08-01-88 agenda#�
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 18
August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Charter Review of Nomination Petition Requirements
Background:
At the July 25, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council
directed staff to request Charter review of certain nomination
petition requirements.
The direction was the result of a comment by Larry Wozniczka,
candidate for Ward Two. Mr. Wozniczka indicated that some of his
nominating petition signatures had been ruled invalid.
From the general discussion it appeared the signatures were
invalid because of a Charter requirement unique to Richfield.
That is not the case. State law requires that nomination
petition signers be "eligible voters" (Minnesota Statutes
205.13).
In this particular example, reported by Mr. Wozniczka, the
petition signers had not voted during the last four calendar year
• in any election and were, therefore, ruled invalid signators to
the petition. The reason that these signatures were ruled
invalid was that State Law requires removal of individuals from
the voter registration list if they have not voted in any
election during the four preceding calendar years. The removal
of names from the registration list is not a local requirement,
but rather a State Law requirement (Minnesota Statutes 201.171).
The City Charter requires that the petition be signed by
registered voters. While one could argue that all those eligible
to vote are not necessarily registered voters, from a practical
standpoint the City Charter requirement makes sense. If we were
to have a less stringent requirement, we would be in the position
of attempting to determine eligibility on some standards less
widely accepted and established than State Statute requirements.
Another practical problem is that the City would be in the
position of attempting to determine eligibility to vote for each
petition signator which would require significantly more time and
effort than review of voter registration lists. Therefore, staff
is not recommending that any changes be made to this particular
requirement.
It is also helpful to note that Mr. Wozniczka appeared to be
addressing a separate issue. Specifically, Mr. Wozniczka's
statement, copied verbatim, is attached.
• That statement indicates that it may be helpful for the City
Council to consider that filing for homestead exemption would
serve as qualification for eligibility to vote. This does become
•
problemsome, since not every homestead
the same criteria as registered voter.
?Vf i
exemption signature meets
Finally, a review of this issue by the City Attorney has
indicated a separate problem. The City Charter requires that
candidates for office be registered voters. State Statute does
not make this requirement.
The City Attorney is concerned that the City Charter requirement
may not be supported if challenged in court. Therefore, it is
recommended that this matter be referred to the Charter
Commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not request Charter Commission to change requirements.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the August 1 Study Session agenda
for council discussion.
JDP /eja
Respect ully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City Manager
�J
CITY OF RICHFIELD,.MINNESOTA
Memorandum
DATE: July 27, 1988
TO: James Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ferber, City Clerk.
SUBJECT: Comments of Mr. Wozniczka at the July 25, 1988
City Council Meeting regarding Voter Registration
The following is a transcript of Mr. Wozniczka's comment:
"I filed for council position in Ward 2 last week and there's a
little matter that came up in that time that I think bears a
little of your consideration. One of the signatures I had on
there was for long time property owners and citizens of Richfield
who_-s signature I had acquired and it was rejected because ,
apparently they had not voted in the last four years. I'd like
the council to consider this: those people would have to
annually renew their homestead exemption and I think that ought
to be considered as a qualification to the meaning as registered
voters in the City. So, I'd like the City Council to consider
that and pass it on to whoever makes that sort of determination."
Section 4.04 of the Richfield City Charter states:
"Nomination by Petition. All candidates for elective office
provided for by this charter shall be nominated by petition. The
name of any registered voter of the City shall be printed upon
the ballot as a candidate for an office whenever a petition
signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the
City Clerk in a candidate's behalf ......."
As required by the Charter, the signatures on Mr. Wozniczka's
filing petition (as were other candidate petitions) were checked
against the City's voter registration files. The two signatures
he referred to (husband & wife) were not in the file as
registered voters. A search. of the Hennepin County computer file
of registered voters was also done and verified this fact.
Therefore, these signatures were declared invalid for the purpose
of the nominating petition because they were not signatures of
registered voters. The City Clerk informed Mr. Wozniczka of this
fact and that his filing petition was deficient at that point
since it did not now contain the minimum 10 signatures. Mr.
Wozniczka subsequently obtained additional signatures prior to
the filing deadline, thus obtaining the number required for
filing.
It should be noted that most candidates present signatures in
• excess of the minimum of ten. One other candidate petition had a
non - registered voter signature which was rejected. However, that
candidate still exceeded the required number of valid signatures.
James Prosser,
July 27, 1988
Page 2
City Manager
/-,"- 4�
There are several reasons why a person may not be a registered
voter (including personal choice). One method a person who was a;
registered voter at one time may lose their current registration
is failure to vote in an election during the four preceding years
as required by state statute.
This removal of registration is mandated by Minnesota Statute
201.171:
"FAILURE TO VOTE; REGISTRATION REMOVED. After the close of each
calendar year, the.county auditor shall remove the original and
duplicate registration cards of any voter who has not voted
during the four preceding calendar years in any election,
including but not limited to a school district election where the
permanent voter registration system is used.: Although not
counted in an election, a late absentee ballot shall be
considered a vote for the purpose of continuing registration.
The county auditor shall also make the appropriate changes in the
data base of the central registration system."
An example of the delete report generated by Hennepin County in
fulfilling the provisions of M.S. 201.171 is attached.
Mr. Wozniczka's suggestion regarding a link between homesteading
and voter registration is a matter for the State legislature to
consider. Voter registration laws and procedures are dictated by
Minnesota Statutes and the Secretary of State rules It should
be noted that voter registration procedures in Minnesota are
considered a model for other states.
In my opinion, homestead status does not have any valid
connection with voter registration nor qualification to sign a
nominating petition.
Statutory filing petitions (as opposed to Charter provisions)
provide that petitions must be signed by "eligible voters" who
maintain residence in the district. In reviewing this with other
jurisdictions, the determination of an "eligible voter" can only
be determined by whether the address as submitted is in the
district. This makes it very difficult to determine if the
person is.of legal voting age, whether the person actually did
sign the petition (there is no signature to compare to as in the
case of a voter registration card), or to verify if that person
does live at the address stated.
Similar wording in the Bloomington City Charter led to litigation
regarding validity of signatures on a referendum petition
(attached). They are now proposing a Charter revision to
"Registered Voter" which will be on the ballot this fall.
It is my recommendation that no change be made in tie City
Charter regarding this matter.
• TPF:njs
Attachments
n
LJ
MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS — 1987
preparing the registration forms must be part of the job of appropriate agency
employees.
History: [1987 c 361 s III
201.17 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.17 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33]
201.171 FAILURE TO VOTE; REGISTRATION REMOVED.
After the close of each calendar year, the county auditor shall remove the
original and duplicate registration cards of any voter who has not voted during the
four preceding calendar years in any election, including but not limited to a school
district election where the permanent voter registration system is used. Although not
counted in an election, a late absentee ballot shall be considered a vote for the
purpose of continuing registration. The county auditor shall also make the appropri-
ate changes in the data base of the central registration system.
History: [1973 c 676 s 14, 1981 c 29 art 2 s 20; 1987 c 361 s 12]
201.18 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.18 MS 1980 [Repealed, 1981 c 217 s 11 ]
201.19 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.19 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33]
201.191 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.195 CHALLENGES.
Subdivision 1. Petition; hearing. Upon petition filed with the county auditor,
any voter registered within a county may challenge the eligibility or residence of any
C other voter registered within that county. The petition shall state the grounds for
challenge and be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the challenge is based on
the challenger's personal knowledge. Within five days after receipt of the petition,
the county auditor shall set a date for a hearing on the challenge and notify the
challenger by mail. A copy of the petition and notice of the hearing shall be served
on the challenged voter by the county auditor in the same manner as in a civil
action. The hearing shall be held before the county-auditor or the auditor's designee
who shall then make findings and affirm or dismiss the challenge.
Subd. 2. Appeal. If a challenge is affirmed, the voter whose registration has been
challenged may appeal the ruling to the secretary of state. The appeal shall be heard
within five days but in any case before election day. Upon hearing the appeal the
secretary of state shall affirm or reverse the ruling and shall give appropriate instruc-
tions to the county auditor.
Subd. 3. Hearing procedures. A hearing before the secretary of state shall be
conducted as a contested case and determined in accordance with chapter 14.
History: [1981 c 29 art 2 s 22; 1982 c 424 s 130, 1986 c 444]
201.20 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.20 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33]
201.21 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
201.21 MS 1971 [Repealed, 1973 c 676 s 33]
201.211 COSTS.
The office required to perform the functions and duties of this chapter shall bear
t the costs incurred. If these functions and duties are delegated to another office, that
office shall bear the costs.
History: [1973 c 676 s 16; 1981 c 29 art 2 s 23]
201.22 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 11
45
��.
• 4468
4469 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 205.13
205.11 [Repealed, 1983 c 62 s 12]
205.11 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 11
each statutory city shall
205.12 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
�)vember in every even-
205.12 MS 1974 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70]
r city may, by ordinance
y year, elect to hold the
205.121 NOMINATING PETITIONS; CITIES OF FIRST CLASS; SIGNATURES.
a
er each odd - numbered
A nominating petition filed on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city
o
re that date provided for
of the first class shall be signed by eligible voters who maintain residence in the election
tall continue hold its
district from which the candidate is to be elected. The number of signers shall equal
sects
i section. When a city
500, or two percent of the total number of individuals who voted in the municipality,
r for the expiration
ward, or other election district at the last preceding municipal general election, which -
time when no municipal
ever is greater.
is extended until the date
History: 1981 c 29 art 7 s 9
on If the change results
election, the two
205.13 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
'c'..ur years and the
for a term of two
205.13 CANDIDATES, FILING.
year election plan, the
Subdivision 1. Affidavit of candidacy. Not more than eight nor less than six weeks
nances regulating initial
before the municipal primary, or before the municipal general election if there is no
ening or lengthening the
municipal primary, an individual who is eligible and desires to become a candidate for
so as to conform as soon
an office to be voted for at the election shall file an affidavit of candidacy with the
subdivision 1. Whenever
municipal clerk. The affidavit shall be in substantially the same form as that in section
immediately shall notify
20413.06, subdivision 1. The municipal clerk shall also accept an application signed by
tange of date. Thereafter
not less than five voters and filed on behalf of an eligible voter in the municipality
lay after the first Monday
whom they desire to be a candidate, if service of a copy of the application has been
it uny�he ordinance is
made on the candidate and proof of service is endorsed on the application being filed.
-
Upon receipt of the proper filing fee, the clerk shall place the name of the candidate
on the official ballot without partisan designation.
' c 337 s 3; 1976 c 44 s 5;
Subd. 2. Notice of filing dates. At least two weeks before the first day to file
affidavits of candidacy, the municipal clerk shall publish a notice stating the first and
last dates on which affidavits of candidacy may be filed in the clerk's office and the
closing time for filing on the last day for filing. The clerk shall post a similar notice at
least ten days before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy.
Subd. 3. Filing fees. Unless the charter of a city provides the amount of the fee
for filing an application or affidavit of candidacy for city office, the filing fee for a
municipal office is as follows:
(a) In first class cities, $20;
(b) In second and third class cities, $5; and
(c) In fourth class cities and towns, $2.
Id in a statutory or home
Subd. 4. Petition in place of fees. A candidate for municipal office may file a
..ed by law or charter to
petition in place of the filing fees specified in subdivision 3. The petition shall meet
ng body of the city
the requirements of section 204B.11, subdivision 2.
o the voters in an
Subd. 5. Nominating petition; cities of the first class. A nominating petition filed
atumber of voters
on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city of the first class shall be signed
Imal election. A question
by eligible voters who reside in the election district from which the candidate is to be
or charter. The election
elected. The number of signers shall be at least 500, or two percent of the total number
t recent municipal general
of individuals who voted in the municipality, ward, or other election district at the last
;lections shall be conduct-
preceding municipal general election, whichever is greater.
iinicipal general election.
Subd. 6. Withdrawal. A candidate for a municipal elective office may withdraw
I be held in statutory cities
from the election by filing an affidavit of withdrawal with the municipal clerk by 12
Dies in elective city offices
o'clock noon of the day after the last day for filing affidavits of candidacy. Thereafter,
no candidate may file an affidavit of withdrawal. •
s 6; 1 c 29 art 7 s 38;
History: 1959 c 675 art 6 s 13; 1976 c 44 s 8, 1978 c 572 s 3; 1981 c 29 art 7 s 10,
1983c62s5; 1985c72s4
M�
HN N AMBUN
TO: Jim Prosser
FROM: John Dean
DATR: July 28, 1988
R8: Nominating Petitions
At the Monday council meeting, Larry Wozniczka indicated to
the council a concern which he had over the ,city requirement that
persons signing nominating petitions be registered voters. This
memorandum is intended to provide you and the council with an ex-
planation of the current requirement, and possible changes which
may be made consistent with state law.
I. What do we currently require.
section 4.04 of the city charter provides for nomination of
candidates for elective office by nominating petition and
requires that such petition be signed by "at least ten reg-
istered voters." A registered voter is a person who has
registered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
201, and who has not had his /her registration terminated by
reason of not voting in any election during the past four
years (Minn. Stat. 5201.171) or for any other reason which
disqualifies the voter or the registration.
Section 4.04 of the city charter sets out the form of the
nominating petition and clearly indicates that the signers
are registered voters
I1. 'What o2tions are available for change.
A. If the City had no charter, the process would be govern -
ed by Minnesota Statutes 5205.13, subdivision 1, which
provides for "an application signed by not lose than
five voters and filed on behalf of an eligible voter."
• The term "voter" is not defined; however► its meaning is
probably more directly related to eligible 3oter than to
registered voter.
r�
Memo to Jim Prosser
July 28, 2988
Page 2
Re: Nominating Petitions
B. Because the City does have a charter, it is free to es-
tablish its own regulations concerning nominating peti-
tions. It is free to limit nominators to registered
or eligible voters, or to use some other criteria which
may have no relationship to whether the nominator has
voted or ever will vote in the city (such as, for exam-
ple: resident).
III. Practical considerations.
The current requirement (registered voter) is an easy one to
administer and also provides some protection for the candi-
date. The City Clerk can easily and quickly check the voter
registration lists to ascertain whether a signer is, in fact,
registered to vote. The candidate can keep a running count
on how many valid signatures are on the petition
Likewise, a requirement such as residency would be'easy to
verify. Water bills, homestead applications, voter registra-
tion, telephone book, tax records and other sources could be
used to verify residency.
• "Eligible voter" status is somewhat more difficult to deter-
mine and cannot readily be determined by information immedi-
ately available to the City Clerk. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 201.014 describes who is an eligible voter:
201.014 ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE.
Subdivision 1. Requiresrents. Except as
provided in subdivision 2, an individual who
meets the following requirements at the time
of an election is eligible to vote. The indi-
vidual must:
(a) Be 18 years of age or olden
(b) Be a citizen of the United States;
and
(c) Maintain residence in Minnesota for
20 days immediately preceding the
election.
Subd. 2. Not eligible. The following
individuals are not eligible to vote. Any
individual:
• (a) Convicted of treason or any felony
whose civil rights have not been
restored;
Memo to Jim Prosser Re: Nominating Petitions
• July 28, 1988
Page 3
(b) Under guardianship of the person; or
(c) round by a court of law to be
legally incompetent.
Obviously, determining compliance with the letter of this
section would impose significant additional burden on the
City Clerk. However, I am informed that in some municipali-
ties having this criteria the City Clerk's examination goes
no further than determining residency.
IV. Issue.
The issue for the Charter Commission and the City Council is
to what extent should participation in the nominating process
be opened or restricted? Should anyone who is a resident be
entitled to participate? Should only those who are eligible
to vote be entitled to participate? Should only those eligi-
ble voters who have also registered to vote be entitled to
• participate?
JBD :kjm
0055ME02.E14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 17
August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Review of draft Request for Proposals for Legal Services
Background:
Attached is a draft Request for Proposal for Legal Services.
Legal services included in the request are General Corporate and
Prosecution services.
The RFP was developed with the assistance of City staff and
Hamline University law professor, Larry Bakken. Larry Bakken is
also the Dean of the School of Administration for Hamline, and a
Council Member for the City of Golden Valley.
The RFP will be mailed to the following:
- attorneys who have indicated an interest to provide
legal services to the City of Richfield.
-firms known to provide general cororate and
prosecution services to other municipalities.
-our current law firm, LeFevere, Lefler.
-firms that have been suggested in the evaluation
• forms mailed to City personnel and Council Members.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item will be placed on the study session agenda for August
1. Suggestions for changes and deletions to the Request for
Proposal should be provided at that time.
If the RFP is approved by the Council at the August 1 meeting,
the request will be mailed to legal firms during the week of
August 1.
JDP /eja
•
Respectful y submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
SECTION I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
• DRAFT THREE 7/29/88
The City of Richfield is accepting proposals for legal services
rendered to the City.
Proposals will be received for two general areas of service:
General Corporate Representation and Prosecution.
Attached are the following:
1. A more detailed description of the services to be
provided in each category.
2. An outline of proposal requirements.
3. A brief analysis of the legal services provided to the
City over the past two years.
A pre - proposal conference is scheduled for at
Written questions may be submitted prior to the meeting by
• In order to insure a fair review and selection process, firms
submitting proposals are specifically requested not to make other
contacts to the City staff or Council Members regarding these
proposals.
is
SECTION II. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
A. All legal firms may submit a proposal to provide one or
both the legal services. However, if a firm wishes to
submit a proposal for both legal services, they must do
so separately.
B. A single proposal addressing more than one service will
not be accepted.
C. Proposals should be submitted to James D. Prosser, City
Manager, City of Richfield. Proposals must be received
no later than 4:30 p.m.
D. All proposals submitted must provide information as
indicated in this request.
1
�7
0
•
� %�
SECTION III. REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS
A. Identify each attorney and support personnel who will
be supplying services for which the City will be
billed.
B. For each person identified, please state (1) their
relevant academic training and degrees; (2) a
description of their prior experience in the areas
covered by your proposal and an estimate of the hours
or percentage of their work in those areas during the
past four years; (3) other background or experience
which may be helpful in evaluating your proposal.
(Background or experience in the areas of municipal
law, zoning, general and public contracting, eminent
domain, real estate, labor and municipally related
litigation will be of special interest in evaluating
proposals.)
C. A description of the proposed allocation of work
between the attorney(s) and support personnel
identified (i.e., who will be the lead attorney and
what work will be handled by junior partners,
associates or paralegals).
D. A statement of which of the areas of legal services
listed in the request for proposals is covered by your
proposal.
E. Your proposal for the dollar amount of fixed and /or
hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for
providing the legal services to the City of Richfield
covered by your proposal. For the hourly fees portion
of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of
each attorney and support personnel. Also state
separately the rate for any firm cost items to be
billed (i.e., photocopying, Westlaw or Lexis fees,
etc.)
F. The names and telephone numbers of three client
references, whom the City may contact. If your firm
has represented any municipalities or governmental
agencies during the last four years, state the name of
that agency, and the name, title and telephone number
of a reference at that agency whom the City may
contact. If your firm has represented such an entity,
but does not wish the City to contact that entity, list
the name of the municipality or agency, and state your
reasons why no contact is requested.
G. The City of Richfield requests monthly billing
statements which (1) itemize the date of services, (2)
identifies the attorney and /or support personnel
providing the services, (3) lists time spent, (4)
0
2
provides a detailed description of the services'
. performed, and (5) states the fees for those services.
If another billing format will be proposed, please
describe that format and provide a sample.
H. Current principal responsibilities for individual
designated as lead attorney.
I. A description of the method of charges for legal
services.
J. A description including organization and flowchart of
the office organization and work process for your firm.
SECTION IV. GENERAL CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES DESCRIPTION
The services required for general corporate matters include, but
are not limited to the following:
A. Attendance at all City Council meetings and other City
or committee meetings as requested.
B. Drafting of ordinances, resolutions and review of
Council minutes..
• C. Codification of City ordinances on a current basis.
D. Meeting with and advising City Manager, Department
Heads, and designated individuals on general legal
matters.
E. Review of municipal contracts for public improvements,
joint powers agreements, construction, purchase of
equipment, etc.
F. Representation of the City in the acquisition of
properties for public improvements, easements, parks,
etc.
G. Representation of the city in condemnation proceedings
for public improvements, redevelopment projects, etc.
H. Representation of the City in labor negotiations,
arbitration and in litigation involving same.
I. Review of documents submitted by bond counsel involving
the issuance of debt related instruments and provide
opinions as required.
J. Research and submission of legal opinions on municipal
• or other legal matters.
3
K. Meeting with the City Manager at least once per month
to review the status of all legal matters before the
City and providing a monthly written status report on
all current litigation and unresolved matters.
L. Providing a legal briefing at least once every six
months to the City staff regarding new or proposed
legislation affecting municipal operations and
activities.
M. Providing on a periodic basis written updates on new
state or federal legislation or judicial holding
impacting upon the City, and suggested actions or
changes in operations or procedures to assure
compliance.
N. Defend the City in all litigation, except in those
cases where insurance companies are required to provide
defense, including but not limited to: (1) Human Rights
Claims; (2) Zoning, permits, administrative actions;
(3) labor matters.
0. Represent City in workers' compensation matters.
P. Review bonds and insurance requirements required by or
for City contracts or activities.
• Q. Attend commission meetings as requested by City
Manager.
SECTION V. PROSECUTION
The services that are required for prosecution services include,
but are not limited to the following:
A. Prosecution of gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor and petty
misdemeanor cases, including traffic violations, DWI
cases, theft, and code violations.
B. Drafting complaints representing the City at court
appearances, including omnibus hearings, pretrial
conferences, court and jury trials, and post- conviction
hearings.
C. Preparation of regular reports of prosecution
activities and staff.
D. Advise and consult with Health Administrator related to
abatement of nuisances and other City code violations.
E. Prepare and litigate lesser civil cases including
• hazardous building actions and conciliation court
matters.
4
F. Meet monthly with City Manager and /or Director of
• Public Safety to review status of legal matters.
0
SECTION VI. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
A. The City intends to award a contract to the proposer(s)
evaluated to be best qualified to perform the work for
the City, cost and other factors considered.
B. Based upon the evaluation, the City Manager will
recommend to the City Council the selection of firm(s)
judged to be the most responsive and responsible
proposer for each position. The actual selection of
the firm(s) and contract awards will be made by the
City Council.
C. The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred
by the proposer including, but not limited to, expenses
associated with the preparation of the proposal,
attendance at interviews, preparation of a cost
proposal or final contract negotiations.
D. The City of Richfield reserves the right to reject any
and all proposals or to request additional information
from all proposers.
SECTION VII. CONTRACT EXECUTION
A. Contract Negotiations.
Notwithstanding a contract award, the City reserves the
right to negotiate the final terms and conditions of
the contract to be executed. Should the City and the
proposer(s) to whom the contract(s) is recommended to
be awarded be unable to mutually agree upon the entire
contract, the City reserves the right to discontinue
negotiations, select another proposer or reject all the
proposals. Upon completion of negotiations agreeable
to the City and the proposer, a contract shall be
executed.
B. Contract Ethics
1. No elected official or employee of the City who
exercises any responsibilities in the review,
approval or implementation of the proposal or
contract shall participate in any decisions which
affects his or her direct or indirect personal or
financial interest.
5
��I'/'
2. It is a breach of ethical standards for any person
• to offer, give or agree to give any City employee or
Council Member, or for any City employee or Council
Member to solicit, demand, accept, or agree to
accept from another person or firm, a gratuity or an
offer of employment whenever a reasonably prudent
person would conclude that such consideration was
motivated by an individual, group or corporate
desire to obtain special, preferential, or more
favorable treatment than is normally accorded to the
general public.
3. The firm(s) shall not assign any interest in this
contract and shall not transfer any interest in the
same without the prior written consent of the City.
4. The firm shall not accept any client or project
which places it in a conflict of interest with its
representation of the City of Richfield. If such a
conflict of interest is subsequently discovered, the
City shall be promptly notified. The firm and its
members shall at all times comport their
representation of the City with the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
5. The City requires affirmative action, and therefore,
the firm(s) selected shall not discriminate under
• the contract against any person in accordance with
federal, state or local regulation.
SECTION VIII. CITY INFORMATION
A. City Organization
The City of Richfield was incorporated in as a
statutory, Plan A city. It has a Council /Manager form
of government. The City provides a full array of
municipal services and general administrative
functions.
1. City Council. The Richfield City Council is the
final review and approval authority regarding all
contracts, payments, plans, improvements, policies,
procedures, and other business of the City. The
City Council, composed of four members and the
Mayor, is the legislative and policy making body of
the City. The Mayor, who presides over the City
Council meetings, is elected at large for a three -
year term. One Council Member is elected at large,
and three represent Wards. Council Members and the
Mayor are elected for four -year terms.
M
•
0
Set forth in the following table is information
pertaining to the City Council:
2. City Manager. The City Manager reviews and
coordinates all matters coming before the City
Council. He is responsible for the implementation
of Council direction and the coordination and
management of City departments on a daily basis.
3. City Staff. The City Manager implements Council
direction through the department heads of five City
departments. For this proposal, the primary
departments are Administration and Public Safety.
These department heads shall act as liaison to the
contracted firms.
7
17
Term Expires
Mayor Steve Quam
December
31,
1990
Council
Member
Edwina Garcia
December
31,
1988
Council
Member
Martin Kirsch
December
3.1,
1988
Council
Member
Ivan Ludeman
December
31,
1988
Council
Member
Michael Sandahl
December
31,
1990
2. City Manager. The City Manager reviews and
coordinates all matters coming before the City
Council. He is responsible for the implementation
of Council direction and the coordination and
management of City departments on a daily basis.
3. City Staff. The City Manager implements Council
direction through the department heads of five City
departments. For this proposal, the primary
departments are Administration and Public Safety.
These department heads shall act as liaison to the
contracted firms.
7
17
El
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 16
August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Background on modification of proposed development at 6945 Penn
Avenue South from a use exclusively for dental offices to general
office use.
Background:
In 1987, Dr. Donald Johnson submitted a plan for the construction
of a 3,800 square foot dental office complex on the vacant land
at 6945 Penn Avenue.
The City Council approved the rezoning to C -1, limited business
district. The HRA agreed to take title from Hennepin County and
sell it, at cost, to Dr. Johnson.
The City has held up the publication of the rezoning until such
time as the developers agreement is signed with the HRA, in order
to control the development of this property if the project is not
carried forward.
Similarly, the HRA will not take title until soil tests, which
will be paid for by Dr. Johnson, give the HRA satisfactory
assurance that no hazardous wastes are present.
• In order to placate the neighbors at earlier public hearings, Dr.
Johnson offered to restrict the property, by covenant in the
deed, to dental office use exclusively . Dr. Johnson has
indicated that lenders are not willing to finance a development
with such a tight restriction and is now requesting that other
professional and general office uses be permitted.
He proposes to retain the same building and site layout as was
approved previously for the three dental offices.
A copy of Dr. Johnson's letter stating his concerns and request
is attached to this report.
Due to the history of neighborhood concern as to the uses for
this property, this proposal for permitted use modification of
the property was presented to the Planning Commission in June.
Although several neighbors expressed their concern, the Planning
Commission did not recommend reconsideration of the zoning.
A final draft of the development agreement with Dr. Johnson is
scheduled to be presented to the HRA on August 15, 1988. The
neighbors will be notified of this meeting and given an
opportunity to express their concern with the change in the
proposed development before the agreement is approved.
Findings:
1. The HRA will consider the development agreement with Dr.
Johnson.
2. The C -1 neighborhood business district permits professional
offices.
3. The layout of the building, exterior design and the parking
area will remain unchanged.
4. The number of parking spaces available on the site would
limit the scope of office use at the site.
5. The applicant would be required to obtain an offstreet
parking permit from the city. This would allow the city an
opportunity to review the parking demand for the site.
Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the August 1 study session agenda for the
City Council to discuss the change in use, and whether a public
hearing to reconsider the previous rezoning to C -1, limited
business district should be conducted.
The HRA is scheduled to consider a development agreement with Dr.
Johnson for the property at 6945 Penn Avenue on August 15, 1988.
Mailed notices to the neighbors will be provided for that
meeting. Published notice is not required.
r
JDP /eja
•
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
lr�
r
4—
%�- -
W
z
W
U
Z
1
Z
,.1
W
lL
m
}
}-
c
W
in
W
CC
Cl
co
a
m
0
a0.
0
0
a
a
a
r
4—
%�- -
W
z
W
U
Z
Cl
_J
Z
,.1
W
lL
m
}
}-
c
W
in
W
CC
Cl
co
a
m
0
a0.
0
0
a
a
a
... -rr-r,
4—
r r rr rr r rr r r r r r r rr r rr r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
J
PENN AVE.
..mss. �.a Pii•-- �J...:�*•J v.
LU
LLJ
co
1 1 =
•
WW
r•. I M%
�� 1. ►�` �► moo■■•
U"Lm ArY
l�_,
till '2Z
I il��l�ll III I�' �^== =;,��' ••'
Q �� f�;, s 1 � �. tom.; � � � •
Y � �it� ��t i,, r . •� :�
C&F, tiro• ' •� ! :•' ' ? C
ri
CFO
fi Or J,
-,-/� - 5
'poi;
C
G..e
n
oh
jss•
S
d
p
I
IN-
t
•ups ,
• : w
y '
r•4U�i�l�
• �I,
r� ;
��
111 • A,\
1
i4.lII�I'
.fir
�1 \I!
�� 1. ►�` �► moo■■•
U"Lm ArY
l�_,
till '2Z
I il��l�ll III I�' �^== =;,��' ••'
Q �� f�;, s 1 � �. tom.; � � � •
Y � �it� ��t i,, r . •� :�
C&F, tiro• ' •� ! :•' ' ? C
ri
CFO
fi Or J,
-,-/� - 5
'poi;
C
G..e
n
oh
jss•
S
d
p
Zoning Map
jd l
69 H ST W. - --
�i
a
z
W
X1.1
O
O
70TH ST. - W.
70 1/2 ST. W.
uj
a
z
z
W
a
W
Cl
W
a
z
0
W
z
== MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE MR -2
Land Use Map
vi
W
a
z
W
W
O
70TH ST. W.
70 1/2 ST. W.
N .
W
Q
z
Z
W
0.
N
W
a
W
J
O
W
Q
3
A
MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE MR -2
QUASI PUBLIC
We Cater To.
Donald A. Johnson, D.D.S.
6425 Nicollet Ave., Suite 342
Richfield, MN 55423
866 -2233
7Z)2AN' Mv. Palribora ,
I 'P6t Lo&*d +o dr&p rL a rzc +0 y Ut st cam,
post +itm bIA +kt a041d6L at 4u 04M)741 j eo»�Pl ssi"
h-\e e-h h� nK 14AAt. Z$, I q U . T wxdd 1; et +o brrn$
+o date CU A +o AisCass a, new dew opment
As 6NK rQcat , M� or�aind pl"s eatA& -FO v
�;h�Q - stay bail fh WN.LJd
p� W DO S foot a - - 4)t Gtr"
be oce red b n1 se�� a►�dl two offer olenfistS• The
deSi v� amd O� *he b ll, ;I A
rem& A u n (c`ha
yyt ti vlG1,N C.i h
ih rivy► Z ha�uc. pu4,- d PQr a,�+ent'
�►e ry tct oNnd� h� -�o� �'� �'s si �
)f no's cHnd
+Oo � Ol �vY SrnGi�l�.t v
e�-�Act hg abom
� A --ter. y� o!r��U� .
+wev►�
• � -b o�Y me �. Cvyttin eat covhw��itmP�t'
wQg w>>I�K � Ike )ehder h e we-OeY, flocs hAW r4A-
4y- �;rarcty� �
ttl LA se (i.e. demo.► o -cep
reset V CIA �
a Their � d,c,coc�d for t'he b�,idcn dear
n 8
i S +)ja� W i t%l vA0 r rnat 4"tA.r n D vtr o-T-
w; � �e t; rn► �e.dl �s E >how i nd�ed �'ha�' -�'h�re
Donald A. Johnson, D.D.S.
•6425 Nicollet Ave., Suite 302
Richfield, MN 55423
W -2233
We Cater To
m
CO�i`la�C�►S
CoWA evyl be l p*n� periods o�- vaca m t . -r a s,
0+ CouYse) woc-c-l.d Mea h loss &f re►)W i nc&� ap'A
?�ev,i;al �pYoble"s in Sat si6�n� the ►'tor} fie
CD 1'Y+w►� tt W►ev1� .
o+ these emerns , -t-he l e nc�r InA.s
Y' u�sted that au� pra�essjaviQe and ererv�,e o -ffice use
• +o broaden tt e QVai)Abi I
1p berm �t�edl � r ord eY n
p-� YpS G�► VQ +ev10u�'1'S. I - j-6 4he -Firm loe l i e f of b +h
Pende
i aid ►�, se tf 1-hat n o re +ai,) o wt let u se- Of
+tie r �
+he lot"- IAXA w�u td be atlowQd u►�d er an, ei rCj4mS+4ne -&.
• re55114 t'e oa.Q. +o Co�nato uc+ and A%linfabl
a bw; dhr i-ha� i s cor�ra i blc w•.t+h }-s hPi�hborhv
I Y\ bep i-V\ AYTC ) i ieci Arl paid use a Y, d o� e ma t
h borhop�d omot m self Car) 1009 u)7&7" with neat pride.
e� Will m c oust
• w, sinceYe hoe +hAt +he. Gl t e
�+ i s p r gear
e L-1- se of bcu ld� , 1�e cause
allow +his- �,�a-t- the lender will
4-110 wi-f'Ytdu�" -N'>; 5 a ecorr»od a# � w r +o h4- pm
• the i v' Cori rn i +1 rr+e�t. �� 3-h � s Q e � n . � +h � s
w1}hd� s ent a d�.fficKit geav, f d� 9
T . Cep Aafi Navin pinAnC� ettWd not be foAnd)
e Comm t mfmt fi othev CAT .
901 c,i U�ouad N Kmab)e p
owed �h�, pro je amd f1m Plannin � commiS5 011
y x'10 e -tom �
i nd t •s to be G VW-S lab e re cscst
Yr�PsmbeYs w roCeed immecuote)d- with
cJdV1
e4,1- r
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item #1
Case #87 -RZ -1
Agenda of April 28, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for a rezoning of property at 6941 -45
Penn Avenue.
Background:
Mr. Donald A. Johnson, a dentist, has requested that the city
initiate a rezoning of the property at 6945 Penn Avenue from MR -'
2, multiple residence to C -1, limited business. The property is
currently a vacant lot and Mr. Johnson wishes to construct a one
story, 31800 square foot dental office on the site. He, and two
other dentists would occupy the space. A preliminary site plan
and perspective drawing of the proposed office building are
attached for your information.
This site was rezoned from single family residential to
multifamily residential in 1977. Prior to that there existed a
nonconforming plant, nursery, retail sales area on the corner.
Since the 1977 rezoning action, the city has reviewed a number of
different plans to develop a multifamily structure on the site
and has approved a number of variances to allow development to
occur on that site. None of these projects have been able to
move forward. The property subsequently has become tax
delinquent and is currently owned by the State of
Minnesota /Hennepin County. The County is considering auctioning
the property off through their normal tax sale process. The
city's HRA, at one time, considered purchasing the property for a
housing project, but decided not to proceed.
City ordinances indicate that rezonings can be initiated in
either of two ways. First, a rezoning can be initiated if a
petition is submitted which contains the signatures of at least
50% of the owners of property and at least 50% of the property
within-350 feet of the site to be rezoned. The second method
provides that the City Council can initiate a rezoning. In this
case Mr. Johnson does not own the property and it would be
difficult to obtain the signature of the owner because it is
owned by the State of Minnesota /Hennepin County. Mr. Johnson
does not want to proceed with the acquisition of the property
#1� ` i
unless he knows that the property can be rezoned to allow him to
develop the dental office on the site. For that reason Mr.
• Johnson has asked that the City Council initiate the rezoning
process. On March 23rd, the City Council initiated the rezoning
process and referred the matter to the Planning commission for
review and recommendation.
Mr. Johnson has also requested that the city or the HRA purchase
the property from the County. He would then purchase the
property from the City or HRA. The city attorney's office has
indicated that the city could not purchase the property and sell
it to Mr. Johnson, but the HRA could. The HRA on March 16th
indicated they are agreeable to purchasing the property if Mr.
Johnson signs an agreement with the HRA in which he agrees to
purchase the property from the HRA at cost. The advantage to Mr.
Johnson in dealing with the HRA is that he does not have to bid
at an auction for the property. According to state statutes, the
HRA will have -to create a 2 parcel redevelopment project to do
this. This has not been done yet. Also in accordance with state
statutes the Planning Commission will have to review the purchase
and disposition of the property by the HRA for conformance with
the city's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the
C City Council approve an ordinance to rezone the property at 6941-
45 Penn Avenue from MR -2, multiple residence to C -1, limited
• business.
It is further recommended that the Planning Commission pass the
attached resolution finding the acquisition and disposition of
the property by the HRA to be consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan.
Basis of Recommendation: -
1. This property is vacant and has been vacant for a number of
years. The development of the site, as proposed, will add to
the tax base of the city.
2. A number of proposed multifamily developments have failed for
economic reasons.
3. The site is on Penn Avenue which is a heavily traveled
arterial roadway which would also indicate that some
intensification of use might be proper.
4. The proposal would be "spot zoning ". The site is not
contiguous to another commercial zoning district. The site
is currently zoned MR -2 which is also a "spot zone ". The type
of development being proposed would be compatible with the
{ surrounding single family neighborhood if proper screening and
buffering is provided.
&t,/, - A�
5. The city's comprehensive plan indicates that the site
should be developed as medium density buffer uses. The plan
indicates that the existing MR -2 and the proposed C -1 are
compatible zoning districts in the medium density buffer
areas. The plan also indicates that principle uses should
be single family residential, duplexes, and existing
convenience commercial. Neither the proposed dental office
nor an eight unit multifamily residence allowed under the
existing zoning would be consistent with the principle uses
listed in the plan.
6. Mr. Johnson has obtained signatures of a majority of the
owners of the property within 300 feet of the site to be
rezoned (see attached petition and map).
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to recommend denial of
the re;oning request and to pass a resolution finding that the
acquisition and disposition of the property by the HRA would not
be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled before the
Planning Commission on April 28, 1987. Mailed notice of this
hearing has been provided to property owners within 350 feet of
the site. First reading consideration by the Council has been
tentatively scheduled for May 11, 1987. Second reading and the
Council public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for May 26,
1987.
Respectfully submitted,
RJ /jls
•
Rick
Jopke
City
Planner
RJ /jls
•
. tjT
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 15
Workshop August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Discussion as to whether to amend the city code to prohibit the
parking of utility trailers.in front and side yards.
Background• w
The Public Safety Department has received complaints of one or
two instances where utility trailers have been parked for long
periods of time (months) in the front of their home or in their
side yards which has disturbed neighbors. The issues are:
- Trailers of this nature can be unsightly.
- City ordinances do not specifically address the issue.
The ordinance regulates trailers, but is preceded by a
discusssion on trucks and tractor trailers.
The City Attorney is hesitant to interpret this section
to include trailers of the nature under consideration.
(Ref: City ord. 1320.03 attached.)
• - City ordinance 1305.27, Subd. 5 Prohibits parking of
motor vehicles in front yards except in driveways. Motor
vehicles are defined as self propelled which excludes
utility trailers.
- City ordinance 1325 deals with recreational vehicles and
they are restricted to parking in:
a. Rear or side yard.
b. Not closer than three (3) feet of a building.
c. On an established driveway and not closer than
twelve (12) feet of the curb line.
d. Can be stored anywhere on a lot for not more than
48 hours.
Recommendations:
Staff is seeking Council direction on how to deal with this
issue.
Recommendation /Alternatives:
While it does not appear that the problem is wide spread, it is
demonstrated that uitility trailers parked in front yards is
somewhat inconsistent with our other ordinances.
•
• The Council's options could be:
- Do nothing as the issue at this time is isolated to a few
areas.
- Revise 1320.03 to include a definition of utility
trailers which would prohibit them from parking anywhere
for more than two hours. This course of action might be
a little too restrictive since it could affect a large
number of people.
- Revise 1305.27 to include a definition of utility
trailers, which would prohibit them from parking in front
yards except in established driveways. This would help,
but does not get them out of front yards.
- Revise ordinance 1325 dealing with recreational vehicles
to include a definition of utility trailers.
This would require them to be parked in:
a. Rear or side yard.
b. Not closer than three (3) feet of any building.
•
C. In an established drive, but at least twelve (12)
feet from the curb.
d. Would allow them anywhere on the lot for up to 48
hours.
e. Would also allow the council to grant variances.
Alternative Recommendations:
Direct staff to conduct research on the issue - such as:
- Review other communities ordinances.
- Work with City Attorney on a "Richfield" ordinance.
- Continue to evaluate the problem.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the August 1 study session agenda
for discussion purposes.
R e_ fully Submitted
mes D. Prosser,
ty Manager
JDP:eja
C]
Richfield City Code
. Section 1320. Parking: outside storage.
1320.01
1320.01. Declaration of .nuisance. The outside parking or outside storage, on
or near residence district properties, or vehicles, materials, supplies or
equipment not customarily used or needed for use in connection with the occupan-
cy of residential property for residence purposes, is found to create a nuisance
and detrimental influence upon the public health, safety, prosperity, good order
and general welfare in such district, including obstruction of view on streets
and on private properties, bringing unhealthful and noisome odors and materials
into residential neighborhoods, creating a cluttered. and otherwise unsightly
areas, preventing the full use of residential streets for residential parking,
intgoducing commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising
signs are otherwise prohibited, and otherwise adversely affecting residential
property values and neighborhood patterns.
1320.03. Unlawful parking. It is unlawful for any person owning, driving or in
charge of a vehicle of any of the types hereinafter specified to cause or permit
such vehicle to be parked or to stand continuously for more than two hdurs on
any residence property or on any public street in the city. This prohibition
applies to the following vehicles and other similar vehicles.
(a) any bus designed to carry more than nine persons.
(b) any motor truck or pickup truck having a capacity of one ton or more.
• (c) any tractor, truck - tractor, truck - trailer or any type of trailer.
1320.05. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following vehicles
(a) a motor truck, pickup truck or similar vehicle being used by a public
utility, moving company, or similar company, which - is actually being used to
service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle;
(b) a vehicle which is actually making a pickup or, delivery - at the loca-
tion where it. is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the period of
time reasonably necessary to make such pickup or delivery and in excess of the
two hour limit shall be unlawful; or
(c) -Recreational vehicles and equipment.
1320.07. Unlawful storage: special permit. It is unlawful for a person
owning, keeping, driving or in charge of any house trailer, mobile home, air-
plane, construction or home- occupation machinery, equipment or supplies, or
other machinery, equipment, supplies or materials not customarily used or needed
in connection with the occupancy of residential property for residence purposes,
to cause or permit the same to be stored outside of a building on any residen-
tial zoning district property for a total of more than 30 days during any
calendar year without first obtaining a permit to do so in accordance with this
section.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 14
Workshop, August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Discussion relating to parking of Tractor trailers in public,
school and private parking lots throughout the community.
Background:
Currently, several tractor trailers are parking in City, school
and privately owned parking lots.
Several citizens have complained about this to Public Safety.
However, the current ordinance lacks specificity to deal with the
issue:
- Section 1320.03 of the City Code says in substance that
vehicles of this nature cannot park for more than two hours
on any street or residence property.
Section 1320.05 provides for exceptions to 1320.03, which
seem reasonable.
The real issue is not the two hour limitation, or trucks on
public streets, but is instead:
- The current city ordinance does not address the parking of
• trucks on public and private property.
- Trucks /trailers are parking in these locations overnight
and on weekends. In other words, these parking lots are
being used to store trucks /trailers.
Recommendation:
Although no formal action need be taken at this time, staff is
seeking council direction on how this issue might be addressed.
Options:
The following options are available:
1. Preparation of an ordinance amendment which would
include private, City owned and school district owned
parking lots in the definition of the current ordinance.
This would then restrict parking to a maximum of two
hours.
2. Preparation of an ordinance that gives Public Safety the
authority to enforce laws on non -City owned property
provided an agreement is signed between the owner of the
property and the City. The owner of the property,
however, would still have to initiate what they want
enforced and post it. They would also have to assume
liability (i.e., unpaid towing expenses, etc.).
• 3. Do nothing. Leave the ordinance as is; as the problem,
at least at this time, is not significant enough to
warrant an ordinance change.
Alternative Recommendations:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
At the August 1 study session,
whether an ordinance limiting
and public parking lots should
JDP /eja
the City Council should discuss
truck /trailer parking in private
be prepared.
iul ly submitted,
i� mes D. Prosser
ty Manager
. i
Richfield City Code 1305.17
1305.17. Manner of parking. Subdivision 1. General rule. The driver of a
vehicle intended to park at the curb or any street or highway, at a place about
to be vacated by another vehicle, shall stop back of such parking space and wait
until said vehicle has vacated the parking space. The person desiring to park
shall then move his vehicle to a place immediately in front of the parking space
and back into it and the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear
shall yield the right-of-way to that person. In case there is no one in posi-
tion immediately in front of the empty parking space who is prepared to back
into it, the driver of an approaching vehicle may head into the parking space
without backing, provided the parking space is large enough .to permit such
maneuver.
Subd. 2. Vehicles backed to the curb: loading and unloading. No vehicle
shall be backed to the curb in the commercial zones to load or unload, except by
permit from the director of public safety. Vehicles used for the transportation
of merchandise or materials may back into the curb to take on or discharge loads
when the owner of such vehicle holds a permit granting him such privilege. Such
permit shall be either in the possession of the driver or on the vehicle itself
at the time such vehicle is backed against the curb. Violation of any special
terms or conditions contained in the permit a violation of this subsection.
1305.19. Display of vehicles for sale. It is unlawful to park or place any
vehicle on a street or highway or on any private parking lot in order to display
such vehicle for sale or exchange., vehicle is deemed to be displayed in
violation of this section when found standing on any street or highway, or
private parking lot, and bearing any sign or notice indicating that it is for
sale or exchange.
1305.21. Maintenance and repairs. Except in the case of emergency, no person
shall wash, grease, repair or. otherwise perform maintenance work upon any
vehicle when such vehicle is located on any street or highway.
1305.23. Tampering with parked vehicles. No person may tamper with, molest,
damage or set in motion any vehicle standing on any street or highway without
the consent of the owner or driver of such vehicle. If the city manager finds
it necessary, for purposes of facilitating street maintenance operations, to
move any such vehicle, he may do so to the extent necessary to facilitate such
operations.
1305.25. Specific .regulations: illegal Barking and stopping. No person may `
stop, stand or park a vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the di-
rections of a police officer or traffic control device in any of the following
places:
(a) on a sidewalk or boulevard between sidewalk and roadway;
(b) in front of a public or private driveway or alley or within five feet
of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street
or highway;
• (C) within an intersection;
Richfield City Code
1305.25, (d)
(d) within ten feet of a fire hydrant; provided that this does not prevent
the parking or taxicabs in taxicab stands established by the council within ten
feet in either direction.of a fire hydrant;
(e) on a crosswalk;
(f) within 20 feet of a crosswalk at any intersection;
(g) within 30 feet upon the approach of any flashing school signal, stop
sign, traffic - control signal or school sign at the side of a roadway;
(h) between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within 30 feet of
points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless a
different length is indicated by signs or marking;
(i) within a designated or marked bus stop;,.
(j) within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing; '
(k) within 20 feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station and on the
side of a street opposite the entrance of any fire station within 75 feet of
said "entrance when properly sign posted;
(1) alongside or opposite any'street excavation or obstruction when such
stopping, standing or parking would obstruct traffic;
• (m) along the curb side of street adjacent to any school property from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on days when school is in session;
(n) on the roadway side of any vehicle p topped or parked at the edge or
the curb of a street;
(o) upon any bridge or approach or other elevated structure upon a street
or highway or within a street or highway tunnel, except otherwise provided by
ordinance;
(p) at any place so as to block a fire escape or exit from any building;
(q) at any place where temporary signs prohibit parking as long as such
signs are in place;
(r) on any public street or highway, at the same location, for more than
48 hours in succession;
(s) on any public property, including parks, playgrounds and school
grounds and including marked and improved parking areas on public property
during times when parking in such parking areas is either prohibited or is
otherwise limited by council resolution and such prohibition or limitation is
conspicuously posted in the parking area;
(t)
upon
the improved or
traveled
portion of
any public alley except at
•
locations
where
such parking is
permitted
by official
signs or markings;
Richfield City Code 1305.25, (u)
• (u) on any part of marked and improved parking areas on public property
other than marked or lined parking spaces; and
(v) in any area designated by the council and posted a a special no
parking zone, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to police
vehicles, fire vehicles, ambulances and other emergency vehicles, or a vehicle
which displays the certificate or insignia issued by the Minnesota department of
public safety pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 169.345 or 168.021.
1305.27. Additional prohibitions. Subdivision 1. Moving Parked vehicle. No
person may move a vehicle not owned by such person into any prohibited area or
away from a curb or side of street such distance as is unlawful.
Subd. 2. Camping vehicles.. No person may for camping purposes leave or
park a house trailer on or within the limits of any street or highway or on any
street or highway right -of -way except where 'signs are erected designating the
place as a camp site.
Subd. 3. Police order. No person may stop or park a vehicle on a street
or highway when directed or ordered to 'proceed by any peace officer invested by
law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
Subd. 4. Handicapped parking. No person-may park, obstruct or occupy with
a motor vehicle any parking space, on public or private property, designated and
posted as parking for handicapped persons pursuant to the state building code
• unless the vehicle has prominently displayed upon it an insignia or certificate
issued by the division of motor vehicles in the state department of public
safety pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 169.345(3).
Subd. 5. Front yards. No person may park or place any motor vehicle in
the front yard area of any lot within the city, except in established driveway
areas as and parking areas permitted by this code; and locations where the
parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment is permitted by this
city zoning code.
1305.29. School safety patrolmen. The director of public safety may appoint
school safety patrolmen, designated as such, who serve without compensation.
Patrolmen shall be appointed from the student bodies of public and private
schools within the -city. The director of public safety shall also designate the
streets upon which school safety patrolmen have the power to regulate traffic.
Patrolmen shall be subordinate to and shall obey all the orders of any regular
municipal peace officer. No school safety patrolman shall function unless he is
equipped with the proper "school stop" hand signal. Such patrolmen are au-
thorized to regulate traffic of all kinds on designated streets when they are
properly equipped and act within the terms of their appointments.
-4 �___ f —
i
Richfield City Code 1325.01
Section 1325. Parking: recreational vehicles.
1325.01. Declaration of purpose. The standards established for recreational
vehicles and equipment in this section are designed to regulate their storage
and commercial use and to protect the 'health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The standards are established to promote the safe use, storage and
parking of recreational vehicles and equipment and to eliminate those conditions
or misuses which are unsafe and cause deterioration of property and property
values.
1325.03. Definitions. The term "recreational vehicles and equipment" means
travel trailers, including those which telescope or fold down, chassis mounted
campers, house cars, motor homes, tent trailers, slip -on campers, converted
buses and converted vans:
(a) Travel trailers, chassis mounted campers, house cars, motor homes,
tent trailers, slip -on campers, converted buses, converted van and units that
are designed and used for human living quarters and meeting the following
qualifications:
(1) are not used as the residence of the owner or occupant;
(2) are used for temporary living quarters by the owner or occupant
while engaged in recreational or vacation activities;
(3) are self - propelled or towed on the public streets or highways
incidental to such recreational or vacation activities.
(b) Slip -on campers are mounted into a "pick -up truck in the pick -up box,
either by bolting through the floor of the pick -up box or by firmly clamping to
the side of the pick -up box.
The term includes snowmobiles and snowmobile trailers, boats and boat trailers,
and all terrain vehicles and all terrain vehicle trailers; the term does not
include mobile homes or house trailers as defined in Minnesota Statutes, sec -
tion 168.011, subdivision 8.
1325.05. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. General rule. Recreational vehicles
and equipment may be parked or stored in —a residential zoning district or in
portions of planned unit development districts designated for residential uses <
as follows:
(a) on any rear or side yard of a lot except the side yard of a corner lot
adjacent to the street.
(b) not closer than three feet to any building or structure, including
fences.
(c) in an established driveway of a lot but not closer than three feet to
any building or structure not beyond the lot line and not closer than 12 feet to
the curb line of the street abutting an established driveway.
Richfield City Code 1325.05, Subd. 2
Subd. 2. Loading. A recreational vehicle may be stored on a lot without
regard to the location on the lot for the sole and express purpose of loading
and unloading for a period not in excess of 48 hours.
Subd. 3. Slide -in pickup campers. Unmounted slide -in pickup campers must
be stored no higher than 20 inches above the ground and must be securely sup -
ported at least at four corners by solid support blocks.
1325.07. Prohibited uses. A recreational vehicle may not be stored, parked or
utilized in residential zoning district or in portions of planned unit develop -
ment districts designated for residential uses as follows:
(a) recreational vehicles and equipment shall not be used as a rpermanent
residence;
(b) a recreational vehicle which is in a state of externally visible
disrepair or partial construction must be stored or parked in a rear or side
yard but not closer than three feet to any building or structure and for not
more than one year.
1325.09. Variances. The council may grant variances to the. late ;al provisions
of this section in the same manner and subject to the same requirements that
apply to variances granted under section 545 of the zoning code.
• 1
a
0
_7�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 13
Agenda August 1, 1988
• Issue Statement:
Consideration of Advance Refunding Bonds for Outstanding City
Bond Issues.
Background:
On a regular basis the City examines outstanding bond issues to
determine if it would be to the City's advantage to refund the
issues.
Refunding is advantageous under the following conditions:
-The interest on outstanding bonds is greater than the
current interest rate which can be obtained for
refunding issues.
-The net cost of issuance is less than potential
savings on interest earnings. The cost of issuance
includes bond consultant feets, legal expenses,
printing, escrow charges and similar expenses.
A review of our outstanding bond issues indicate that there are
three issues with potential savings to the City.
Recommendation:
Approve refunding of three bond issues.
Basis for Recommendation:
• 1. The City will experience a net savings of approximately
$164,189.
2. The auditors have encouraged the City to examine refunding
possibilities.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide to postpone refunding to some
later date. Federal law limits the number of times the City
may refund bond issues to one time. If bond interest rates
fall below their current levels, it may be more advantageous
to refund those issues at a later date.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council review this information
at the August Study Session so that this matter may be brought up
before the City Council in a formal setting sometime during the
next two months, if a decision is made to proceed with the bond
sale.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
0 JDP:sb
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: July 15, 1988
TO James Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Steven Devich, Administrative
Services Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Costs of Refunding Bond
Sale
-
The costs that would be associated with
a refunding bond sale
would be as follows:
$8,100,000 Issue
Size
Service
Approximate Cost
Evenson -Dodge
$34,000
Bond Counsel
12,000
Accounting Verification
3,000
•
Escrow Agent
Paying Agent & Registrar
5,000
39000
Moody's Rating Service
61000
Moody's Rating of Refunded Issues
29000
Printing & Mailing Offering
2,000
Printing Bonds
11000
Total
$68,000
These approximations could be slightly
overstated (by up to
$5,000).
SLD:sb
i
City of Richfield
Analysis of Advance Refunding Opportunities
Review
STEP 1 - Review of Outstanding G.O. Debt
Quick review of the outstanding issues of the City. The table of interest rate
ranges indicates 5 issues which necessitate further analysis. These are:
$6,100,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1980
$825,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1983
$5,005,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds of 1983
$6,265,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds of 1985
$1,940,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1985
STEP 2 -- Selection of Refunding Candidates
• The "Refunding Selector" model identified three issues which provide a favorable
level of savings. These are:
$6,100,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1980
$825,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1983
$6,100,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1980
STEP 3 -- Issue Structuring and Savings Analysis
The three issues provide savings as follows:
Total Savings
254,256
PV Savings
164,189
Avg. Annual
14,460
•
r�
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 12
Agenda August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31,
1987.
Background:
The City's auditing firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells completed
the audit of the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 1987 late
in the month of June. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) was subsequently submitted to the State of Minnesota as
required and to the Government Finance Officers Association for a
compliance review. This review becomes the basis for the awards
program which the City has been a recipient of during the past
several years.
During the Study Session, representatives from Deloitte, Haskins
and Sells will make a detailed presentation of the financial
report to the City Council. This information will be presented
in an informal discussion format and will precede the official
presentation of the CAFR to the City Council on August 8, 1988.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council discuss and review the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City for the year
ending December 31, 1987.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's
financial records for the year ending December 31, 1987.
2. The auditor is making an informal presentation to the City
Council concerning internal controls and legal compliance
prior to the official presentation of the CAFR to the City
Council at the next City Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
None._
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Discussion at the Study Session is desirable prior to the
official presentation of the CAFR to the City Council at a formal
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
1-T
Jamel D. Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP:sae
I`
i
�
j
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session No. 11
_ Agenda August 1, 1988
Issue Statement:
Discussion of storm system study.
Background:
In late July, 1987 an unprecedented amount of rain fell on the
City of Richfield.
Because of flooding problems experienced in certain sections of
the City, the City entered into agreement with Orr- Schelen
Mayeron & Associates, Inc. for purposes of studying the City's
storm sewer system.
Based on information collected during and immediately after the
1987 storm and the result of a postcard questionnaire mailed city
wide, 40 sites were identified as having had structural
inundation during the 1987 storm. Each site was surveyed.
Data was entered into a computer program which hypothetically
simulates or "models" various possible situations. Once the
details of the problem or potential problems were identified,
potential solutions were examined.
Additional information was gathered at a May 24, 1988 public
meeting hosted by the Community Services Advisory Commission.
Copies of the report were made available to members of the
Commission and the City Council in May of 1988.
The Commission had been directed by the city council to consider
improvements up to the 1% chance of occurrence with the exception
of the Wilson Pond area.
Having reviewed and discussed the information then available, the
Commission established targets:
- Benefit /cost ratio for the improvement project must be
greater than 1.
- Projects considered for funding must be within areas where
structural damage is likely to occur for rainfall events
with a 2% or greater chance of occurrence.
- Flooding must take place for rainfall events having a
greater than 2% chance or occurrence.
- Improvements should be constructed on public property.
- Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer
utility.
- City should provide technical expertise and education
to residents in areas not meeting these criteria.
- City may reasonably support improvements with a total
cost ranging from $500,000 to 1 million dollars.
I
The consultant and city staff reviewed the 40 identified sites,
• their problems and potential solutions.
•
Based on the criteria outlined by the Commission, a priority
listing for improvements was created. This listing, a copy of
which is attached, was presented to and reviewed by the Community
Services Commission on July 12, 1988.
After considerable discussion, the Commission members present
voted unanimously to recommend the City Council authorize the
following improvements which are in the estimated to cost
$161,000:
Priority
Ranking
Site
Location
1
A -1
Alley east of Xerxes
south of 66th Street
2
L' -38
Intersection of
Bloomington and 70th Street
3
H -8
Monroe Park
4
T -20
Stevens Avenue
and 68th Street
5
P -16
Colfax Avenue and
77 -1/2 Street
6
0' -41
69th Street and
70th Street and Penn Avenue
7
C' -29
66th Street and
Fourth Avenue
8
N' -40
66th Street and
Newton Avenue
It should be noted that two of the six Commission members voting
also would have recommended improvement at Priority Ranking 9,
Site B -2, an alley east of Xerxes Avenue, south of 69th Street.
This improvement, in the amount of $430,000, would bring the
estimated cost to $591,000.
The Commission also unanimously recommended the City Council
authorize a maximum of $30,000 for technical expertise and
assistance to be provided to Richfield residents upon request if
the property owners wish to increase their level of protection at
their own expense.
Recommended Motion:
No action is required at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
This is a study session for purposes of discussion. Members of
the city staff, the consultant team from Orr - Schelen - Mayeron &
Associates, Inc. and the Community Services Advisory Commission
will be attending the August 1, 1988 City Council study session.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not discuss the storm sewer system study report in a study
session but schedule it for discussion at a regular City
Council meeting.
2. Do not discuss the report at this time, but schedule it for a
future City Council study session.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
• If improvements are to be made to the City's storm sewer system,
it would be advantageous to provide sufficient time for:
1. Considering any improvements at a regular city council
meeting.
2. The funding process through the budget considerations.
3. Planning for construction.
Therefore, this discussion of the background and results of the
storm sewer system study has been scheduled for the August 1,
1988 City Council study session.
JDP:sae
•
Respectfully submitted,
James D Prosser
City Manager
Orr
• 8drciett
A br-
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 6"13
• 612.331 -8660
M E M O R A N D U M FAX 331 -3806 &'veers
Surveyors
70:
Community Services Commission, Engineering Department miners
City of Richfield
FROM: Peter R. Millen_ bring, P.E.
Mark ZabelC�
DATE: July 11, 1988
SUBJECT: PRIORITIZATION OF AREAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENTS
As a follow -up to our meeting on May 26, 1988 with the Community Services
Commission, we have prioritized areas to be considered for stormwater management
improvements utilizing the criteria outlined by the Commission. Utilizing these
criteria, to be considered for an improvement, a given problem area must meet
the following considerations:.
- Benefit /cost ratio for the improvement project must be greater than 1, or
- Flooding must take place for rainfall events having a greater than 2%
chance of occurrence.
Improvements should be constructed on public property.
. - Improvements should be funded through the storm sewer utility.
- City should provide technical expertise and education to residents in
areas not meeting these criteria.
- City could reasonably support improvements with a total cost ranging from
$500,000 to 1 million dollars.
Based on the criteria given, the following study areas have been reviewed and
listed in order of their priority.
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost i Municipal Cost i Cummulative
Ranking I Site I Location _ I Ratio I of Imarovemlent ( Munit:iDal Co
i I A -1 (Alley east ofi 11.7 I $1,500 I =1,500
I (Xerxes south I I I
I lof 66th. I I I
Action: Raise the alley apron on Vincent Avenue to prevent runoff on Vincent
Avenue from entering the alley.
Jusitification: - Benefit /cost ratio is greater than 1
- Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Improvements to be made on public property
- Total commutative cost is less than $500,000-
0
Page Two
July 11,
1988
Priority
I
enefit Cost
I I6 /
Municipal Cost i
Co wlative
Ranking
Site
Location Ratio
of Impro, vement
Municipal Cost
2
) L' -38
(Intersection I 7.5
I $2,000 )
$3,500
lof Blooming - l l l
l
(ton and 70th.1 l
Action:
Provide
an overland overflow swale from the intersection of Bloomington
Avenue and 70th Street to Christian Park Pond. This will allow excess
runoff
in the intersection to overflow to Christian ` Park, Pond and
prevent
it from backing up into building openings..
Justification: -
Benefit /cost ratio is greater than 1
`
-
Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% lever
-
Improvement to be made on public property
-
Total cummulative cost is less than $500,000
Priority
i
i (Benefit /Cost ! Municipal Cost ( Cummulative
Rankin-q
Site
Location
Ratio of Improvement
Municipal Cost
3
! H -8
!Monroe Park ` 1.3 i $50,000 ' $53,500
{ l I l l
Action 1): Provide a restricted outlet for Monroe Park runoff. 2) Excavate
soil
to create approximately 1.0 acre feet of storage. 3) Construct
a berm
on the street near the inflow point to create a controlled
- _
overland overflow structure.
Justification:
- Benefit /cost ratio is greater than 1
— Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Improvement to be made on public property
- Total cumnulative cost is less than $500,000
Priority
I
I lBenefit /Cost I Municipal Cost ! Cumnulative
Ranking
Site
Location
Ratio of Improvement
Munici al Cost
4
1 T -20
ISteven's and l 1.3 ( $9,000
l $62,500
68th 1
Action:
Construct a berm to assure that street runoff accumulating on 68th
cannot
overflow the driveway high point and drain to the backyards.
Justification: -
Benefit /cost ratio is greater than 1
-
Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
-
Total cost is less than $500,000
Page Three
July 11, 1988
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost I Cuwnulative
Rankina I Site I Location I Ratio I of Improvement I Municipal Co
5 I P -16 (Colfax and 1 1.1 i $20,000 i $62,500
77 -1/2
Action: Construct a berm so as to assure runoff accumulated in the street will
not overtop the curb and enter the low area west of Colfax and 77 -1/2.
Said berm is to be constructed to an elevation at which other
structures in the area do not become threatened by runoff stored in the
street.
Justification: - Benefit /cost ratio is greater than 1
- Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Total cost is less than $500,000
Note: This area may be redeveloped with the proposed ILN project.
Priority I ( (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost ( Cummulative
Ranking ( Site I Location I Ratio I of Improvement I Municipal Co
6 1 0' -41 169th and 70th1 0.5 1 $45,000 1 $127,500
land Penn
Action: Construct a berm to elevation 135.5 to prevent water from Penn AvenDe
from overtopping driveway aprons and entering backyards.
Justification: - Chance of occurrence is less than the 2% level
- Total cost is less than $500,000
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost I Cummulative
Rankina I Site I Location I Ratio I of Improvement I Municipal Co
7 I C' -29 166th and 4th 1 0.4 1 $3,500 i $131,000
i I I I I
Action: Construct an overland overflow swale to insure water collected in the
street will flow to Milner Pond. Install restrictive catch basin
grates to reduce the possibility of surcharge.
Justification: - Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Total cost is less than =500,000
i
•
Page Four
July 11, 1988
i
Priority I I (Benefit /Cast I Municipal Cost l Cumulative
Ranking I Site I Location I Ratio I of Improvement I Municipal Cost
8 1 N' -40 166th X Newton) 0.4 ( $30,000 I $161,000
Action: Construct a surface overflow basin in the backyard area to accommodate
Newton Avenue overflow runoff.
Justification: - Chance of occurrence of greater than the 2% level
- Total cost is less than $500,000
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost I Cummulative
Ranking I Site Location ( Ratio I of Improvement l Municipal Co
9 1 B -2 (Alley east oft 0.2 I $430,000 I $591,000
(Xerxes, southl i 1
Iof 69th
Action: Construct a stormwater outlet pipe to Adam's Hill Pond.
Justification: - Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
• - Total cost is less than 1 million dollars
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost I Cummulative
Ranking I Site I Location I Ratio I of Improvement I Municipal Cost
10 1 E -5 69th 6 Sheri -I 0.04 1 $260,000 ( $851,000
1 I dan, 70th I I 1
I land Russell I I I
Action: Construct an overflow basin
Justification: - Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Total cost is less than 1 million dollars
Priority I .I l8enefit /Cost ( Municipal Cost ( Cummulative
Ranking I Site I Location 1 Ratio 1 of Improvement ( Municipal Cost
11 I X -24 168th 6 I 0.04 ( $300,000 $1,151,000
$Columbus i i I
Action: Construct a separate stormsewer outlet pipe to Legion Lake
Justification: - Chance of occurrence is greater than the 2% level
- Not justified as project does not comply with outlined
criteria due to total costs exceeding 1 million dollars
Page 5
July 11, 1988
Priority I I (Benefit /Cost I Municipal Cost I Cumulative
Rankine I Site I Location I Ratio I of Imarovement I Nunicioal Co
12 1 N -14 �Lakefield 1 0.03 1 $432,000 i $1,583,000
1
Action: Construct a positive outlet as part of the reconstruction of I -35W/
Crosstown.
Justification: Not justified at present time as project does not comply with
outlined criteria.
The following areas exceed the outlined criteria and are not proposed for
improvements by Richfield but consideration may be given to provide technical
expertise and assistance to the property owners involved if they wish to
increase their level of protection at their own expense.
SITE N0. LOCATION
U -22 65th and Grand and Pleasant
W-43/44 Alley west of Penn, north of 67th
G` -33 72nd and Sheridan
•
W-39 63rd and 14th
M -13 I35W and 76th
G -7 Morgan, Logan, Newton, south of 69th
0 -15 Humbolt, south of 75th
I -9 Newton, Oliver and 68th
The estimated cost to provide technical assistance is $30,000. This would
provide for all such assistance as may be required.
PRW /MZ:alr
N
-n o m
O Z
O z =
m
< n
* co) m
m
m < .o
a
3 � N
V m
m n -1
<O 3 O
m �o
m N =
dZ W
co) z
m
W��
r
n
O
z
O
m
N
(- `• [ r Zt
t
I I f O.
-. D-i�►M
i EA S� r
NWIL
-1D )[ _,[
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
r
c_ `._:_ :__: -� I RUS L
IIQUEEN
_ i_ l[ � 1 pz
�' J
j p AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
j - —
-7--_ �1 �C MORGAN
—
z JAMES
IRVING
po
JI LAKE JLlStt4REl —_ - -- — E-1
HUMBOLDT
z _ .-
- -- - --
rn I j [— )l J �, )E-�L - I[ —� l_._J] �I GIRARO
Ll
\ -
Z �r _
-
1-
.,. I
lC - =:
Z I
wn
z m C I 1[ o9 [-- IC___JE I
>Z2.
ONT
s
j m V
D
m"�
EMERSON
> n
W 0 J
M r
m
' q =
m .
l
DUPONT
.�
co rn
COLFAX
l
J
OJ i
U J
J A
J
W
J
N
J J u 0 O
b 0 p
i
i
i
7
0
E_
» y s
.? 7
O
I
!q
Z
p S
�l
uJ
:�
a_
Z;K
4
-i
D
i -41' -/ -
(- `• [ r Zt
t
I I f O.
-. D-i�►M
i EA S� r
NWIL
-1D )[ _,[
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
r
c_ `._:_ :__: -� I RUS L
IIQUEEN
_ i_ l[ � 1 pz
�' J
j p AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
j - —
-7--_ �1 �C MORGAN
—
z JAMES
IRVING
po
JI LAKE JLlStt4REl —_ - -- — E-1
HUMBOLDT
z _ .-
- -- - --
rn I j [— )l J �, )E-�L - I[ —� l_._J] �I GIRARO
Ll
\ -
Z �r _
-
1-
.,. I
lC - =:
Z I
wn
z m C I 1[ o9 [-- IC___JE I
>Z2.
ONT
s
j m V
D
m"�
EMERSON
> n
7 �
M r
m
' q =
m .
l
DUPONT
.�
co rn
COLFAX
l
BRYANT
r
ALDRICH
� v '�
i
LYNOALE AVE.
V
m
t�I I I
�I
I�
I'
I�
-
El
E_
HARRIET
I,
I
II
_.
[ 1[ 1C I ICII
-t --
ONT
s
j m V
EMERSON
7 �
II
DUPONT
I,
COLFAX
l
BRYANT
r
ALDRICH
�
I
LYNOALE AVE.
V
GARFIELD
El
E_
HARRIET
a�
�o
GRAND
Z
p S
�l
:�
a_
Z;K
PILLSBURY
��
i I I
II
WENTWORTV
BLAISDELL
NICOLL�VE
.._��_i —, I, STEVE13/
-.._. ------ - - -- ._._ , Ind
--
i�lL -IC -- 41h
PORTLAND AVE.
- - - -- - )[ -., l_llrl I I� OAKLAND
_ PARK
I. COLUMBUS
I- CHICA
10 th
FrI
12 fit
— i
CA 31 h
IT
- 1 14th
7
l�T
L
_._ J L_ __ BLOOMINGTON
---
7 - -'1� - -- r - CEDAR AVE.
= = -- _ - - -__ _ _-- - - - - -- - - Il I - -- -1 LONGFELLOW
U A w -4 r 19 I h
1 J_ J �J
S 7 O O 7 20Ih
21 of
CC - r — -i 22nd
L -.1 —__ -� I STANDISH
. .1
w i
u
w
w nAi
s
j m V
7 �
-1
� a
O
r
V
mm
m
a�
�o
m
Z
m
In
z
:�
a_
Z;K
N N
ti
1
m
o
7
l�T
L
_._ J L_ __ BLOOMINGTON
---
7 - -'1� - -- r - CEDAR AVE.
= = -- _ - - -__ _ _-- - - - - -- - - Il I - -- -1 LONGFELLOW
U A w -4 r 19 I h
1 J_ J �J
S 7 O O 7 20Ih
21 of
CC - r — -i 22nd
L -.1 —__ -� I STANDISH
. .1
w i
u
w
w nAi
s
& i
w i
u
w
w nAi
s
& i
9
J
N
N
J
.=A
N
I,