03-07-88 agenda
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 3
Agenda March 7, 1988
Issue Statement:
Proposed special assessment for current maintenance services in
the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) redevelopment district.
Background:
City staff is seeking direction on the assessment boundary, level
of service and private versus public service delivery for the
maintenance of the newly constructed buffer north of 77th Street
and east of Lyndale in the ILN.
The extensive landscaping in the ILN East Side area calls for
planting trees, shrubs and sod; installation of an irrigation
system and sidewalk installation. Once the contractor's
responsibility ends, the city becomes responsible for the
maintenance of this improvement.
The use of special assessments for maintenance has been reported
and discussed on many occasions over the last several years.
From the initial investigations of financing options available,
through the planning and implementation documentation, special
assessments for maintenance have been included as part of the
funding package.
The ILN Advisory Committee chaired by Gertrude Ulrich, the
Residential Advisory Committee chaired by Marv Kaiser, the
Planning Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and
the City Council have been apprised of the need for special
assessments to fund maintenance on numerous occasions since 1985.
The attached September 11, 1987 memo from Bruce Palmborg,
documents the contacts with the various groups. The staff
believes that the special assessments mechanism is the best
method of funding the maintenance. It is also similar to the
L/H/N maintenance funding.
BOUNDARIES
There are several options for boundaries of the new special
assessment area (district) as shown on the attached map.
The staff recommends that area No. 1 on the attached ILN
Redevelopment Area Map be assessed for maintenance of the newly
completed street/landscape project..
The attached proposed special assessment roll identifies the
properties to be assessed and the assessment accounts. As public
improvements are completed, the boundaries will widen as needed.
• All single family and two family residential property will be
exempt from the special assessment levy; with commercial property
m -/
owners being assessed on a per-square-foot basis under the
. proposed plan. The rationale for the exemption is that
generally, there are negative impacts from businesses located
close to residential properties and the landscaping buffer
insulates the residential property from these negative impacts
generated by the businesses.
The specific areas proposed to
bounded by Lyndale Avenue, the
the service road. The special
maintenance to the landscaped
other common areas.
be assessed in 1988 would be
railroad tracks, 77th Street and
assessments will pay for
areas along the screenwall and
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Different landscaped areas around Richfield display different
levels of service. The "look" of the greenspace between the curb
and noise walls along our freeways is different from manicured
ballfields at Taft Park.
The front lawn of a typical Richfield resident, the landscaped
entrance to Naegele's, the wide open picnic areas of Augsburg
Park provide different ideas of maintained landscaped areas.
What level of service should be provided for the 77th Street
buffer? How much time, effort, money should be spent on
• maintaining the area? The answers to these questions not only
apply at this two block stretch, but also for perhaps the entire
length of 77th Street in Richfield where a buffer is being
contemplated.
There will likely be a continued conflict between the residential
property owners or businesses who want a high level of service
and business owners who want to keep costs down.
We have identified two service levels and associated costs.
First, the estimated cost for providing the same service level as
in the LHN is about $7,000 per year.
We also obtained an estimate from Jerry's Landscaping for
providing a level of service similar to that provided for the
landscaping of a corporate headquarters. The estimate was $3,200
plus $22/hr for weeding and other extras. Irrigation repair and
city administration costs could bring costs to near $6,000.
The LHN area sees heavy pedestrian traffic, cars and buses. The
landscaping areas abut storefronts. These areas seem to attract
vandalism as well as complaints when not in top shape. A
corporate headquarters may have a high standard, but it may not
see the abuse of a public area.
Although our 77th Street buffer may not see the pedestrian
• traffic, and with it the vandalism and complaints, it does abut
single family homes. Arriving at a proper service level will
require some trial and error over the next year or two.
A-t
-77
0 PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE SERVICE DELIVERY
Whenever practical, Richfield solicits private business for
services. We investigated using a private contractor for LHN
maintenance. Private contractors were not willing to bid on the
contract. The high level of service and emergency service (such
as broken irrigation lines) needed on short notice apparently
discouraged them.
Staff cannot directly control when and how the work is done when
the work is done by a contractor. The best way to keep control
is by using city crews.
The advantages and disadvantages of public and private service
delivery can be more fully discussed at the study session.
Recommended Motion:
No formal action can be taken at the study session. However,
staff recommends using a private contractor for most maintenance
services and that Area I be assessed for the improvements.
Basis of Recommendation:
Private contractors are used for city projects whenever
practical. However, close monitoring is necessary to obtain
quality, timely service from the contractor. The unusual nature
. of this maintenance work may make timely response from a private
contractor difficult. Area I businesses are most directly
benefited by the improvements.
Alternative Recommendation:
The study session provides an opportunity to discuss the options
on boundaries, level of service and private/public, suggested in
the letter.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
No formal council decision can be made at the study session.
However, a draft resolution setting a public hearing on the
proposed special assessment district is attached. This
resolution can be brought to the March 14 City Council meeting.
Respectf ly submitted
rosser
James fnager
City JDP/eja
0
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS
FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN
THE INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET PROJECT AREA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as follows:
1. That portion of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet East
Side Improvement Project Area (the "District") east of Lyndale
and south of 77th Street is hereby established as a special
assessment district for the purposes of assessing for current
services provided by the city.
2. The following current services of the city are hereby
proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the
cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited
property within the District;
The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of
unsound trees from any street;
The repair of sidewalks;
The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public
• amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of-way;
Trash and litter removal.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such
current services consists of each and every commercial and
multiple residential lot and parcel of land within the District.
It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial
property be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of
assessable commercial property within the District assessed an
equal amount.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
public notice of a hearing by this council at which the council
will consider the undertaking of such current services and the
levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such
notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least
once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such
hearing shall be held on Monday, April 11, 1988, commencing at
7:00 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be
reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the
aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1988
through December 31, 1988. The estimated cost of providing all
of the aforementioned current services during that period is
• $7,000.00.
CJ `
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of March, 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
n
U
0
Tf??.
0
0
PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
(Assuming 7,000 Maintenance Cost)
P.I.N. #
A 34-028-24-33-0001
A 34-028-24-33-0002
B 34-028-24-33-0003
C 34-028-24-33-0004
D 34-028-24-33-0005
E 34-028-24-33-0006
F 34-028-24-33-0007
G 34-028-24-33-0013
G 34-028-24-33-0079
H 34-028-24-33-0080
I 34-028-24-33-0073
PROPERTY
A Hampton Inn
B Miller Beauty Supply
CDE LaMettry's Body Shop
F Brown Surveying/Ins. Bldg-
G Lampert Lumber
H Honda Dealership
I Vickers Station
Area
8,625
94,358
62,355
33,583
5,911
21,002
10,069
127,626
35,290
148,655
18.290
565,764
sq. feet
Cost ® .01237
1273.90
771.33
415.42
73.12
259.79
124.55
2,015.28
1,838.86
226.25
$6,998.50
PROPOSED
$1,273.90
771.33
748.33
124.55
2,015.28
1,838.86
226.25
0
r?
l.%
T-T -T -1 r -1 T
Q CD rr--
Z ,T to of R'r°t 0 I I P10
(D (D 4- L
0 < lc> dd I d ? C)It= to k
?° I T T
g
>0 9g°?dagdrb+,oj j°io? o 0[
-
?-- .?.........? +++ + {- ? ,-4 4 a
cD
D) (D oid
-C t 1 ?Oktl0j!?
.0 F11?19,
i
(_._ ...._... I i9 I Iof [IA 06t 1
'1`7'.1.'t' + T-+ -1- +- } - -1 v? C
d j t _u ?:1bt?'oblob'o ' ?'
T -r -T 10 I - rt? I-1 TL rrT
? TT -rr -
j nn,?J?, t I ig q of °I° I dlo I aoolni°InpooP r r r- r -r Y.
w i U C?.e .. i I +o i i . , 4-ITL+ ++.._+ .:I-4- 4- FT t101 to
..L I ooInI i, Ir +- T 41 I
o cl 010b 1 1
ntr'b'
L1 1.11 obbl Idddo1gC31
d I I` I ??d?T7--I-1 fTrrT - rT r rT, ,-
r r
? 1 t? I A I IOgadld , t?;?hdppl Igp;p d oT
ID Idlp I 1 t -?-+-+-+-}--+-I 1 ++++-. ?. I..{. ?4 i- 4+.T4-?
La?°! ° >.. d r1o?c 0 ; I alblcx'a1o al ?'I?' toloo I ? di d d of ol
I-- ` 11 -1 11141 1.?J L Tp-1 111 ol1 i
3 f5 O?O'Q' sr TTrTTrTT 1 rr TT.r
1-? -1 1 0; O s o 0
I r h- _„?, -A + ..._..?..? ? a ?) t ? to bl[7?] R7I 04 ? p l I ? Cljj r
E++++4-j_..Lti1 I L
lJ ,- -? cic??t?ro?tarClC)ly't?e?t?n?l ? +
I", I I 10'rI
0, 10 I t
I LJ ,L11t11111AM1J Ll_L_1
71
r I ; T_ r r T T T
L.. I? O. 0I O, C1.O. O I I O°I°Pl T otop
-{ j°U I On T T T T- r-
F- - +-L PI Iggololo to c
, -r r -1 I- + 4- -F+ + 4+4 tIT +-I I- +++ -- -1, +.
r Ido oIC'O brO'O I *ap1°L°?sLp, ,°??I lOic?loId I qoIc
_ "a r . ?_ ?_ 1 Ll1 1.1 1 1
rI-TTrrrrrrr r
• ~ ?"'? 'gc?°Ploidl OI bidb m lo?abldddolt
I r -? :.I?L.LlL1,
LyrOa Ave. ? &e-.
Bono
l-T-?-
0 (31
101 1 13
13
.
boo Of °°_ ° °- i 'oil
m '-- I I I i
ti I r T.T T- .„ , o t i I o o a oQ o. o-! eI' a o o.
c.., I I I , I I 1 1 ( ( I
+ + -!- + -I I -4-4-
o: 1..1 I I ' I I
'/ I e d c of a; tol°Idid?J-.. -J-'- 1 L+- ....w L +i....L J.. .L ?r j-.-L :.I T T-
99 ., --- f---- -, ?? D q.. Cl
1 a; °T° p• p o I 1 I
1 t I t l( .1 I I I
:; s --••- _ ?? '.,?. d d d cad d 010 (31131131131
-L J-
- .T-...r. •i- A..
i - ( D b [f 3 Tt1TOTo
r01010 Toy
,;, +± I a 1 I i I I I I4- 4-
DID IQ IpIO tO r?
' r1 11 yn,
173
o' n . n -
-OMr - i TT??? r'TTT
^t (D lD a I I I (10 1 1 1°101 c
C
CD (D ' 1?------rte + o da!d dd d Iola b 10C
?. 0 L
'? - - ---- ?..L-Ll LL.L_1 L_L._
T -r -r -T
F
Tl"
D'O R99 °Td°Icb 0101 117!131°101 o OF
((D ri !LdOi i i
/ ,m,n, Avn - L
r?•1• / I -r"T7-rr-T1---?
1 10I DIDiD DID
r T T T -r o a I T r- r T,nn Av.. 0 1 1 i!= 1T 1
I 1 I°i°1DP op!13 T 1^ 1 T.
4 Io+ ° C31 i ? 1 °°
Ia Gn;i I I ®; °iO?Qi°ii i'•11 4
? +-++++4-}-'44'i frlroTT4-i+
C 3'D ?Oao!o pt3lablo4?61 1 I I
- L- • ! _t . J_ 1 s L1111 1 I .L .L 1.111 L?i?°? ?l? o
I I I C- c 0 010107= z-I r T T T r+=°°>- r T r r r, r r, r- T -r-
+-+-t--}- [? I lOgoolotoIc7;DlnpIol IggD,°Io ! °ro
10 10 I I OI ?1 d0!0!0 0! IC ; I! I 10I 1 10101 1 I I I
- L .1 _?_ _?? oQOlnyD11o1D1 J- °I dold d o p olp
T- - L1 1111 L
rr
I a O O D,?'O ?r r T Tr i
T T T T 1 Iq 0 o oj o T r
1 _I I I I I ?I° I ?°°I nla;ojoalo;opl:
1- -1- . `- t -J-4+ -q- --l
i--_.??y r yl ololclo'ololl7l'il? I°I I°I ! I
I1 q
L J y L °l°i°l 1°
l t°1°L°1 ?l N L L 1 dl?IOlp!'
-i C ' _L_1711
Av,
T -r -_ Hr and . o.
! I rD?O! DFI O, Or D. C3 -1 rT -r T qr 7- T r -r - n T 77T T - r -1- T
I00IDi°IDI13I°IDroI apl Ioll?alolo 1010;
7 -{ I-+4-+++++4 TIT 4
-1 +++ Tlt++
I- d0 O1G'O 0 0,01
1 I I of t I (,,I I III I I?,I I I
C) J 0
4`?? ?LDLO? 1 L°1°1°1°1 17°l°1?
?? _- - ' I ?- -. - _. -.- _ •: ncn Ava
RN °113:0 i.n'o•° ° rrrTT-r r"TTTT TT
I ! I ! aga1o1o1°I olob!o1 IDIa!C31dddol°Ic
1-T -
, o _-11.L1.L.1
TL
lod
?w ( Lyndale Ave. SC.
Domed
CL 0 Q C3 T' I 1 1° 0-1 I I I T T i o
o eG I 1. ' I I I
* Il 0 0 .` 1 0'r0' O' 0! 010: 0- 10 ! 0 1 0 101
Ulu I I I I
CD - CD I r 1
y Q°Qo a'o;D o'° '
O ?. L l l ? ? i! 1 i i! I I I a
I I I I I I I
13 1
C3' r
-- I
I ° ° Q °1 13
T T--L -j zo. q A, So
0 Q, Di
13 0
10 I0'C3'
its 1 ldddolDlo?DID1 101 (31 I I _
-L1.L ?1 J -L J---l
- - - ( 111111, °T-"?e5o I
? I d d DI o1 DI °I ° 1 101010 13 I _
r ?- 1010 _0101[I loto1o1 o1
,._ -L - I
1 r
-T -j
l ! Di cTq oTO a _-T-T-'-
! ??, is ?;? o?n!r,
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: September 11, 1987
TO: Mike Eastling
FROM: Bruce Palmborg
SUBJECT: ILN Special Assessment Discussions/Reports
A review of the files has revealed that use of special
assessments to pay for the maintenance of the public improvements
in the ILN has been discussed and reported on many occasions.
Documents/Reports
1) "Report on Financing Alternatives Study for Proposed Project
Improvements and Development", ILN, dated September 16, 1985.
Pages 3 and 4 contain a recommendation that special
assessments be utilized for maintenance of public
improvements. (Copy is attached).
2) "ILN Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan, October
21, 1985". Page 41 discusses the use of special assessments
for maintenance of public improvements. (Copy is attached)
3) "ILN Redevelopment Study, November, 1985", prepared by BRW.
A section of this report discusses project financing and on
page 83 specifically mentions special assessments for
maintenance of public improvements. (Copy is attached)
4) "ILN Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan, October
21, 1985, amended December 15, 1986". Similar to No.2 above,
but modified to reflect CDR's downscaled project. Page 41
again discussed the use of special assessments for
maintenance of public improvements. (Copy is attached)
5) "Award of Contract for Landscaping Screenwall, Sidewalk and
Appurtenant Work in the ILN Redevelopment Area", City Council
letter number 263 from the August 24, 1987 meeting. Page 2
of this letter discussed the need for a special assessment
district for maintenance of public improvements. (Copy is
attached)
Meetings of Policy Makers
September 16, 1985, HRA Meeting
This was the official "coming out" of the ILN concept plan and
redevelopment plan. The meeting minutes indicate that in
addition to the HRA, the City council and Planning Commission
members were in attendance. The minutes also state that
Executive Director/City Manager Cartwright reviewed HRA Letter
No. 48 which was the report on financing alternatives. Special
assessments were specifically discussed. The redevelopment and
tax increment plan dated October 21 was also presented and was
referred to the Planning Commission.
October 8, 1985, Planning Commission Special Meeting
The PC reviewed and approved the redevelopment and tax increment
plan dated October 21, 1985. In the official letter to the PC,
the financing alternatives memo presented at the September 16 HRA
meeting was noted. The minutes don't indicate whether or not
there was another discussion of special assessments.
October 21, 1985, HRA Meeting
The October 21, redevelopment and tax increment plan was before
the HRA for formal approval. The official letter on this item
referenced the financing alternative report on September 16th.
November 12, 1985, City Council Meeting
The City Council approved the redevelopment and tax increment
financing plan dated October, 21, 1985. Council letter No. 8
dealt with this item. One of the attachments to the letter was
the financing alternatives report previously presented September
16th.
November 17, 1986, HRA Meeting
The HRA referred the amended December 15, 1986 redevelopment and
tax increment plan to the Planning Commission.
November 25, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission made the appropriate findings and
approved the amended plan.
December 15, 1986, HRA Meeting
The HRA approved the amended plan dated December 15, 1986 (this
plan was not presented to the Council as CDR withdrew their
proposal).
Citizen Committee Meetings
LJ
•
There were two committees which worked with the ILN plan. The
Advisory Committee (AC) chaired by Gertrude Ulrich was composed
of about two dozen members, both business people and residents.
This group met from early spring through late summer of 1985 and
again during the fall of 1986. The second group was the
Residential Advisory Committee (RAC) chaired by Marv Kaiser.
RAC met in the fall of 1986. A review of notes and meeting
minutes indicates that project financing was discussed with both
of these groups including special assessments. The minutes don't
provide sufficient detail to permit documentation of the extent
of the remarks.
On June 10, 1987, there
the PIEL plan. Residen
south of 76th Street to
Pleasant were invited.
the meeting. Thus, the
little attention.
Other Remarks
was a meeting to review the details of
ts, property owners and business people
78th Street and east of Lyndale to
No business people from that area were at
special assessment process received very
The BRW redevelopment study report listed under the document
section of this memo was widely distributed. It went to members
of the City Council, HRA, Planning Commission, committee members
and others.
E
1985 fk<A Lk? t GUI No. 4b ?)i f b/85 ? 3
-3- .?
force in developing the conclusions and-recommendations. The
third and final section provides background information on the
thirteen financing options which were considered.
Staff Financing Conclusions and Recommendations
The report examines the following thirteen financial
options:
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG)
e Federal Aid to Urban Systems (FADS)
HRA Capital Fund
* MN Dept. of Transportation (MNDOT) Special Appropriation
* Municipal State AidFunds (MSA)
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR)
Proceeds From the Sale of Land
Revenue Sharing
* Special Assessment (Bonds)
Special City Parking District
Special Revenue Fund
*.Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG)
Financing alternatives that have been identified as
possible financing resources for the ILN project.
After extensive consideration of the 13 financing options
available to the City for the ILN project area, the following
• conclusions and recommendations are made:
1) The use of Special Assessment Bonds are a source
of revenue for funding a portion of the
improvements in the ILN project area. A special
assessment of $.51 per square foot (identical to LHN
special.assessment) in the ILN area would generate $1-
1.2 million, depending on what areas might be exempted.
In turn, a $5-6 million bond issue would have to be sold
based on this $1-1.2 million (20%) assessment, if a
source for the remaining 80% of the bond can be
identified. The remaining 80% could be funded through
Tax Increment Financing proceeds. The public
improvements undertaken in the nearly completed L/H/N
area are funded from CP 705. Revenues for CP 705
totaled about $9 million. Two-thirds, or $6 million
was provided by a bond issue. Special assessments
against the benefitting properties in the project area
accounted for repaying about 28% of the $6 million
issue. The remaining 72% of the debt service is
retired by tax increments from the project area.
As the HRA may be aware, when the city negotiated to
purchase properties in the L/H/N for redevelopment,
the purchase agreement often provided that the City
kf '
1985 HRA Letter'NO. 48 _ 4 1B-4
of Richfield would also pay the outstanding asses-
ments on the property being.acquired. So, some
properties, in.effect, did not pay an assessment.
The assessment rate for the L/H/N public improve-
ments was $.51 per square foot. Due to inflation
the higher cost of constructing streets, curbs,
gutters, etc. --'the equivalent assessment rate
today could be in the neighborhood of $.75 per
square foot when compared to the $.51 square foot
rate established in the 191013 for the L/H/N
project.
In order to establish a ,special assessment project,
a minimum of 20% of the project cost must be
*assessed to the benefitting property. The remaining
80$ can be;provided from other revenue sources.
The city must be able to establish that properties
benefit by at least the amount being assessed against
the private property,.
The preliminary cost estimate from BRW for public
improvements is just under $7 million dollars.
Twenty percent of $7 million is $1.4 million.
Approximately $1.5 million could be provided by a
bond issue supported by a $.75 square foot assess-
ment in the ILN project area.
...-,
Special assessments are also used to pay for maintenance
of the L/H/N landscape improvements. The businesses
s in the L/H/N objected to the 1.7¢ per square foot
proposed assessment :(for a city blo-,k $3,000). The
assessment today runs less than 10 per square foot
3 to pay the annual cost of the $40,000 - $45,000
maintenance bill.
One final note on special assessments. Staff believes
that some special assessment financing should be
utilized. The L/H/N has been financed in part this
way. In fairness, the I/L/N and future redevelopment
projects should be treated similarly. Special
assessment financing will help to keep the TIF bond
issue smaller so it can be paid off sooner.
It is also recommended that special assesment financing
,t be utilized to maintain the project public improvements
,once completed (i.e., snow removal, grass cutrin•g,
,repairs to streetseape).
i 14,,,:.:....x,
2) A redevelopment project area and a Tax Increment
Financing district should be established for the
I/L/N. The increment generated by the proposed
CDR Investments/MN Project (to be located on the
Cloverleaf Motel property within the ILN) and the
10/21/85 Plan
i
RELOCATION PROGRAM i
All relocation activities of the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment
Project would be in conformance :with the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (M.?.
117.50-.50).
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT AREA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Projects such as the landscaped buffer along 77th Street and the streetscape
adjacent to Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street would require extraordinary
maintenance above the level provided for other areas of the city. Thus,
additional funding sources would be identified to provide this maintenance.
A special assessment maintenance district encompassing this area seems the most
appropriate for raising the necessary, revenue. Other forms of funding would
. also be evaluated.
41
I
BRW Study
-f d >
a -• -+. -• t7 -• r N -
N O `< -• m -1
N= - -i
> 7" -i
a d a '17 m
n r a ts? 4^ -n -• (n (n W% CO E -+ p" U
x N
-+
1
c -+
-+ m
n m
x 1 x
m
< n O 0 a
7 OL -- O O 3 O
d• • 1 -v 3 v
m Co - -. p
CO O -O - -+
0
- a m,
m o ? a CL CD W n
Q -r
0
m c m L4
91.
O 0 m
A
O O - a s
(7 -• A m- tZ
O p m l7 -. --
_. 1 O
Q
A O w
b m
+ (n
a O < N 0) O-
C A m
N -
Q. -? O m
-0
m
r
m
0
m- X a n vl D c 01 m : O m
o m N n a
°
0 n - a ) a N
Ip
t m
a'
Q
a ? -+
m
CD - ? 0.0 z U
N
c • m -*
m O
1 -+ C
Q s
Q
O y a m E
1 S p
c a a N
N E
=
_ T
0,+ -ti` d O O -+ d- n -? '7 O N- m ._ 1 1 a C
- a + A d
- a -+ O _ A 9 - - - a N m
D - - _
(D
0) m
CL to :E
,
'1 C A
-' -+ O a Q -+ a a
n
< m
- m
O -+
• -+ A
_. a
-
`?
N CA
m 8 a M
j to
CD O E j
-,o.
.0 al <
m CD -1 3 a a .{
z 3 -1
O E O
1 : CD CD Q -
- N d -4
N O M a O
S -•
'+
U) N
?
a Ln CD -- -
n a
w
+
'A
- ?
? (y a ~ -1 O m m v> j I m m m a
N N ?' f j.
m?
0 a 0.-w_+ -1(0 ca -Oi.ui mn c
"? N a QO aO.n
6 0 In
-+ < .} A l "D =r
O O
N
E a
m m
?o
A 0
- 1 _
m m n a
-? O m m 7? -
w N E O
c a. O -. '1
a - a?
+. Co
m
F
Z O ? n O
a m w Q. y -« c (
O x 1 In .
O
m
m
' Gm o
? 0
m
a-0 -1
a
0
-f3
-*0%
U ID s
(D ?o
CD x CD (D o CD C> (D
m
mmm? n , men a o
QJ 'O a
- a -4 --1 CD
< O -+ a
a Q
m ? M, 00 ?
1
0 m 'ia,w f0 Q 3 t
m O
-• am m -
°
0) CD cD 0 x 4
A- 1 0 m 'o n m `C c, vi c O
00) -0 cr
IE 0%
O
(D C
-'a
(D
0 a. -0
0
CD
-
c m
-o
In O
00
-+ 06
0 0
oU(D
-"a°
w-+
1 40
;o
a <
s
{
0)
"1 m
O
, Z
+
O
?
N a Em '+
•O+O -m n ap
(D -+
m
.0 O N
Ul .
U, 0 al
v-+a dX } Qm m ?w -+ ZO a c
- ?a N
Ul -,F
-
0 :E as
'A U,
-1 06 ~?
CD m -
0 ~.0N
0 106
a
W -
m
0 >
m
vi Dr
=r
3
-a m A m 0. d n
O t7 c?
w
? O
m +m
O
( 0 p8p?
m
v
cit m a-.
O
a
CL -F 7 -• . m j n m- m a .G O m •+ a ?7 m
CD ~ O p p
w < -« a { O_ a a 0- -+
N
n -+ a
nj-' m
Om
S C m S a -p C m a
D 0'' G
E r
A
? -4, a k a
-1 0 - a 1 rm - 1 m m n m'Z
'1 a -+-:
`< d
m -' `•C -D Z7 =' m to 0• a, -+ N pl O< tj O 0 pj ? m F
a? a aas
'1 '1 a w a
-1
n m
O
O
d?? a
Q m
-:r+
=? m -
w om?
{ -+ a -+
maloa o
;
?m
0 0
U) 0
v
?? - w<
m d O
O O
D'o
7C -f m a
-0
0 U O
E
d Z
=r (D (D N IOD CD 0) 0
O a
W
A a c
O-
-1-
Oi (D
m -1• N
-1
(D 0 x 0 l< 0) W C{
(D CL CD
U
if
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 263
Agenda August 24, 1987
Issue Statement:
• Award of Contract for Landscaping, Screenwall, Sidewalk and
Appurtenant Work in the ILN Redevelopment Area, City Project
Number 8372.
Background:
On Friday, August 14, 1987, bids,_were received from four
contractors in a formal bidding process. The bid minutes and
tabulation are attached for council review. Submittals included
a base bid and four alternates: l) a deduct for using smaller
sized street trees and Black Hills Spruce, 2) a deduct for
reducing the height of the timber wall by 2', 3),a deduct to
substitute Techny Arborvi.tae shrubs for Miss Kim Lilac shrubs and
4) an add for a second coat of stain on all exposed wood surfaces
including timber wall and bollards. These plans were prepared by
BRw, Inc. and are consistent with the Stage 1 Plan.
The plans were subjected to extensive review. This is the model
for a landscape buffer which is contemplated for the west side of
Lyndale Avenue adjacent to 77th Street in the future. Everyone
is anxious for' it to work well. Residents and business people
east of Lyndale Avenue and south of 76th Street were invited to a
meeting on June 10, 1987 at Emerson Avenue Congregational Church.
However, no business people were in attendance. The plan
received support from those at the,meeting. Two property owners
had specific concerns which have been successfully addressed.
The occupants of 7638 Garfield Avenue have a greenhouse on the
south side of their property. The privacy of this space will be
protected by a row of evergreens adjacent to their property.
Also, the property at.7645 Harriet Avenue would be subjected to
the intrusion of headlights from vehicular traffic traveling east
on the loop street. The loop street connects Garfield and
Harriet Avenues. Evergreens will be planted in the front of this
property to minimize the impact of these lights.
The plan was also reviewed by representatives of all departments.
That is, representatives of Public. Safety, Community Services, as
well as Administrative Services and Community Development. The
Community Services Department did not concur with the types of
plants selected because of the high cost to maintain areas
landscaped with small shrubbery. Consideration was given in the
design to safety issues, vehicular as well as pedestrian. Also,
the experience with plant materials in the LHN was of value.
Defining the details of the landscape plan was a difficult task,
aesthetics must be balanced against maintenance. On one side of
the issue is the need to provide an attractive landscaped area
which would also make the screen or soundwall more acceptable.
The other side of the issue is the need to maintain the
plantings. The Community Services Department, which will
maintain the area, continues to assert that there are too many
shrub type plants proposed in the plan. That Department would
• prefer the planting of conifers or decidious trees.
The soundwall would be a twelve fobt high barrier which will
reduce visual and noise intrusions from the commercial area to
,.the. residential area. An irrigation system will also be
installed to help keep the grass, trees and shrubs healthy.
With the extensive review, the number of problems should be
minimal. However, staff is viewing the installation of this
• buffer as a pilot model. If there are plant materials or
arrangements which are determined to be undesirable, they will be
eliminated and replaced, and not repeated when.the buffer is
constructed west of Lyndale Avenue.
Initially,. the contractor is responsible for maintenance". The
contractor must care and maintain the trees and shrubs for one
year from the date the work is completed. Care and maintenance
includes providing adequate soil moisture, tree wrapping, staking
and guying, mulch, rodent protection, insecticide and
installations of replacement plants. For the sod, the contractor
is responsible for the first 30 day growing period. Maintenance
includes watering and replacement of any sod which dips during
the 30 day period. When the contractor is no longer responsible
for maintenance, the city assumes the responsibility.
Maintenance of this area will be funded through a special
assessment levied against the nonresidential.property in the area
south of 77th Street and east of Lyndale Avenue. Imposition of a
special assessment was contemplated in the approved ILN
redevelopment plan. Staff will be requesting the establishment
of an assessment district in the near future.
Recommended Motion:
Award a contract to Lino Lakes Nursery, Wyoming, MN, for
Landscaping, Screenwall, Sidewalk and Appurtenant Work in the
amount of $128,933 which includes the base bid plus selected
• alternate four.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid by Lino Lake Nursery is the lowest responsible bid.
2. Funding for this work is available from the ILN tax increment
bonds of 1985.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain
new bids; however, the low bid is well within the engineer's
estimate of $143,337.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The council may choose to delay award of this contract, keeping
in mind that the contract documents allow the bidders.to withdraw
their bids 60 days after the bid opening. Construction is
scheduled to begin in early September.
spec411 submitted,
Ja es D. Prosser
C ty Manager
JDP/eja
;r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2
Agenda March 7, 1988
• Issue Statement:
In December, 1987, the Local Strategy On Aging Task Force
completed a report entitled "Making Richfield Work For The
Elderly". The report is presently being distributed to the City
Council, HRA, Planning Commission, and Human Services Commission.
It has also been referred to the South Hennepin Human Services
Commission. Each group has an opportunity in March for study and
discussion.
The report provides a summary of Task Force experiences since
1985, present housing and service recommendations, and suggests
priorities for action. This memorandum provides historical
perspective.
Discussion Background: of Local Strategy on Aging Task Force Recommendations
Long term care issues are a national problem facing many cities.
It is not surprising to learn that by the year-2000, Richfield
households, aged 75 or more, are projected to increase 146
percent and over 20 percent of the Richfield population will be
age 65 or older.
The dilemma is to determine what a city should do to prevent
housing and service gaps and assist elderly in maintaining their
• independence.
For Richfield, the project started on May 20, 1985, with a
presentation to the HRA and Human Services Commission by Mrs.
Barbara Lukerman and the University of Minnesota Humphrey
Institute graduate students. The City Council and Planning
Commission also attended this meeting.
The presentation of "A Local Strategy On Aging-Richfield's
Opportunities" and the brainstorming that followed initiated
these events:
-The City Council established a Task Force with two
representatives from each of the following: City Council,
HRA, Planning Commission and Human Services Commission.
-The Task Force began to meet regularly in January, 1986;
finalized a work plan in March, 1986; and met almost monthly
until the end of 1987.
The purpose of the Task Force has been to:
-understand the problems
-identify alternatives, directions, opportunities, and
strategies.
-determine what are the desirable objectives of the city
concerning Richfield elderly and the housing and service
system.
-make recommendations to the City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Planning Commission, and Human
Services Commission.
As was quickly discovered, the comprehensive demographic
information contained in the Lukerman study was only a portion of
the wealth of information that has been generated concerning
aging and long term care.
Five studies since 1982 provided direct information about
Richfield and the southern Hennepin County area. The resource
for this material included the Metropolitan Council, Humphrey
Institute, Hennepin County (both Community Services and the
Regional Park District), and South Hennepin Human Services. This
initial resource information identified existing programs, the
housing and service gaps in long term care, and, possible
directions and strategies. The need for a larger community role
in assessment and service coordination was one message that was
often repeated.
The Task Force took this information as their foundation and
proceeded to meet with government officials, service providers,
consumers, and other professionals that come into contact with
Richfield programs and elderly.
With all of these resources, and assistance from staff, members
have been able to present their observations and discoveries in
the form of the report.
Some of the most valuable observations to the project and report
to date include:
-the ability of policy makers representing diverse interests
to collectively recognize the important housing and
service concerns.
-that Richfield is a great place to grow old, and many intend
to.
-in-home service is an increasingly critical component of
the long term care system. Information and referral,
transportation, in-home care, and case management are
elements of this component.
-affordable housing alternatives for fixed income/lower
income elderly is an ever present need.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Following discussion by the Council, the report should be
referred to staff for further review and discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja