N AVE • C� r � rn rn m rn N r m 0 z_ z .► 0 m Z v r n 0 3 m Z n so 3 � Z � N W G N N N O � rn Z n rn rn t3 ••� .r+ N .► 0 m Z v r n 0 3 m Z n so sib PFMW AVF _q .II ------ ------- Z� ft4i OD 1 mq x Cl) --q c U) > rn m rn 0 0 > �� rn 0 z F 0 ------ ------- Z� ft4i OD 1 mq x Cl) --q c U) rn 0 0 -6 rn 0 F ------ ------- Z� ft4i OD 1 mq x Cl) --q a Bill 1 .1 tolls# I upp p fd ��i FiF IDIOM . . . ...... ..... .... ... ... . . ....... . ....... ....... ..... .... . • 9 5 0 11 8 IP, 71-lz� ;�, ? JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD. DAVID J. PEAT FRANCIS E. GIBERSON JACK F. DALY MICHAEL T. M.KIM D. KENNETH LINDGREN ANDREW W, DANIELSON -ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L.TALLE WENDELL R. ANDERSON WILLIAM S. BRANDT GERALD H. FRIEDELL VINCENT G. ELLA '0 BERT S. WHI TLOCK - TRACY R. EICHHORN -HICKS LLAN E. MULLIGAN t OBERT J. HENNESSEY 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL JOHN A. COTTER - JAMES C. ERICKSON - _ 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER EDWARD J. DRISCOLL PAUL B. PLUNKETT 1 JAMES P. MILEY GENE N. FULLER BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY ALAN L. KILDOW DAVID C. 5ELLERGREN RICHARD J. KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835 -3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338 -6610. KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON - JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E. BOYLE TELECOPIER (612) 83S-S102 TELECOPIER (612) 338-1002 JEFFREY C. ANDERSON DANIEL L, BOWLES FRANK I. HARVEY TODD M. VLATKOVICH RICHARD A. FORSCHLER TIMOTHY J. Me MANUS CHARLES 5. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL I. FRIEDERS GREGORY E. KORSTAD JOHN R. E CRAIG A. PETERSON LINDA R FISHER FISHE 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE SUITE 250 , LISA A. GRAY THOMAS LTMAN GARY A. STEVEN G, LEVIN G. EVI COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 H. WEAVER THOMAS H. WEAVER FORREST D. NOWLIN SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL C. JACKMAN TELEPHONE (612) 786-7117 MICHAEL S. COHEN JOHN E, DIEHL DENISE M, NORTON JON S. SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER 1612) 786 -6711 GARY A. VAN CLEVE THOMAS J. FLYNN MICHAEL B. BRAMAN JAMES P. QUINN JOSEPH W. DICKER TODD 1. FREEMAN JACQUELINE F. DIETZ STEPHEN B. SOLOMON Reply to Bloomington GA LEN L. KNACK PETER K. BECK RODN EY D. IVES JEROME H. KAHNKE JULIE A. WRASE SHERRI LL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL GERALD L. SECK RONALD M. STARK, JR. JOHN B. LUNDQUIST SHARON L. BRENNA DAY LE NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS B. HUMPHREY JR. OF COUNSEL ('j August 29 1988 JOSEPH GITIS JOHN A. MCHUGH ."J i RICHARD A, NORDBYE MLSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Mr. Towhid Kazi City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Walser Corporation Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue Dear Towhid: This letter accompanies revised site and building renovation of the Walser Buick dealership at 2100 7700 Penn Avenue (your case no.: 88- CUP -14). You Walser's request for an amendment to its existing permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission on the Planning Commission recommended approval subj4 recommended by staff. plans for the West 78th Street and will recall that conditional use July 26, 1988, and act to the conditions The revised plans enclosed illustrate the following changes from the plans reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission: 1. Elimination of the proposed second story on the showroom /office portion of the Buick building. Elimination of the proposed second, or mezzanine, level will reduce the height of this portion of the building from approximately 26' to the same height as the remainder of the Buick building, 18'. 2. Elimination of approximately 3300 square feet of building area. By eliminating the 2800 square foot mezzanine level and approximately 500 square feet of an existing second level parts storage area, the overall building area as now proposed ff -7-- /7. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGI3EN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi August 29, 1988 Page 2 will be approximately 3300 square feet less than the proposal reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. Recalculation of parking requirements. New parking calculations are set forth on the building plans. The reduction in building area has reduced parking needs and requirements by 13 spaces. The new parking calculations follow the same ratios and guidelines as the plans recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The changes illustrated on the enclosed plan have been made primarily because of cost considerations, but are also responsive to neighborhood concerns about the proposed two story building. As presently proposed, the remodeled and renovated Buick building will be only 572' larger in building area than the existing Buick building. The renovations to the Buick site proposed by Walser, including improved lighting, landscaping, traffic circulation and parking, will significantly improve the appearance and use of this Property, and will make this business and this property a strong asset of the City. The most recent changes to the building and site plan makes the, proposal even more desirable from the City and neighborhood's perspective in that there will be no second story and there will be virtually no increase in the size of the Walser Buick facility from its existing size. We will be at the City Council meeting on September 12, 1988, to present the proposal and answer any questions. Since ely, Pe er K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw Enclosures PKB:DIOs v JAMCf P. LA"%IN 01 09C L MOFFMAN JACK R DALY O. KENNETH LINOORCH •NDRCW W. DAMICLSON VDCLL R. ANDERSON ALD M. FRIEDELL BERT N. WHITLOCK \N C. MVLL10 -N ICRT J. HCNN[SSEY :Ef C. CRICKSON aOWA RD J. DRISCOLL JAMES ►. NILEY OCHE N. FULLER DAVID C. SELLCRORCN RICHARD J. KCCNAN JON" D. FULLMCR ROMERT C. MOYLE FRANK I. "ARV [Y RICHARD A. FORSCML[R CHARLES 5* " CHRISTOPMCR J. OICTZEN JOHN R- SCA",. LINDA M. FIf MCR THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN O. LEVIN FORREST D. NOWLIN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN [. DIE "L JON f. W. ERZCISKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. OVINN TOOD I. FRECNAN STCPMCM S. SOLOMON PETER ., MCCK JCROMC H. KAHN.[ f MCRRILI OMAN KURCTICH a CRALD L. SOCK JOHN S. LUNDOUIST DAYL[ NOLAN THOMAS S. NUMPHRCY, JR. July 1, 1988 _s-f -? -/j LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN. LTD. DAVID J. ►CAT FRANC.* E. O.S[RsoN MIC MAEL T. MCKIM ATTORNEYS AT LAW GNARLCf R. WEAVER MERMAN L.TALLE WILLIAM S. RRANDT VINC[MY G. CLLR TRACY R. EICHHORN -MILKS 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER A " DREW J MITCHELL JONN A, COTTER • 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MCATRICE A. ROTHw C.LCR PAUL f. ►LUNKETT BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 AMY DAR. GRADY ALAN L. KILDOW TELEPHONE 16121 63S-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 ItATHLCEN M. PICOTTE NCWMAN CAT me PINE MARNETT WILSON• TELECOPIER 1612) 835 -5102 TELECOPIER (6121 338.1002 JEFFREY C. ANO[RSON DANIEL L: MOWLES • TO DO M vLATKOVICM TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL l. r*ICDCPS OR[OORY C. KOPSTAD 6990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 CRAIG A. P[TCRSON LI fA A. GRAY COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 HO A. w„ NNE T Y HOMAS WEAVER TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 S.-ON K. MCCAMSPIDG[ MICHAEL S. COHEN TELECOPIER 1612) 786-6711 DEMISE M NORTON DENY A. VAM CLEve MICHAEL S. *KAMAN JOf CP" w. DICKER Reply to Bloomington aAyLtN KY =CK RODN EY D. IVES JULIC A wwASE CM RISTOPHCw J MARRISTHAI RONALD M. STAPK,JR SHARON L. SRCNNA MA RI KAY CANADA LITZAU Os c....., JOSE ►" 131714 JO "N A. MCMVGM MICHAMO A. NOROMYE .Also ADMITT [p IN WIfCo.s." Mr. Towhid Razi City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Walser Corporation Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue Dear Towhid: This letter accompanies the revised site and building plans for the renovation of the Walser Buick Dealership at 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue (your case number 88- CUP -14). These revised plans include a number of significant changes from the plans submitted on June 6, 1988, particularly with respect to the site plan and the overall use of the Buick site. The first and most important change comes as a result of City and neighborhood concerns about the intensity of Walser's use of the Buick site. To address this concern, if the proposal to renovate the Buick building and improve the Buick site is approved as shown on the plans submitted today, Walser will relocate the Suzuki dealership out of Richfield and use the existing Suzuki building for Isuzu and Sterling sales. Isuzu and Sterling sales are currently made out of the Buick building. This means that: 1. The entire Suzuki operation, including 75 to 90 display /inventory cars, 17 to 20 employees, plus customer and service traffic and parking, will be eliminated,. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LI\DGRE-N, LTD. Mr. Towhid Razi' July 1, 1988 Paae 2 2. The Suzuki building will be used for Isuzu and Sterling sales, which together do less volume than Suzuki dlone. Therefore, there will be less activity on the Suzuki site; and less activity on the Buick site due to the relocation of Isuzu /Sterling. 3. The Buick building will be used for Buick sales and service of Buick /Isuzu /Sterling. There will no longer be Suzuki service. Therefore, there will be less service activity on the Buick site. Removal of the Suzuki dealership will reduce considerably the intensity of use and amount of activity at both the Buick and the Suzuki sites, and will also reduce considerably the needs for employee, customer, service and inventory /display parking. Removal of the Suzuki dealership is a major concession which is being made by Walser Corporation to address City and neighborhood concerns. To further address concerns about parking needs and activity levels on the Buick site, in addition to relocating the Suzuki dealership, Walser has also contracted for new car storage space out of the City for both the Mazda and Buick dealerships. This will enable the general managers of the Buick, Mazda and Isuzu /Sterling dealerships to keep all display /inventory parking within designated areas by providing alternative off -site parking when designated on -site areas fill up. The site plan submitted today also includes revisions designed to address two additional issues which have come to our attention. First, as part of the relocation of Suzuki and use of the Suzuki site for Isuzu /Sterling sales, Walser will replace the existing lighting on this site with the new non -glare lighting fixtures which will be used throughout the Buick site. This will mean that all three Walser sites (Suzuki /Buick /Mazda) will have new, state -of- the -art lighting designed to eliminate glare into neighboring residential areas. An overall lighting plan is included in the materials submitted today. Note that the new lighting plan eliminates all of the "mid- pole" fixtures and uses only top - mounted lights directed down. Second, it has come to our attention that new car delivery trucks have been off - loading in public streets. We are addressing this issue by providing an extra wide drive aisle through the Buick site and an area in the employee /service parking area of the site where transports delivering cars to all three dealerships can off -load. In addition to providing for off - loading of new cars on -site, it is likely that in the future many transports will off -load at new car storage sites rather than at the dealerships. ,.G� 17 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi July 1, 1988 Ej4= 'A The staff report analyzing our June 6, 1988, submission materials recommended denial of the amended Conditional Use Permit because it would increase parking required and decrease parking provided. It is true that renovation of the Buick building will result in more parking being required, under the City's parking requirements, than is required for the existing buick building; and that improvements to the Buick site plan will reduce the total number of parking spaces available, in order to improve circulation and widen aisles for on- site deliveries. However, even though the parking required by ordinance will go up, actual parking demand will be reduced considerably because of: 1. Removal of the Suzuki dealership. 2. Relocation of Isuzu /Sterling from the Buick building to the old Suzuki site. 3. Elimination of Suzuki service from the Buick building. 4. Provision of off -site parking areas for new car storage. We have had some difficulty following the parking analysis set forth in the staff report and attachments. The table below sets forth how we calculate the parking required by the City for the uses shown in the plans submitted today and the parking provided in the new plans: PARKING CALCULATIONS Buick 7020 sq ft 6206 sq ft 8960 sq ft 31 bays 25 employees Used Cars 0 1340 sq ft 0 Isuzu /Sterling 2000 ag ft 2340 sq ft 0 Totals: 9020 sq ft 9886 sq ft 8960 sq ft 31 bays 25 employees LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi July 1, 1988 Pace PARKING REQUIRED Building Buick Used Car Isuzu /Sterling Totals: PARKING PROVIDED Buick Used Car Isuzu /Sterling Totals: Showroom nfficp parts Service 35 25 9 93 Service 25 Employee 0 5 0 0 U -2 -D _a 45 39 9 118 20 customer 25 employee 15 employee 3 customer 5 employee 6 customer 9 employee 4 employee 29 customer 39 employee 12 employee _ 48 39 Parts 2 customer 7 employee 0 93 service 25 employee X 0 0 2 customer 93 service -1 employee 2d employee 9 118 = 2" Note that the parking being provided exceeds City requirements somewhat in order to provide separate customer parking for the used car office. Note also that 90 employee parking spaces are provided. The maximum number of employees actually on the site at any one time is estimated to be approximately 77. The plan therefore provides more than adequate employee parking. The site plan shows parking areas for customers, employees and service parking being striped. Each parking space in these areas will be designated for its intended use. Display /inventory cars will not be parked in these spaces. Display /Inventory areas of the parking lot will not have individually striped parking spaces. Instead, display /inventory parking areas will be delineated in the parking lot with heavy lines. All display /inventory cars will be kept within these lines. The actual number of cars in display /inventory areas will depend on the type (size) of cars and the way in which the cars are parked. For example, /9 LARKIN,, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi July 1, 1988 Pace 5 the general manager of each dealership may vary the method of displaying cars depending on the season of the year, the number of cars available, sales strategy, etc. As long as all display /inventory cars stay within the designated display /inventory areas, general managers will have flexibility as to how to display the cars. The one exception to this will be display pads, which will be used as intended. Display /inventory cars that will not fit in display /inventory areas will be stored off -site. Note also that the nearly 5,000 square foot addition to the existing showroom space in the Buick building will accomodate approximately 20 more display cars on the show floor itself. In addition to the changes in the site plan, some changes have also been made in the plans for the Buick building. With the elimination of Suzuki service there will no longer be a need for separate service entrances. The new floor plan relocates the service entrance to the east side of the building and provides inside and outside stacking space for 18 to 20 vehicles. This change alone will significantly reduce congestion on the west side of the Buick building and improve traffic circulation throughout the Buick site. ( The revised floor plan also provides for better movement of vehicles s in and through the building and larger service bays. The proposed addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom remains as shown originally, and the new mezzanine level remains generally in the same location and the same size as shown in the earlier plan. Roof lines on the Buick building will remain as shown in the earlier plans, and there will still be no parking on any portion of the roof of the Buick building. There are also no changes with respect to the used car sales office. Walser Corporation is making every effort, in the plans submitted today and in the commitments made in this letter, to address all issues raised by the City and neighboring residents. The proposal which we put forward today is a considerable improvement over the plans submitted on June 6, 1988; and implementation of the new proposal will result in a vast improvement over the existing situation on the Buick site and the approved plans for the Buick site. We hope that the City will take this opportunity to work with us to improve significantly the existing situation. We must emphasize that denial of the requested amendment to the existing, approved Conditional Use Permit will result in renovation of the Buick facility under the currently approved plans, which are inferior to the proposal put forth today and do not address the significant issues discussed in this letter. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Towhid Kazi July 1, 1988 page 6 We look forward to meeting with you at 1:00 p.m., on July 12, 1988, to review these plans and answer any questions you may have. Sin ly, G Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. PKB:DE6s •IAr[. • l,. •.w OOa[•,1 wOI1 Y.y ♦AC• r e'.l• O w[Nw[Tr 11y040•tr . «e•tr . o•r1[.eor 0[•A l0 w ra1[Dt ll 0040tH a .r1 ♦ ►OC. ■ t. "V1110•w M J, wtrrt2at+ � C. t•1C•eOr +o .. e•leeo \4. s • rllt. « •ylli. T C 2t \1900-4. + .•D J .iir.r J♦ .w O rul4.rt• "SCAT I. so*, 'a VA.— 1 Aavt+ e1Cw.yo 000ecrlt■ Cw••lte 0 "00111 Cw•12 fOrw[• l 011711• r0 «r a a[.7T1t ►+YO. r rlertw 07Crtr a ltvlr eea•t0+ a «o.l1r •IC«•(l C. J.C. ".« JOw 2. 2"401.11.1.. Tw0"Ae J. .00"99 • 0 V1rr Teoe I. •acct.« :T9 On" a 204.0.0% CTC J2.O "t w. aArw A[ * "[a4014.► O ".r AV09T1C1. Ota•lD I. 2CC. JOrw a lV«DOV1e7 eA,►[ r0V« llwo.a a yV"•"ae+, J• June 6, 1986 "RKIN, HoFFxA,.v, DALY & LINDGRE.,T, LTD ATTOwNCrs AT LAW I600 ItOAT "WCST[AN ►IMANCIAL CLMTto 1000 olrth ,/ArrAAV TOWCA 1`000 Attltts AVCNVC SOUTH Ut SOUTH MINT" sTAtt'r DLOOMINOTON, 11100111109 807A 55431 815110110tA►OLIs, t1IMNISOTA 95401 TCLte"ONt 16111 039.3000 Ttlto "ONt 101=1 330.0010 TCLCCO ►ICR 10111 435.6108 79LCCOVItt114111 330.1001 MONT" 9VSV09AN OrrlCt 0 *90 6041060D ROOK Dowt, SUITC 1SO COON AA ►IDS, MINNt$OTA SS43a TCLCOMONC I9111 TiS•TnT Tt"COO1Ut ISM 760 -6711 Reply to Bloomington City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Walser Corporation t Amendment to Conditional Use Permit t 2100 West 78th Street 7700 Penn Avenue Dear Sirs: 0.r1e J n., 1•. «C1a L 4012 [. tOw r1Cr.t1 ♦ r[.1r c•.altt • .c.vc. at•r.w arl4.\,.r • eft— D, •1•C tr, l t1V 140.1+. 4o. (lt rw0•w -w1C.a .t. J r1,Cw[ll r . C =TtA. 6e.f.1Ct •O,w.[�lt• Aaf e••. 40A.pf A\Af V &.,Do. 2A7wt.1Nt e..rt++ r,l.Or .•twat• c •weta0or 01.1 e l 6 400.1 c t 10402 r runo,le. 1+rOf ", J NY.wVa Ih\ 1 re—to[A• 016000, t..0•a +.p S&A10. ►i,i••Or ,Y2. 4 *a., C•a, .. •trrt.[ 1r0rM r rtw[• .-c-.z, . 0-c-.z, A ce.cw �t ■let r ■o• +or •u, • r.r C1[v[ rKr•Cl a a....r .0lo2t►. r e1c•c. •ACOV tIIrc • o1c.! 40.•11. 4.. [w.C. ow"", • Ir[a .x111 A •..40[ Cwa,2T0.wc• J. wAea127w.1 aO■A'D w. 2T.•., JA O«Aa0■ L 400c... aIYIAAT CA■60A 11TtAY M Gowma[l •Oe [ A. 40 1„0 pw . .4.V0N MC "AaD A. •eaoe,t a►ua AD 1"98 1■ • +160-.1. This letter accompanies the application of Walser Corporation for an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit for Walser's Buick Dealership at 2100 West 78th Street and 7700 Penn Avenue (the Buick Property). On July 14, 1986, the Richfield City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of several additions on the Buick Property, subject to nine conditions. Walser has complied with the conditions attached to this approval, but construction of the building additions has awaited completion of the Mazda facility next door. Walser is now preparing to proceed with the Buick facility, and would like to make some minor revisions to the building plans for the Buick Property. Walser therefore submits this application for an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit for the Buick Property. The revised plan is illustrated on the enclosed drawings. LARSI�, Ho:rrmA--z, DALY & LINDGRE�, LTD. City of Richfield June 6, 1988 Page 2 Changes from the approved plan are: 1. The 1,950 square foot proposed addition to the southeast corner of the existing Buick showroom will be dropped, in favor of a 1,151 square foot addition to the southwest corner of the Buick showroom, as shown on the plan. This will enable Walser to keep a second service entrance open on the east end of the building for service and parts delivery, therefore relieving potential congestion at the existing service entrance on the west side of the building. 2. Elimination of the proposed 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office. This will make additional parking spaces available and will improve traffic flow in the western portion of the parking area. 3. The addition of a 2,780 square foot second, or mezzanine, level in the existing new car showroom building for office space. Relocating office space to this mezzanine level will allow for additional showroom space to be set aside on the first floor of the Buick showroom building. 4. Raising the roof on the northernly most 35 feet of the existing Buick building to match the roof line of the remainder of the building. This will allow for several additional full service repair bays in this portion of the building, and will provide an opportunity to enhance the appearance of this portion of the building from the outside. 5. There will be no parking on any portion of the roof of the Buick building and the ramp to the former rooftop storage area has been removed. 6. in addition to the changes outlined above, Walser is proposing to address city and neighborhood concerns with respect to lighting in the parking areas of the Buick Property by implementing, as a part of the amended Conditional Use Permit, a new lighting plan throughout the southerly portion of the parking area, as shown on the attached plan. This lighting plan has been specifically designed to fully comply with City ordinance and to minimize to the greatest extent possible any glare into surrounding residential uses. LARKIN, HOFF-MAN, DALY & LTD. City of Richfield June 6, 1988 Paoe 3 John Oliva and myself, along with the project architects, will attend all public hearings to answer any questions and will be happy to meet. with City staff prior to that time to review the plans. Sincerely, Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY i LINDGREN, Ltd.- kw Enclosures I PKB:DC4s fro.,f. June 22, 1988 city of richfield-"a&'� 6700 portland avenue • minnesota 55423 Mr. John Oliva Director of Corporate Planning Walser Automotive 5555 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Oliva: On June 14, 1988 the City of Richfield Inspections Division reviewed the sites of Walser Mazda, Walser Buick and Walser Suzuki and note the following items of non - conformance with the approved Special Use permits and plans. The entire employee and service parking areas at Walser Mazda on the 77th Street side were occupied with new car inventory. An additional row of parking of display cars has been added, (striped), along the Morgan Avenue side of the dealership in violation of the Off - Street Parking permit and Special Use permit. The area along Morgan Avenue designated as customer parking is occupied by new car display. Three new light bases have been installed on the used car display area between the Mazda and Buick buildings. These were installed without permits, approved plans or inspections and must be removed. Landscaping along Penn Avenue on the Suzuki site has not been done. There were 112 vehicles on the Suzuki site whereas the plan that was submitted and approved shows 59 parking spaces. The lighting of the Buick site which glares on the residential area has not been corrected. Telephone Numbers: Generai C,ty Matters [612) 869 -7521 -­Inc �aret� Non - emercency 124 hrs) (612) 866 -5061 PC LICE FIRE. MEDIC: .L EMERGENCY DIAL 9 -1 -1 John Oliva June 22, 1988 Page 2 A gravel surfaced area at the Masonic Lodge is being used by your firm for the parking of employees cars as well as new and used car inventory in violation of City Ordinances. City staff has advised you that City Council permission is required prior to use of this space for any use other than parking for the Masonic Order and City ordinances prescribe certain parking area standards. You have made no effort to make application to the City for use of this property. This use must be discontinued until an Off- Street permit is obtained. This letter is an official Notice of Non- Compliance with your Special Use permit. You must show cause why your Special Use permit should not be revoked within ten days of this notice. Sincerely, Sivert Hendrickson Building Official SH:lkt cc: B. Wallace .... _ =. June 14, 1988 -a yz city of richfield 6700 portland avenue • minnesota 55423 Mr. Brett Robinson Industrial Electric Company 600 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 Subject: Walser Buick - Parking Lot Lighting NOTICE OF NON- COMPLIANCE Dear Mr. Robinson: As we discussed on 6/14/88, you have installed lighting bases at the Walser Buick site without approval or a permit. On May 31, 1988, I received a call from an electrician from your firm to inspect the trenching and underground wiring. I advised him that you had no permit and the work must stop until plans were submitted and approved. Your firm continued to work and installed three lighting bases without the required inspections or plan approval. The bases must be removed upon receipt of this Notice of Non- Compliance. After receipt of parking lot lighting plans showing distribution of lighting and approval of same, a permit will be issued and the bases may be installed with the required inspections. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Non - Compliance I may be reached at 866 -5061, X 370. ely, :z l4 Sivert Hendrickson Building Official SH:lkt Telephone Numbers: General City Matters (6121 869 -7521 n ,� - .f..t .! ..,,,if-„ -• �- �... t /�w�s� e+r cnr.� nn, trrr rinr nnrnir-ri rp mrnrrt li -v n1A1 C11-1-1 June 21, 1988 Towhid Kazi Assistant City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Sir, I appreciate your advising the property owners of the forthcoming hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 1988 regarding the Walser Corporation and their proposal for changing the Buick Facility. Due to previous commitments on that date, I shall not be able to be present at the council meeting. For over 5 years, the residents of Richfield have had to put up with the expansion of Walser Buick (ie Walser Corporation) and their other car dealerships. I would like to impress on the Mayor and City Council that our residential neighborhood is slowly being destroyed by automobile dealerships and their expansions. I will not attempt to rehash all the problems that we, the { homeowners, have had to put up with and accept over the years. They have been discussed at city council meetings over and over again. The previous city administration, prior to the last election, seemed fit to give the Walser Corporation pretty much what they wanted. Problems like employee parking, places to store new vehicles, increase in the amount of traffic on West 77th Street (yet to be resolved). It is time, we the people of Richfield, can say ISO to the Walser Corporation through our City Council and stop the expansion that has spread like a disease. If they want to upgrade, expand or whatever, the existing business they have, other alternatives are available. The first is to move outside the Richfield boundaries. I want to thank you for this opportunity to express my views and I'm sure the views of my neighbors. I hope that the correct decision, which is to refuse the current request by Walser, will be handed down by the Council. It is time to STOP the expansion or upgrading of any sort and keep our community the residential community it should be. Sincerely G. D. Fox Retired Resident of Richfield r � ig ffsj METES & BOUNDS Management Company 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 861 -1627 July 12, 1988 Ms. Elizabeth Morrison City Planner City of Richf ield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Parking by driveway at West 77th Street Dear Ms. Morrison: Employees of Walser are parking on West 77th Street in violation of 'the original agreement allowing the expansion of the use of this area. It creates a clear and present danger for our tenants and guests turning out of and into our driveway. The original Agreement and promises of Walser were that they would provide more than adequate parking for their employees. Please enforce the conditional use permit and see that the cars are removed immediately. Very truly yours, METES & BOUNDS MA�AGEMENT CO. BY J He r4see President JHS /cc Quality Apartment Living by METES & BOUNDS Management Company • 6625 Tyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 J Mr. Towhid Kazi Assistant City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Kazi: 7624 Oliver Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 June 171 1988 Re: Public Hearing Notice - 6/13/88 We are appalled by the latest request from Walser Corporation for ... $'relocation of the approved showroan at the southeast corner to the southwest corner of the Buick facility (and) an addition of a 2,780 square foot SEOOND or MEZZANINE LEVEL within the existing car showroom building for office space ..." We VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE approval of such a request. Reasons we believe are obvious. There is no end to Walser's requests for expansion. We as long -time residents of Richfield should not have to be constantly sub'ected to Walser proposals for ruination of od resi en is area. Walser has outgrown their present facilities and do not belong there anymore. Obviously, however, they are not going to trove and the City of Richfield must insist and see to it that the residential neighborhood adjoining their operation is preserved. We believe we deserve this protection. They trust not be allowed to take over. NOW they are proposing building UPWARDS! Obviously to preserve the previously approved 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office TO PARK MORE CARS. Their nerve and lack of cannon sense /courtesy is inconceivable. When they moved in they knew they were anving to a residential area. Anything built UPM RDS is obviously going to create an even more unsightly CCrii- MERCIAL atmosphere to this wonderful residential area. Take a dive up the 7600 ock on Oliver, for exanple. This is what we are trying to preserve. Anything at the "mezzanine" level (whatever they want us to believe that means) is of course correspondingly objectionable. A second story is a second story, no matter what you call it. We urge that you do not let this happen. consideration. Thank you very much for your attention. cc: James Prosser, City Manager We cannot imagine it is even due serious Mr. & M September 7, 1988 Steven Quam, Mayor James Prosser, City Manager Martin Kirsch, Council Member Ivan Ludeman, Council Member Edwina Garcia, Council Member Michael Sandahl, Council Member RE: Walser Corporation I do not want Walser to enlarge it's Buick Showroom. They have not complied with the conditional use permit requirements to provide parking for their employees and customers. I was interested to find out if this is standard operating procedure for Walser, so I contacted the following people: 1. Mr. Ernie Peterson, Zoning Department, City of St. Louis Park, phone 924 -2588. I obtained the following information: Walser is supposed to provide employee and customer parking. Walser instructs it's employees to park in the street. Mr. Peterson said Walser is not adjacent to a residential neighborhood so it does not cause trouble. They do not enforce the parking rules. Mr. Peterson did state the only way to make Walser comply would be to have them fence in an area and provide the city with employee license numbers. 2. Mr. Robinson, Street Superintendent, City of Hopkins, phone 935 -8474. Mr. Robinson advised that Walser was a big problem with employee and customer parking on the streets. The problem was solved by posting no parking and 2 hour parking. One community chose to ignore Walser's failure to provide parking. Another chooses to ban parking. Neither is a solution for Richfield. However, I believe this does show a pattern of Walser's unconcern for at least 3 communities it does business in. Walser's "new" plan for display is just a sham to cram more cars into an already overcrowded area. It would also make it harder for the inspectors to cite them for overcrowing. I would request the following: A. Have staff contact all the municipalities that Walser does business in to verify the pattern of willful disregard of their responsibility to provide parking for customers and employees. B. Have staff ascertain where Walser employees are going to park when 494 is widened. C. Give Walser notice that the lease on Richfield property will not be renewed unless they comply with the approved site plan. D. That Walser Buick showroom not be allowed to expand as the building is nonconforming. E. That the Walser matter be continued to a later date so that my wife and I can testify on this matter. She is a Hennepin County Child Support Enforcement Officer. I am a Hennepin County Welfare Fraud Investigator. We will both be at a seminar on 9/12/88. Sincerely, James E. Bergin 7627 Oliver Av. So. 861 -6421 n*-B METES & BOUNDS Management Company 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 861 -1627 September 7, 1988 City of Richfield Planning Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Rickey Properties Dear Sirs: We manage and represent Rickey Properties, owners of the apartment complex located at 2015 West 77th Street. Please be advised that employees of Walser Buick -Mazda -BMW have continued to park on West 77th Street in violation of the agreement allowing the expansion of the use of this area. As previously indicated, we consider this to be a clear and present danger for the tenants and guests of Rickey Properties in their use of the driveway and is a violation of the conditional use permit issued by the City of Richfield. Please see that Walser employees are provided with adequate parking and are advised of the restric- tions of parking in this area before issuing additional permits to Walser. Thank you. Very truly yours, METES: • UND ,7A GEMENT CO. B J n Henry Susee President JHS /cc 7_*1__: -3 X Quality Apartment Living by METES & BOUNDS Management Company • 6625 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 City of Richfield - 6700 Portland kmue • Minnesota SS433 • .& ns D P►o�sw � owm Edwin* c iw� Ludwn n Miron Koch Afthow sand" March 18, 1988 Mr. John Oliva Director of Corporate Planning Walser Automotive Corporation 5555 west 78th Street, Suite F Edina, MN 55435 Dear John: In response to your request and following our discussion dated March 14, 1988, I have prepared the attached cash escrow agreement which must be signed by Walser Automotive Corporation along with a cashiers check made out to the City of Richfield in the amount of $35,448.00. Following receipt of the cash escrow agreement and the check, the City of Richfield will issue a temporary occupancy permit which would be valid until July 1st, 1988 for the new Walser Mazda site provided that the Suzuki site does not require any new conditional use permit or offstreet parking amendment. Only the funds relating to each phase will be released as the issues relating to the individual dealership site is resolved to the satisfaction of the city. I would appreciate your cooperation in resolving a number of issues, i.e. • - display pads on Penn Avenue for the Suzuki dealership. - lighting problems - screening /landscaping north of the site along 77th Street. - permanent signs for the Suzuki site. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, o�d� Towhid Kati Acting City Planner TK /jls Telephone 969 -7521 (612) An Equal OppoUmily Employer CASH ESCROW AGREEMENT Walser Corporation DBA Walser Automotive does hereby tender a cash escrow to the City of Richfield (in the form of a cashiers check) in the amount of $35,448.00 for the following incomplete improvements: Phase I. For Walser Buick Site - Approved landscaping and Irrigation system ($5,536.00) Phase 2. New Walser Mazda Site (former Viking Center) - Approved landscaping and irrigation system ($13,912.00). - Including shrubs and trees along 77th Street - Complete all other improvements according to the city regulations. -The construction of barriers, eul -de -secs, diverters or other traffic control improvements on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue if deemed necessary by the city ($5,000.00) - Phase 3. Walser Suzuki Site (former Mazda site) - Approved landscaping and irrigation system as indicated in the plan (53,000.00). -Sign in conformance with the city regulations. Completion date of the improvements is June 1, 1988, except traffic control improvements on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. The City of Richfield will refund the amount of $30,448.00 following an inspection and approval of the entire site by the City Manager's designee. The remaining $5,000.00 will be released only after the traffic control improvements are completed on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue if such are deemed necessary by the City. The City may use the cash escrow to complete the improvements if the undersigned does not do so within the time line given or 30 days after notice. Walser Automotive Corporation hereby grants to the City, its employees and assignees, an_ access easement to the sites for the purpose of completing the above mentioned items. Any cost incurred by the City in excess of the escrow amount will be paid by Walser Automotive Corporation. The City will partially release the cash escrow upon verified completion of each phase and tendering of cashiers check in the appropriate substitute amount. The City will hold such escrow amount in a non - interest bearing account. Walser Corporation DBA Walser Automotive By: NAIR Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. Cashier's wAffff G)l )U +f(IL 048 068919 WALSER AUTOMOTIVE MARCH 18, 1988 Remitter Date 17 -1/970 eeaFert *35 44BANDOOCTS *35,448.00 Pay : To the *CITY OF RICHFIELD Order of •-.. - - -- MC ml, CWIYN 190689 i9w'- 1:0910000197: Authorized Signature 9951320 9 ? 2 N ■ tl• ee U M q' V) V) CU O V) 4) ■ CU CU L O C. O O August 23, 1988 Mr. John Oliva Walser Automotive 5555 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55435 Re: Walser.Buick Lighting Dear Mr. Oliva: As we discussed on August 22, 1988, we are still receiving complaints regarding glare of lights in the residential area. You have submitted plans showing installation of revised lighting fixtures and a computer printout showing compliance with the lighting requirements. As soon as the revised Special Use permit is approved by the council, the lighting must be modified to be in compliance with the ordinance. I understand that you are scheduled to have a hearing before the City Council regarding your Special Use permit on September 12, 1988. Please advise us of your schedule to abate the nuisance. Sincerely, Sivert Hendrickson Building Official SH:lkt cc: J. Prosser J.,Erskine P. Coughlin T. Kazi Enclosures telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer 7624 Oliver Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 August 19, 1988 Mayor Steven Quam City Manager James Prosser City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Quam and City Manager Prosser: Due to emergency surgery we will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on August 22 regarding Walser's latest request to add a second story to its Buick showroom. Please review our June 17 letter (copy attached) to Towhid Kazi. We urge -chat you consider the ramifications if this request is approved, and the license this will give Walser for even further expansion (UP) in the future. We feel it's time the residents are given due consideration. This involves a nice residential area that should be allowed to remain "nice." We take pride in our neighborhood. Drive down Oliver Avenue, for example, between 76th Street and 77th Street.to see what we mean. This is not just an aesthetic question -- it goes extremely further than that. But that in itself is reason enough to disallow this proposal by Walser. Thank you. zo 7a- Paul and Louise Ragatz /S Enclosure C Walser is still in non - compliance status re their lighting. They even added more glaring lighting without permit! Z" 7624 Oliver Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 August 19, 1988 Mr. Sivert Hendrickson Building Official City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MLV 55423 Dear Mr. Hendrickson: � J7- ?"q Confirming my phone call to you a couple of weeks ago, we are concerned about just how long Walser is going to be allowed to stall correction of their lighting that beams /glares into residential properties. In April they were directed to correct this problem. In June they added three more light bases without permit. They were directed to remove them. Were they removed? In June John Oliva of Walser was notified the lighting problems had.not been corrected. It is now August 19= In another month leaves from trees will begin to fall and the problem will be even cvnrse, if that's possible. If anything, the lights are wre glaring than ever -- they are using more lights Itop lights and lights half wav up the bases) and leaving them on longer. It's just difficult to understand why they are allowed to remain in non - compliance status, We will appreciate your follow -up once again. Thank you very much. Louise Ragatz cc: Steven Quam, Mayor James Prosser, City Manager 3F y// CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 209 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Award of Contract to Reroof the Municipal Liquor Store at Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. Background: On August 30, 1988, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for reroofing the Lyndale Liquor Store. Proposals were received from two vendors: Vendor Bid Ettel & Franz Company $32,113* Technical Applicators Inc. $36,890 *The original bid noted that Builders Risk insurance was not included. However, the vendor has clarified this notation to the satisfaction of City staff and the City Attorney and has furnished proof the specified insurance is in effect at no change in the bid amount. There were two potential add alternates to the base bid. Add Alternate Number 1 calls for the removal and replacement of damaged existing roof insulation. Add Alternate Number 2 would be the removal and replacement of damaged or deteriorated existing wood nailers and blocking. Ettel & Franz Company proposed $1.15 s.f. for Alternate #1 and $1.50 b.f. for Alternate #2. Technical Applicators Inc. proposed $2.25 s.f. for Alternate #1 and $2.50 b.f. for Alternate #2. The adopted 1988 Budget includes $72,000 for interior and exterior remodeling the Lyndale Liquor Store. This includes the contract for reroofing. Recommendation: Award a contract in the amount of $32,113 to the Ettel & Franz Company to reroof the Lyndale Liquor Store and accept the unit price bids for Alternates 1 and 2. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Ettel & Franz Company is a well - established firm and is noted for good.work. 2. Eftel & Franz Company submitted the lowest bid. 3. Sufficient funding is available for the project. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise at this time. However, bids received were within the amount budgeted. 2. Reject all bids and delay the work to a later date. This would delay the repair work necessary to be completed before the holiday season begins. 3. Award the contract to Technical Applicators Inc. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the September 12, 1988 city council agenda. It is recommended action be taken at that time to assure that repairs will be done in a timely manner. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP /eja O 3 w m CD H (J CD H W ft n co H X n C7 r• o rr c << � n � (D H X T. CD CD a) rr � r• � :3 O (0 C C) CD CL ct O" fi ct 3 CD 07 H. a (n f O C a 0, CD Ct w Q C w ct CD a N D CL 0 O 1 (n 1- C_ CD H CD a rr ct CD CD cl- CD 3 13 CD H N N F-, �O OD O 0o a --i * cn m �I H -i m C "o CD O Co c-+ ct (O3a--i H '00 O C • rt 0 O N O' (t r• CD CD F✓ Z cn r• o �_ T 1-1 (n < 0 r• r• Cl w < F- Cv C a) w o F ct Cv 0 H Z F_ 0 1-- F_ (n -9 rn :3 CD H C H O (n a ;u a) X • CD r• D 0 1-+ O m �n a (n N O H � D (n D W f -i • :n n H O O F • O 07 H H W O CD a) 1- CS (D C CY O H O' r• c'►' < (1) H C CD — — v CD r• CJ N ln CD Vt C/) ae ae m C X n co w w cH O O Z) O > > H C) CD CD r+ 3 a (D ct H. ----- N O -i H D C7 Z -i X X O ---1 O m x m -n m oz m r' -i z -< -1 D O Ti Z 1 O H x x nZ za b4 W O� Cb 110 C) N N V'1 N N in O CD 44 W N F� w O D r < r H co CD H D O V) m -i r•XDD �I H -i m D (D a r 07 (O3a--i • o m 0 r• < x 1n CD F✓ Z N D (n C CD -I .O I✓ x m F- Cv C a) w o ct w ct • 0 1 rn :3 o w Fr ITO XaD WO Tr. F-• 0) CD a r- 1­ O r• 3 a -1 - C • 0 1-+ O m �n 7C CD < % X O r• H CD N Z w D (n D W f -i • :n w o m Cn CD O F • a a -i �I H -i m 0 x 07 C) (D ZI C CD 0 O H T1 H 1 a 3 O _t F- Cv C O o V, a) cn 0) v -1) ►-� rn :3 o w Fr WO Tr. I— Z) 0 - C • 1 to f _0 a rt I­ w H W •• -710 Vi O O CD Cn CD O\ --h (O O 07 H H W CD a) 1- CS (D ct CY O aa(Dn O' r• c'►' < (1) H C CD C. • • v CD r• N H -4 H 3 ct O C7 CD C X m f -i H. H w 3 O CD w r• -7 O rt (D w H r' F-' O CD H `< Z) C) CD CD r+ 3 a (D ct H. CD r• W H C7 (n 'O N :3 a) (n r• O F-• O C 3 O O CD O Fr or D Tl --1) H -b 3 O -*7 CD ct H. T. f' r• O. H. H ? :3 •• X r• ct CD I-- U CD (O CD a ct H N CD :e N C CD N 3 H O O? O O CL O O '• --1) -4 O F- H O H -A C O CD n r• ct a) rr N :3 - r. 0 a D r• ct CL n rr r• CD Z) O O W f" �< O O O H H ct r• F-• x c CD CD `<.O C') C D Z W C F­ D D 0 O (D CL X O CD CD H* CD rr a)HH :EC)a w O (n w r o o 70-0 rr o l< O (O"0 a) W 3F_ C CD CD -0 1" Q) V7 a a H H (D F-• X ct w rr a) CD CD r- o .O =)- O O C CD 3 a H =) O CD < CD (n D H 'O CD CD (n c C r1 CD 0 (0 Cn H W C O r• C ct c) O CD ct H (n O O (O a) CD ct H (n a) C-1- n CD CD O 7 H. rt F- -n a <O Iwo CD H ct -q ct O� 3 W ►-• r ct CD r * OD D (D a OD a a (n • a) 3 3 rh N CD w H CD CD O CD ct F''• (D a r• O r , < Z) rr CD (p H c rr CD a) w (n < n) CD D ct a o V) rr O\ H a) In CD -� rt 0 _t =F CD r• f (1) < a) (-t CD N ►•i .. CD C) CD O a) ct -0 F- CD F� O CD C) a X06 • a`< D c (o W ~ C r• (na O � 0 ° w -0 a O CD .. o r• 3F✓O (o O O c� H C H I x H m r O V z 1••1 Z z m N 0 a r �f -':�) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 210 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Authorization to execute reimbursement grant agreement with the State of Minnesota for lake aeration system at Taft Park. Background: The lake in Taft Park is a popular site for family fishing. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) continues to stock the lake. However, the water is considered a marginal fish lake which is adversely affected during summer seasons by oxygen stratification. The DNR approached the City to work toward a method of oxygenation during the summer months to encourage fish growth and prevent winter kill. It has been determined by the Section of Fisheries that the installation, operation and maintenance of an aeration system will benefit the lake environment and provide increased fishing opportunities. To that end, the State is willing to reimburse the City for the purchase and installation of an aeration system, starter box, control box and all appropriate connectors to adapt the system, as needed, to the existing lake structure. The grant provides reimbursement for 100% of the purchase and installation costs relating to the aeration system not to exceed $12,500. It is anticipated the City will need to pay an estimated $500 for fencing and electrical hookup at the time of installation. It will be the responsibility of the City, financially and otherwise, to properly maintain and operate the aeration system which is estimated to cost $400 annually. The reimbursement grant is from the fiscal year 1989 Fisheries budget which means the administration, purchase and installation of the system must be done before the end of June, 1989. The city attorney has reviewed the draft agreement. Recommended Motion: Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the State of Minnesota for reimbursement to the city of 100%, not to exceed $12,500, of the cost to purchase and install an aeration system in the Taft Park lake. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lake in Taft Park, is a popular fishing site. 2. The DNR continues to stock the lake with fish. 3. An aeration system would improve the lake environment. Alternative Recommendation: Do not accept the reimbursement grant. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the September 12, 1988 consent calendar on the City Council meeting agenda. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP /eja o-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 211 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Award of Contract to Reconstruct Retaining Walls Background: The 1988 Capital Improvement Budget contains $35,000 to reconstruct retaining walls in various locations throughout the City. On August 23, 1988, a formal bid opening was held for this work and the results are as follows: Ray's Landscaping & Contracting $40,404.00 Outdoor Environments, Inc. 32,948.50 Municipal State Aid (gas tax) funding has been requested and approved for this work. All of the retaining walls scheduled to be repaired are on MSA streets. A map showing the location of the retaining walls to be repaired is attached. Recommended Motion: Approve the award of contract for the reconstruction of retaining walls to Outdoor Environments, Inc. in the sum of $32,948.50. Basis of Recommendation: Outdoor Environments, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise; however, this action would delay the work until the spring or summer of 1989. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate completion of this work in a timely manner. JDP /e j a Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager J Q C7 M___ — er iz n: w dW cn cn G M w Z ,+fq »vas __i ,� 1}. �y L6 0 ll a - ILL L IL 11 -- i[ . C =,f i N.«�L_ — - NO S9N1NOw 44 91 46 f.1 �C ,N,;! " ]( IF, ] �/ ), ___J[-- �C -�C�(- �`�� - -,� �C 'it 7 Q LL 101111 00VOM3 0OWNW3. V' i ~MOD xYr, Mwo ONVINVO )M ONYYSW [-HC �](=CCC�C�C7HC tw3IS ' fNaw3as ANIr tYllO31N aM 1"IiO ♦al�afa S!'Ilf CSC �L 11 . 7r— ��•`/� l ^J ll)OGt if N►O".LN34 I ;; .�C J[ . A"Osllld i01ti.31� � 1. R(�l.T"'�'� lr"'�'T7'�•"'t t.'r"�� _ T- _._.j""t 1N.fra,+ O01!IYO 7_11 .J a31Yrt'N .] ] IL- rr,=i— ��J`11[_ -. JAW JIVOMAI ND1tl41♦ xVA103'I \\ l 1q� xr3,oa 71 a»o.dn0 J; u [ a� 0 1 \� JLC �C -i[ t �4` It— n11 O L N /no i OSY3Ka l� �/ a►IDRiYi �_ lOIOfNOM Ij _j_ ONIAYI y[�F -' �� ___JL__ JL.__ �[ �V— ..J[._rrr����:N►1 - j�'g� —_i_ -_ _ --\ 101OfllfW Y7 u:- 1� 'R 1 �� ON1AYf M s3w.r f ( �(' �[— �c "C^�[ . �I L s f3w.r XONX xoNN NV901 011001 NVOWOw NOLM3N L. i i ,.� x - it IIII w 7i 01 man a c 113A110 d - - - _ __'l --� 3w• NN3N J[ _ . YaAIIO in II - ( -i( r- )Ar N*ad N331101i� Ill �_ ��C Jl_ 7 1. r `l rr L.i uli - -1J- i( 013300 113&snY . -�r.- �i'- -± rl rl_, II 113 r SVMOKI lr 1 irwONL I 3" f3 %r3% .'�#4, -. -. ,i � ""j��"..�....� �� -�• NYn11NtYr♦ 3At SaxYH a •- 6'i �., w w a .~il � h in $ w a in n w � �, w $'i G"i�i I E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 23, 1988 11:00 A.M. Retaining Wall Reconstruction City Project No. 838 Bid No. 88 -9 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for retaining wall reconstruction, City Project No. 838, bid no. 88 -9, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 17, 1988. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Art Bailey, Senior Engineering Technician The following bids were submitted and read aloud: 1 VENDOR I BID I TOTAL 1 I SECURITY I I Ray's Landscaping & General Cont.1 cashiers I $40,404.00 New Hope I check I Outdoor Environments Inc. I cashiers 1 $32,948.50 I 1 Shakopee I check I I I The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 212 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Purchase of Chamber Plates for Water Plant. Background: The 1988 Revised Water Maintenance Budget contains $75,000 to upgrade the filter presses at the Water Plant. This includes upgrading the capacity of the presses from 60 cubic feet to 100 cubic feet. This is required to more efficiently load trucks from the presses. A bid opening was held August 16, 1988 for 65 filter plates and cloths. The results of the bid opening are as follows: J.W.I., Inc. Micronics, Inc. $65,000.00 28,795.00 While the bids received appear to be dramatically different, the market for these plates is very specialized. Micronics, Inc. is the supplier for J.W.I. By purchasing the plates from Micronics, we eliminate the middleman and, therefore, the tremendous markup which occurs with specialty items. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of 65 chamber plates and cloths from Micronics, Inc. in the sum of $28,795. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Micronics, Inc. met all written specifications. 2. Micronics, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. 3. Sufficient funding is available. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject the bids and instruct staff to readvertise. However, staff does not believe a better price will be obtained from a reputable manufacturer. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay a decision on this purchase; the bids are good for ninety days from the bid opening. However, staff requests approval at this time in order to receive the filter plates in a timely manner. Respe fully submitted, (�T Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /e j a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 16, 1988 11:00 A.M. Sixty -Five (65) Recessed Chamber Filter Plates and Cloths 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 sixty -five (65) recessed chamber filter plates and cloths, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 3, 1988. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Byron Wallace, Community Development Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative John Thom, Utility Superintendent The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR I BID I TOTAL I I I SECURITY I I Cashiers J 28,795.00 Micronics - Dover, New Hampshire I Check I $443 /each I I I I I Certi ied I I JWI, Inc. - Holland, Michigan I Check I $65,000.00 I The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 213 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Remove Existing Crosswalk and Install Colored Concrete Crosswalk at 64th Street and Nicollet Avenue at a cost in excess of $5,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. In the early stages of the Lyndale /HUB /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment, Bomonite crosswalks were installed on Nicollet Avenue and on 65th and 66th Streets. This material has proven to be inadequate for crosswalk use and has deteriorated rapidly. A replacement program for the Bomonite crosswalks was initiated in 1986, with the intention of replacing one crosswalk each year until the Bomonite crosswalks are eliminated. The new crosswalks are composed of a plain colored concrete as was used on Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street west of Lyndale Avenue. Staff has received quotes from two companies who perform this type of concrete work: Vendor Quotation AdCon, Inc. $79580 Concrete Design, Inc. 6,993 The 1988 LHN Maintenance Assessment budget contains $5,000 for this work. The balance of the project will be funded from money remaining in the original construction project. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of the Decorative Concrete Crosswalk replacement on Nicollet Avenue at 64th Street from Concrete Design, Inc. in the amount of $6,993.00. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Concrete Design, Inc. submitted the lowest quote for this work. 2. The present crosswalk is badly deteriorated. Alternative Recommendation: Council may leave this crosswalk as is, or eliminate the crosswalk entirely. Discussion /Decision Mode: Staff is asking or approval at this time in order to assure replacement of the crosswalk before cold weather would delay the work until 1989. Respectfully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja r' I/- e -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES ®TA Council Letter No. 214 Agenda September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Award contract for computer system hardware, software and implementation services. Background On August 8, 1988, bids were opened for computer hardware, software and services. The bid tabulation is an attachment to this letter. Three bids were received from two vendors. Unisys submitted one proposal and Convergent Open Systems submitted two proposals. Specifications and invitations to bid were sent to eight vendors and were advertised in the Richfield Sun Current, the State Register and BidNet. A brief description of the bidding specifications, the City's budget for this purchase, the source of funds for the purchase, and an analysis of the bids received follows. Bid Specifications The City's computer system is composed of "clusters" of computer workstations (also called terminals), printers and data storage devices. Each cluster is composed of 1 - 32 workstations cabled together in a chain. One of the workstations in the cluster is the master. The master workstation controls all of the workstations in the cluster. Data storage disks used by the cluster also reside at the master workstation. The various clusters are connected together via a computer network. This allows resources such as data storage and printers to be shared. The bid specifications reflect the City's plan to decentralize and expand computer operations. Attachments to this letter contain diagrams of the current and proposed computer clusters. The proposed cluster diagram reflects the breakup of the largest current cluster and the addition of some new clusters. The City's specifications requested proposals for items in four categories: 1. Hardware: Computer workstations, printers, and data storage devices. 2. Software: Operating systems, office publishing, word processing, spreadsheet and graphics software. 3. Implementation Services: Installation planning, equipment and software testing, training and conversions. 4. Hardware Maintenance: Diagnosis and repair of malfunctioning equipment. X' 7 -7-i Computer Purchase Budget The purchase of this equipment and software was originally planned for late 1987. Consequently, the Data Processing Division's 1988 budget does not contain funds earmarked for the purchase. The amounts originally planned for 1987 have been included in the Revised 1988 budget. This purchase is one component of the City's 1988 computer upgrade. The upgrade also includes purchases of other products and services from other vendors. The budget for the entire computer upgrade is as follows: Total Budget: $ 218,000 Less: Software not included in bid 17,050 Hardware not included in bid 22,720 Services not included in bid 3,500 Remaining Amount Available for this Bid: $ 174,730 Budgeted amounts for hardware maintenance are not included in the figures above. Maintenance is an annual, recurring cost and is budgeted as a separate line item from the onetime purchase costs. Staff will present its recommendation for hardware maintenance to the Council at a future meeting. Source of Computer Purchase Funds As provided in the 1987 budget, and included into the revised 1988 budget, the Data Processing Fund will be borrowing up to $160,000 from the Water Fund. Additional cash will come from Enterprise Funds, which will be purchasing their own equipment, and from the current cash reserves of the Data Processing Fund. Bid Analysis As stated in the opening paragraph of this letter, the City received three bids in response to its Request for Proposals (RFP). An analysis of each proposal is attached. Two of the analyses include an "adjusted bid amount." This amount reflects changes recommended by staff to the quantities contained in the bid as originally proposed by the vendor. Staff is recommending that the Council approve Convergent Open Systems Alternate #1, as adjusted by staff. This proposal meets all the requirements specified by the City and the RFP. Recommended Motion: That the attached resolution be approved granting a contract for computer hardware, software, and implementation services specified in the City's Request for Proposals dated July 11, 1988, to Convergent Open Systems; and further, that the City Manager be authorized to enter into an agreement with Convergent Open Systems for these items based on Proposal #1 submitted by Convergent Open Systems. Basis for Recommendation: - Convergent's Alternate #1, as adjusted by staff, is recommended over Alternative #2 for the following reasons: 1. Superior Performance. The processors and disks proposed in Alternate #1 operate at higher speeds with greater throughput. This will result in faster response times for the users of the computer system. 2. Greater Capacity. Alternate #1 offers a greater capacity in two areas. These are cluster sizes and data storage. All of the master workstations proposed in Alternate #1 are capable of handling the additional workstations planned through 1989, with room to spare. One of the masters proposed in Alternate #2 would require an upgrade next year. Alternate #1 also provides 40% more new disk storage space. This amount should be adequate to meet the City's needs, as currently estimated, for the next 18 -24 months, with the possible exception of the Public Safety cluster. Alternate #2 will not meet the future storage requirements of the Finance cluster and, as with Alternate #1, may not be adequate for Public Safety. 3. Better Value. The cost of Alternate #1 ($183,098) is 4.5% higher than Alternate #2 ($175,155). However, the improved performance and increased capacity of this proposal make it a significantly better value. The Data Processing Fund has the cash necessary to cover the amount over budget. 4. The proposal submitted by Unisys has two major drawbacks; it is significantly higher than either Convergent proposal and Unisys no longer supports some of the equipment already owned by the City. Alternative Recommendation: Convergent's Proposal #2, as adjusted by staff, is the alternate recommendation of staff. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council action to award the contract is requested at the September 12 meeting. This will allow �he computer upgrade to proceed according to the current schedu e. The bids expire contract must be reissue its RFP. JDP:eja on November 5 (90 days after the bid opening). A executed by that date, or the City may have to Respectfu ly submitted, �Ly James . Prosser City nager _, -7 � T Detailed Bid Analysis 1. Alternate #1 submitted by Convergent Open Systems. Bid Amount: $188,624.00 (one time costs) $ 25,936.00 (annual costs) Adjusted Bid Amount: $183,098.00 (one time costs) $ -0 (annual costs) Adjusted Bid Amount Over /Under Budget: $ 8,368 over This proposal meets all of the requirements specified by the City in the RFP specifications. Hardware: The proposal provides master workstations with the newest disk and processor technology available from Convergent. The proposal contains a trade -in allowance for some of the older - technology equipment owned by the City which will be replaced by the new equipment. Software: Sophisticated operating system, office publishing, word processing and business graphics software is included in the proposal. A Lotus 1 -2 -3 "look alike" spreadsheet package is proposed as well as software which will allow some workstations to run "off the shelf" programs written for the IBM PC. Implementation Services: Implementation services will be provided at an hourly rate, with the provision that the total amount billed will not exceed $15,665. The City will be billed only for the hours used, so it is possible that the total cost of this proposal could be reduced by a portion of this amount. Hardware Maintenance: No annual costs are included in the adjusted bid amount. The annual costs bid are for hardware maintenance. The City's current maintenance vendor can provide identical services at a lower cost than was quoted in the bid. 2. Alternate #2 submitted by Convergent Open Systems. Bid Amount: $168,566.00 (one time costs) $ 13,002.00 (annual costs) Adjusted Bid Amount: $175,155.00 (one time costs) $ -0- (annual costs) Adjusted Bid Amount Over /Under Budget: $ 425 over This proposal also meets all of the requirements specified by the City in the RFP specifications. -/ - Hardware: This proposal differs from the Alternate #1 proposal in that it provides master workstations that are a mixture of the newest and older disk and processor technology. This is accomplished by incorporating certain components of the City's existing master workstation equipment with the new equipment, rather than by replacing it, as is done in Alternate #1. Software: Alternate #2 contains virtually the same software as Alternate #1. Implementation Services: The same comments noted for Alternate #1 apply here, except that the bid amount is $8,645. Hardware Maintenance: Same situation as Alternate #1. 3. Proposal submitted by Unisys Corporation. Bid Amount: $301,843.60 (one time costs) $ 45,639.00 (annual costs) Bid Amount Over /Under Budget: $127,016 over The proposal submitted by Unisys has two major drawbacks which staff feels eliminate it from consideration. First, the Unisys proposal is significantly more costly than the other two proposals. Second, because Unisys no longer supports some of the equipment the City already owns, incompatibilities exist which do not allow Unisys to meet all of the City's requirements for software. w W H W H 4w+.t CO 0 w 0 P4 w w� 04 �y w w m 0 r4 L., ..1 Pm H rw c� OHxWtx VHH�- x<Caa .A, � O 0 9 - - O" Cal O O -P -H .r.i ccf C�� CQ y { tiq O r M ,—+ O / cif v / v 0 Ci] 00 u� / / 4-) V4 ca W Ll- O V >t- - -I -H -P .i'> r-4 v 0 A 4-t .i.> 0 roof co Cry a4 0) c-1 0 amain -- o \�4-) avid -� 0 -,q CQ 10 a -- 4-� LO -- +' (D O P4 4-) 0O(d u co L) w o0 Q — IT — %l "I5" Id 04 Ri UD G O .,_, Z ` `^ti 4J �i O 4-I O Oa G O �i H U) 0 O -ri 0 4r-^>> U0 U7 v 1W x �O .O Y 41 4-)4 a-P v Id 4-t v O -P O m +" (1 N -rA 0 V v -P V 0 (D A Lo N CH �4 O Ix O0 V V to O W r-q \ U CV \\ � O cU C4 \ U \ H �] 0) O Vri O 1..J �CQ ni�CQ on a co ac)� v�qo / v -P 9 'r�i cJ 2 ,—+ O / cif v / v 0 Ci] 00 u� / / 4-) V4 ca W Ll- O V >t- - -I -H -P .i'> r-4 v 0 A 4-t .i.> 0 roof co Cry a4 0) c-1 0 amain -- o \�4-) avid -� 0 -,q CQ 10 a -- 4-� LO -- +' (D O P4 4-) 0O(d u co L) w o0 Q — IT — %l "I5" Id 04 Ri UD G O .,_, Z ` `^ti 4J �i O 4-I O Oa G O �i H U) 0 O -ri 0 4r-^>> U0 U7 v 1W x �O .O Y 41 4-)4 a-P v Id 4-t v O -P O m +" (1 N -rA 0 V v -P V 0 (D A Lo N CH �4 O Ix O0 V V to O W r-q W H CO CO P4 W H P-1 x 0 V H W Pa Pi V w G Pa 0 A W w W V H P4 w O H H V OHxWP4 ml-4po ll 0 i- -:414a � A N 0 piUco \\ W, 0 rl 9 O N C!� U N o U) O P-H W O -N ­4A O ,O -F-) a� $.4 0 4-)4-) P9td (d (1)+) 2q Vw - V O 9 \ Pa 0 ON, -.-i -H 13) 4-� -- - - -_ l r-i lid � w Cif a p Ch Ile O .le 4-) td td N co V C7 ee) U -H -�-► co w LO O ,-� -N 4:1 —+ ill td -W td 0) z� O .r-I td Lo .sl O x O N tll H N O .r-4 (d . 4-) iA U) (1) m m f4 O O .� 3 tU Q) N 04-) 0 �+ U 4-� N O -P 0 a) +) to (j) -H 0 U N � U1 LO r-4 -F-) U O) � (A U N td Q, N 4-+ 1-1 O 00 4-) 00 id O W r--4 '" 7_7 -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 8, 1988 10:00 A.M. Computer Hardware and Software 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 computer hardware and software, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 13, 1988. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Sally Morton, Data Processing Manager The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Convergent Technologies Bloomington, MN Unisys St. Paul, MN Aiter- i trio I Total Bid Amounts pate# I Security IOne Time Costs I Annual Costs #1 I Cashier $188,624.00 $25,936.00 i Check Cashier #2 I Check I $168,566.00 I $13,002.00 I I I Bid Bond I I $301,843.60 I $45,639.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND RELATED SERVICES WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for computer hardware, software and related services, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; WHEREAS, it appears that Convergent Open Systems of Bloomington, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; WHEREAS, Proposal 1 submitted by Convergent Open Systems contains an apparent error in the computation of training costs, it is clear from the description of the training program proposed, and confirmed in discussions with the bidder, that the error is in the extended cost rather than the detail cost; and WHEREAS, Proposal 1 submitted by Convergent Open Systems contains an irregularity created by the omission of an item from the implementation services cost summary page; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the proposal labeled "Proposal 1" and dated August 8, 1988, of Convergent Open Systems for computer hardware, software and related services is hereby accepted for the items specified in Chapters IV, V, VI, and VII of the City's request for proposals dated July 11, 1988; 2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for the above mentioned products and services with Convergent Open Systems of Bloomington, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for an amount not to exceed $183,098.00; 3. That, based on the proposals received, the City declines to award a contract for the maintenance services specified in Chapter VIII of the City's request for proposals; 4. That, based on the clear intent of the bidder as reflected in the training program descriptions, the irregularity created by the discrepancy between the detail and extended training costs is waived; 5. That, based on the staff recommendation that the implementation services item missing from the cost summary page be deleted from the contract, the irregularity created by this discrepancy does not affect the validity of the bid; 6. That the city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder, Convergent Open Systems, Bloomington, Minnesota, shall be retained until a contract has been signed. T -7 iu Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of September, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 6700 Portland Ave. So. Rlchtield', Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612 -869 -7521 Ad Con, Inc. 16191 Round Lake Blvd. Andover, Mn. 55304 M N NEAO DA MANAGER DATE THE CITY 0 EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEOERAL CERTIFICATE ASSSTET) AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. Nn 0024SIT). *N. UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT /RICK DISCOUNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate #1 payment for 1988 concrete sidewalk, curb & gutter repair 30,227.30 wee. FUND DEPT. $US. S.L. R[I. CA. ENC /RV VENDOR N10S. M AMOUNT o ,�2 /30 ��G 703 k.3G L'— 7, z7-�r boa o a 1130 30 Woo elego . OF CHECK 30,227.30 OA E 9/12/88 CHECK M0. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: yd4%d")m REPORT NO. CONTRACT NO. WORK COMPLETED CLASS OF WORK:. BID NUMBER: 88 -12 1 2468 90 % 1988 CONCRETE SIDEWALK & CURB & GUTTER REPAIR TO: CITY COUNCIL Submitted herewith is statement of payments to be made on this project. 1. TOTAL OF CONTRACT ITEMS TO DATE 33,585.89 2. RETAINED PERCENTAGE C 10 %) 3,358.59 3. TOTAL ALLOWABLE PAYMENT TO DATE 30,227.30 4. TOTAL PAYMENTS INCLUDING ALL PREVIOUS REPORTS 0 5. TOTAL PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR THIS REPORT 30,227.30 6. TOTAL FUNDS ENCUMBERED 18,342.80 7. AVAILABLE FUNDS BROUGHT FORWARD 18,342.80 8. ADDITIONS OR DEDUCTIONS See Attached Sheet 13,974.88 9. BALANCE NOW AVAILABLE 32,317.68 10. APPROVED FOR PAYMENT THIS REPORT 30,227.30 11. BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD 2,090.38 This is to'certify that: The amount of $ 30,227.30 is due and payable to P AdCon Contractor Certified Correct by Title Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND MONTHLY ESTIMATE DATE September 7,1988 )=1yXxWxV=Xd110.CITY BID NO. 88 -12 CONTRACT NO. 2468 ESTIMATE NO. 1 CLASS OF WORK 1988 CONCRETE SIDEWALK & CURB & GUTTER REPAIR To the City Council of Richfield: This is to certify that the following work has been performed on the above project in accordance with the plans and specifications which govern this project and including previous estimates. CONTRACT DATE: July 11,1988 WORK STARTED: 8 -1 -88 WORK COMPLETED: 9 -2 -88 STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED iJ A'1'r; 'S _DATE -" Sr. Engineering �Te h . DATE C i t ngi Eneer UNIT CONTRACT TOTALS TO DATE ITEM kO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT GANTITY AMOUNT 04.501 Remove Concrete Curb L.F. 7.00 300 2,100.00 891.0 6,237.00 or Curb or Gutter 04.501 Remove Concrete Curb or L.F. 7.00 50 350.00 36.2 253.40 Curb and Gutter at Catch Basin 04.503 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.F. .80 5,781 4,624.80 7313.4 5,850.72 ,21.501 4" Concrete Walk S.F. 1.40 5,535 7,749.00 6307.8 8,830.92 ). 501 6" Concrete Walk S.F. 1.50 246 369.00 918.7 1,378.05 131.501 Concrete Curb or L.F. 9.00 300 2,700.00 1190.0 0,710.00 Curb and Gutter 31.501 Concrete Curb or L.F. 9.00 50 450.00 36.2 325.80 Curb and Gutter at Catch Basin 1 CERTIFIED CORRECT BY: , TOTALS $ 18,342.80 $33,585.89 iJ A'1'r; 'S _DATE -" Sr. Engineering �Te h . DATE C i t ngi Eneer The following additions are to be charged as indicated: $3,387.00 - Charged to water for curb replacement at water main breaks. 4836 $5,885.30 - Veterans Memorial Park for removing drives to houses that were removed. CP8022 $3,142.80 - Redo drive at 66th and Newton Avenue, charge to engineering. 4210 $1,559.78 - Raise drive at 6544 Newton Avenue and alley on Vincent Avenue South of 66th Street to keep out storm water charged to storm sewer. 4880 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employee. 612- 869 -7521 • Bituminous Roadways,Inc. • 2825 Cedar Avenue • Minneapolis, Mn. 55407 DEPARTMENT NEAO OATV MANAGER DATE THE CITY 0 EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OR ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE ASSSTlT) AMC STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. NQ 0094017). lu N. UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT !RICE 09OWNT AMOUNT COOS AMOUNT Estimate #1 & Final payment for 1988 sealcoating project 50,624.21 ewe: FUND DEPT. SUS. S.L. Mr. E. or CA. ENC /RV VENDOR PROS. 0--AMOUNT . OP ONECK 50,624.21 "TIE 9/12/88 CHECK NQ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: bMVR0WM)h1CK CITY BID NO. 88 -4 REPORT NO. 1 CONTRACT NO. #2467 WORK COMPLETED 100 % CLASS OF WORK:. 1988 SEALCOATING PROJECT TO: CITY COUNCIL Submitted herewith is statement of payments to be made on this project. I. TOTAL OF CONTRACT ITEMS TO DATE 50,624.21 2. RETAINED PERCENTAGE 0 %1 O 3. TOT. AL ALLOWABLE PAYMENT TO DATE 50,624.21 4. TOTAL PAYMENTS INCLUDING ALL PREVIOUS REPORTS 0 5. TOTAL PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR THIS REPORT 50,624.21 6. TOTAL FUNDS ENCUMBERED 69,590.72 7. AVAILABLE FUNDS BROUGHT FORWARD 69,590.72 8. ADDITIONS OR DEDUCTIONS 0 9. BALANCE NOW AVAILABLE 69,590.72 10.- APPROVED FOR PAYMENT THIS REPORT 50,624.21 Ii. BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD 18,966.51 This is to certify that: The amount of $ 501624.21 is due and payable to Bituminous Roadways Inc. I Certified Correct by Title — 7 --w-- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND MONTHLY ESTIMATE DATE tMX9AW9i )j'X *4X CITY BID NO: 88 -4 CONTRACT NO. # 2467 ESTIMATE NO. 1 CLASS OF WORK 1988 )EALCOATING PROJECT To the City Council of Richfield: This is to certify that the following work has been performed on the above project in accordance with the plans and specifications which govern this project and including previous estimates. CONTRACT DATE: March 24, 1988 WORK STARTED: 8-1 -88 WORK COMPLETED: 8 -19 -88 STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED UATZ DATE Sr. Engineering Tech. 4114 DATE City gi per UNIT CONTRACT TOTALS TO DATE ITEM kO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT GANTITY AMOUNT 56.505 Bituminous.Mat.: Emulsified Asphalt Cationic CRS -2 'al. .644 63,190 40,694.36 42,356.00 27,277.26 56.507 Seal Coat Aggregate Class C, FA -2 Furnished by City (see spec. provided) Tons 4.531 1,720 7,793.32 1,023.42 4,637.12 ­507 Seal Coat Aggregate Class C, FA -2 Furnished by Contractor.. (see spec. provided) Tons 12.266 1,440 7,850.20 1,358.4 16,662.99 56.512 Screening of City Furnished Aggregate Tons 2.00 1,720 3,440.00 1,023.42 2,046.84 ZERTIFIED CORRECT BY: , TOTALS $69,590.75 $50,624.21 UATZ DATE Sr. Engineering Tech. 4114 DATE City gi per CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield', Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612- 869 -7521 Gorham -Dien Mechanical • DEPARTMENT HEAD DA d'°�. DAYS THE CIT4V 0 EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE A306727) AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. NO 00!4117). OU n UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate #1 payment for AHA Phase Fire & Life Safety Renovations CP799. 42,525.00 ammo FUND DEPT. SUS. S.L. REF. E. CA. ENC /RV VENDOR PROS. • AMOUNT AMT. OF CHECK 42,525.00 DATE 9/12/88 CHECK N0. 0 •ErsEA A.I.A. RECD DATE 21 Aug 88 PRO,• 8628 C -2 To: .Sister Mary.Walter. Duval. Academy of the Holy Angels '6600 Nicdll6t Ave: S: ' -Richfield, MN .55423. . . !IE:•Phase•II.- Fire &.Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels WE ARE SENDING YOU SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ ATTACHED PRINTS ❑ UNDER SEP. COVER U OTHER ® VIA ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE 6 RESUBMIT ❑ DATE DESCRIP110N 2' 21'Aug 88 Application'for Payment'No: 1' eri-o rom�nee -tQ 7- 29 -88. . . . . . . Gorham -Oien Mechanical Appli.cation.for Payment.No..l.approved•per job inspection and - certification of Emanuelson - Podas, Inc. dated 8- 11 -88. COPIES TO: OWNER ❑ GEN . CONT. ❑ mECH. Eng. E /Podas® ELEC. Contractor OTHmSr. Frieda SIGNED: �o Kal enze T. Martinson- - X THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 612 - 881 -5610 200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Ninna.fio-i&. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612- 869 -7521 • NewMech Companies MEN? HEAD DA YANAKR DATE TN[ // ITY 0 EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF ALL FEDERAL EXCISE TAX[! (FEDERAL CERTIFICATE ASSSTIT) AND STATE SALES TAX (ACCT. NQ 0014417). QU K UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate #3 payment for AHA Phase I Fire & Life Safety Renovations CP799 10,399.50 3.1" FUND DEPT. SW. S.L. Mr. E. CA. EMC /RV VENDOR PROs. • AMOUNT AN'T. OF CNECX 10,399.50 DATE 9/12/88 CNECX NQ I MENNA A.I.A. IETTEI OF T1111 oAtE 22 August.88. NROJ. 8628 C -1 . . . TO: Si ster. Mary .Walter. Duval. Academy of the Holy Angels '6600 Ni.co'1 l et Ave: S. Ri chfi.el d, MN .55423. . IE:.Phase .I -. Fire .& Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Hdly Angels WE ARE SENDING YOU SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ FRONTS ❑ OTHEIR ATTACHED UNDER SEP. COVER ❑ VIA ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE d RESUMT ❑ COMES DATE DESCRIPTION 7/29(88 Application .for• Payment No- 3 . . . . . . . . . NewMec ompnies� . Pe ' d from •6/22/88 thru 7429488 . _ . . . . Amount $10,399.50 REMARKS: Application No. 3 approved per job inspectigns and recommendation .of.Emanuelson- Podas,,InG. dated 8/11/88. SI'!! iOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 30 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD COMES TO: OW40 ❑ GEN . CONT. ❑ IECH.Eng. E -P ELEC. ❑ OTwSr. Frieda Kalenze NewMech" X T. Martinson X 612- 881 -5610 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 CITY OF RICHFIEILD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 208 Agenda, September 12, 1988 Issue Statement: Recognition of Mr. Larry Krepala, 6913 Upton Avenue, for lifesaving action during a fire on August 27, 1988. Background: On August 27th at about 1:25 p.m., Mr. Krepala saw smoke coming from the McVary residence at 6908 Thomas Avenue. He told his wife to call 911 and went to assist the McVary's. When Mr. Krepala entered the front door the smoke was at shoulder level. The fire had broken through a bedroom door and was consuming the hallway. Mr. McVary was on the living room couch, unable to walk because of a hip injury. Mrs. McVary had attempted to pull him off of the couch but could not. Mr. Krepala found her in the middle of the living room, disoriented by the smoke. Mr. Krepala guided Mrs. McVary out the front door and returned for Mr. McVary. He had to crawl into the house to stay beneath the smoke. He was guided to the couch by Mr. McVary's voice and pulled him out of the house. Mr. and Mrs. McVary were checked by the paramedics and were not hospitalized. Recommended Motion: The Council recognize Mr. Krepala's lifesaving feat and award him a citation for his action. Basis of Recommendation: Mr. Krepala acted to save his neighbors without regard for his own safety. His quick action before the fire department arrived was instrumental in saving Mr. and Mrs. McVary from perishing in the fire. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion /Decision Mode: Mr. Krepala will be present at the September 12, 1988 City Council meeting to be recognized by the Council for his heroism. Respectfully submitted James . Prosser City anager JDP:sae - '/ ­s, .a -� 'NINO' V -ii it \4 �. IISi ".+� +i��,i� � .� 1_,.. ro .,J i�` -• ,' i y i �`✓ , 1 1r�lli, •� / � gr,�rp ✓ ./ �� ',/ail i _ - 1 ca ca A C U 4J 4- ca N p E to C_ Q) D H a) CL O H (1) H N F� +� L Y O E H c co L m •' I N all p p r-f au co O f1 L J 4_ .. a) _W E 3 "a co N 'o N 'o c 1�4 co c 0 co CY ¢ co -W f--f co E co a J O CD cn ca E rn 1 n �p cm v E W W N co c Z O ¢ `S to > (L) O Y 0 c 4j C3' -0 W > H Z c a) F- H L O p (a P E -f-) co r' (L) U) z z Q a) co c �D J0 J J W CD N a L6 •• O 4- O > -0 N CD W cu L O Z .1 f-1 4- Q_ i _4 M O cn L to •-i H O N CL C C _W U O O H ()•4 O C4- >, Z • 1 4- H =) 4- co O Y H 4-) O O N O _ O U U O >, L co (n W 0) L : LL P co a) > 04 -1-1 N ca co L •H LL •r-f > � J 'o 4-3 1-4 W u c0 1 a) cn V N a) _W NL �� a) L ¢ -W C Q -N H a) 4- .f_r W c co W •r-f •r-I a) CL = cn w 4- ri W W O W C: al L Z ' 1 _ U 2 ••� O U to O 3 >,U 3 > Z --f•4 G w 4-3 O ca Cr L i (1) N 4- () a) S•a ca L C L O cn •H .N 4- 1 / 1. 1 -1 .. Jf-f� 1 of ✓�i'� c �'.t�wY Yi